Is it assumed that other proxies such as higher salaries, better benefits, career advancement opportunities, better working environment/conditions, etc. have all been tried to attract/retain talent and failed?
Read the articles, both Yahoo and IBM cuts sound like downsizing rather than automation.
I hope the "automation" they're talking about in other parts of the article doesn't really mean "Do-It-Yourself". For example, grocery store self-checkout lines are essentially using my labor (at my labor rate) as an inefficient checkout clerk. I don't want to be a checkout clerk, and would gladly pay for a few minutes of a clerk's time if it gets me through the line a couple of minutes faster.
The check-out machine in the grocery store costs minimally when sitting idle (in contrast to an employee) and ideally a large number of them can be made available with one large initial investment and small subsequent maintenance cost. Thus it has the potential to save valuable customer queuing time and/or more efficiently accommodate a larger number of customers, ultimately reducing prices and/or increasing profits.
The second article seem to mention automation as a cause of 'disruption' without any details of what kind of automation, what functionality it provides, and who it is supposed to be substituting. The first article does not mention anything related to automation. As such, the assumption that the layoffs are automation related does not seem to carry much merit based on these articles.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather obvious: Scientists do not want to cite a source whose content can change the next day. No big surprise.
You mean we are not there yet?
Samsung has been making cars since the 90s!
pink?
Yes, they are, but evolution does not necessarily select for this kind of smarts.
So, how did she do?
Is it assumed that other proxies such as higher salaries, better benefits, career advancement opportunities, better working environment/conditions, etc. have all been tried to attract/retain talent and failed?
Not to mention the lack of humor.
Read the articles, both Yahoo and IBM cuts sound like downsizing rather than automation.
I hope the "automation" they're talking about in other parts of the article doesn't really mean "Do-It-Yourself". For example, grocery store self-checkout lines are essentially using my labor (at my labor rate) as an inefficient checkout clerk. I don't want to be a checkout clerk, and would gladly pay for a few minutes of a clerk's time if it gets me through the line a couple of minutes faster.
The check-out machine in the grocery store costs minimally when sitting idle (in contrast to an employee) and ideally a large number of them can be made available with one large initial investment and small subsequent maintenance cost. Thus it has the potential to save valuable customer queuing time and/or more efficiently accommodate a larger number of customers, ultimately reducing prices and/or increasing profits. The second article seem to mention automation as a cause of 'disruption' without any details of what kind of automation, what functionality it provides, and who it is supposed to be substituting. The first article does not mention anything related to automation. As such, the assumption that the layoffs are automation related does not seem to carry much merit based on these articles.