"By the age of 25, this addiction is cemented in the brain and it becomes very difficult -- almost impossible -- to quit," State Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, told KGW.
Absolute rubbish. Plenty of people, myself included, have managed to stop smoking after the age of 25.
Sure - the anecdote of your personal story, combined with your personal beliefs, negates the findings of the entire field of addiction research on nicotine.
Marked "Troll" as I read this, but this is an accurate description of how "society" - the dominant culture including politics, the law, and the media - deal with these respective situations.
This is an interesting idea. Adoption will be an immense problem of course, but it is not as if HTTP/HTML is a required method of Internet communication. An alternate protocol set could be run over the net to provide the same - or better - functionality. Some major player deploying it would be needed it to prevent it from being DOA I expect.
What is that saying about the Internet routing around damage? Perhaps it could route around damaged protocols.
But the web with all of its investment is not going away. So we still have to deal with it.
You are correct about this - it is the largest number of people killed in such a short span of time since the beginning of history. But the time frame was more like 10 seconds, the time it took the blast wave to reach the periphery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the most people killed in a 24 hour period though it was the Great Tokyo Fire Raid that did that.
Unlike Japan, the US is not severely overpopulated.
Japan is not overpopulated. They've made the decision (collectively) to move everyone into cities. The Tokyo-Hiroshima region has a lot of people, but the rest is full of open space.
Well, Tokyo and Hiroshima on different islands, so I am not sure what the "Tokyo-Hiroshima region" would be other than "Japan" perhaps.
But I suspect you meant Tokyo-Yokohama, and yes the Greater Tokyo area (basically the whole Kanto Plain) has a population of 38 million, or 30% of the entire country. Now if you through in Keihanshin down the coast (the Osaka-Kyoto Metropolitan Area) with 19.4 million, then these two megalopoli have almost 50% of Japans population.
Did not know Elsivier was pointing a gun at these poor down trodden universities and their professors.
In fact, they kind of are.
Elsevier has been in the business of buying up prominent scientific journals - the journals in which a researcher who want to build up a career, scientific credibility, and get read by other scientists must publish.
Boycotting these journals has real, serious impact on researchers who choose to do it. And remember, Elsevier has bought up all the papers of anyone who ever published in the journals, even if they are now long dead. Want to research a topic with papers that were published decades ago, before Elsevier owned the journal? You must pay Elsevier's charges, whatever they are.
All other paradigm shifts in working environment that have displaced people opened up new opportunities. Farm hands that got obsolete when farming was automated were needed by the emerging industries in the towns.
Each of these two sentences makes a point that, while not entirely wrong, is quite misleading.
Most important is the first claim that all other iterations of mechanization (the apparent meaning of "paradigm shifts in working environment") have opened up new opportunities.
In the very first iteration of this, the First Industrial Revolution (FIR) starting about 1770, this did not happen for 70 years. Massive job losses in textile making started around 1770, putting 20% of Britain's entire work force out of work and rendering them paupers. The economy did not finally provide enough alternative employment until about 1840.
This horrendous slums of Dickens, the imprisonment of up to 10% of Britain's population in prisons or workhouses for the destitute, was a situation lasting for generations. People who lost their livelihoods when the FIR hit never got re-employed, nor did their children, or even grand-children.
The Cybernetics Revolution now underway is likely to have the same immediate effect as the FIR, massive job elimination far faster than any natural evolution of the economy can accommodate.
Farm hands that got obsolete when farming was automated were needed by the emerging industries in the towns.
This is a story that puts the plow before the plow horse.
Quick question for the reader - when do you think farming automation started a large drop in farm employment? 1900? 1910? 1920? 1930?
The answer is 1950.
In 1900 there were 12 million people employed on farms, with a farm family population of 30 million.
In 1950 there 10 million people employed on farms with farm family population of 30 million.
But in 1960 there only 7 million farm jobs, and 15 million people living on farms.
By 1970 it was down to 4 million farm jobs (at which point it leveled out), and the farm population was 8 million.
The elimination of jobs in farm employment occurred almost entirely between 1950-1970, long after there were "emerging industries" in towns. In fact the exodus from farm employment began the same year that U.S. manufacturing as a share of U.S. employment began its steady decline. One does not usually think of the decade of the 1960s with the Vietnam War and the Moon landing as one where there were "emerging industries" in towns.
Most people have the idea that there was a large loss of farm employment some time early in the 20th Century, inspired by graphs like this one where it looks like a steady drop in farm jobs from 1840 to the present. Employment as a fraction of total U.S. jobs combines two different effects though, the total number of agricultural jobs, and the total U.S. population. Until 1950 the drop in agricultural employment was due almost entirely to the rise in U.S. total population alone.
Now there were people leaving the farm to get work in the cities from 1900 to 1950, about 600,000 a year. But they were simply the excess population on farms due to the large average farm family size producing 2% surplus each year that could not be absorbed by the stable level of farm employment.
The "300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power" requires considering one kilogram of solar panel as being toxic waste equivalent to one kilogram of spent reactor fuel. This is a preposterous comparison.
Furthermore it treats all solar panels as being as being the same source of hazard. Cadmium telluride panels are a special concern for disposal, but they are 2.5% of the global market and only used in special situations, whereas 95% of production is silicon panel and not toxic at all.
The disposal of solar panels is a valid concern that must be addressed, like the disposal of all electronics, and solid waste generally, but this framing is wildly deceptive.
Well they did. It was SIGSALY, developed with the aid of Alan Turing. Of course it weighed over 50 tons, and used about 30 kW of power, necessitating an air-conditioned room to hold it.
Yeah, the very idea of providing affordable phone service to everyone in America. What was up with that? The B-astards!
It would have been much, much better to have private companies only running phone lines to well heeled customers who would have to pay whatever they were charged. The ROI would have been insane! Freedom!
Yeah sure, the only thing holding back cell phones in the 1940s was lack of allocated bandwidth! If there had only been bandwidth allocated specifically for them cell phone systems would simply have burst forth.
In other historical news, the only thing holding back automotive travel in the 1890s was lack of gas stations. I mean there were hardly any! I they had simply built lots of gas stations the roads would have been flooded with cars in 1895.
Also, the only thing holding back popular air travel after the turn of the century was lack of airports. If we had only had lots of airports in 1910 the sky would have been full of airliners.
The Green Revolution actually started in the United States in 1938. That was the time and place that agricultural productivity abruptly shifted from an annual productivity growth of near zero (less than 0.1%) which stretched back hundreds of years, to about 1.5% every year. Here is an illustration of the phenomenon. This USDA chart starts in 1948, setting everything equal to "1", but the trend goes back to 1938. After WWII this trend spread from the U.S. to the entire world, and has (so far) tripled agricultural productivity. The overall trend shows no sign of slowing down yet. This growth rate is actually a bit higher than the economic growth rate introduced by the Industrial Revolution.
The revolution appears to be the synergistic effect of all science-based inputs into agriculture: evidence based practices, scientific breeding, use of fertilizers, pesticides (selectively), etc. The actual level of inputs into agriculture have been essentially flat for half a century, so the growth in the use of fertilizers and pesticides led the way early on, but are no longer a factor, superior practices and breeding now dominate.
... since gas is only a tiny bit cleaner than coal...
Its actually a lot better than coal. CO2 emissions for burning anthracite is 228.6 pounds CO2 per million BTU and 117.0 for natural gas, or almost exactly half as much. And for other pollutants (which affect air quality) the difference is much larger than that - zero sulfur emission, zero particulates.
But offsetting the sharply reduced CO2 emissions is the fact that methane is a potent green house gas itself, so source to furnace leakage must be kept low, but the necessary low rates have been demonstrated in practice (below 3.2% is needed to be superior to coal, 1% had been demonstrated). Natural gas leakage is a much bigger problem with fueling vehicles that stationary power plants (which is why natural gas fueled vehicle is not the way to go - electric is).
I just did some googling, looking for more information about their plans and found this which is quite interesting. It puts the plan in a somewhat different light, and answers many of comments made here.
A key reason for this iceberg towing plan is specifically local environment modification. All those desalinization plants are pumping bring into the coastal waters, and the icebergs are going to be allowed to melt in open water to counteract the increased salinity and restoring the ecological balance in those coastal waters. And through feedback effects they anticipate that is will modify the local climate, creating a cool air layer (basically an artificial inversion effect) and increasing rainfall.
...Ok, maybe only like 10% of water will come from the iceberg, but it has to go through a water-treatment plant before it'll be used...
Umm... why? Water is treated to bring it up to quality standards - amount of dissolved salts, concentrations of bacteria and so forth. It isn't a ritual required to bless the water for drinking. If water is already up to standards no treatment is necessary. Glacier water is already eminently potable. You can buy glacier ice in stores (a fancy luxury item) and it meets all standards for human consumption.
The idea of sculping the iceberg to reduce drag is interesting... perhaps less like a sphere and more like a hull would be a bit more efficient. Though it might happen naturally in warmer waters as the iceberg is pushed North and the rougher edges melt away.
Also, the melting ice itself might reduce drag.
Would need to just go ahead and do it once with the ice berg as-is to practically baseline the efficiency.
Your guesses here are very good. Iceberg towing has been studied a lot (though if you look through the many reports about this online there is a curious tendency for people to think they are analyzing this for the very first time and approach it with a blank slate).
Yes, icebergs do naturally assume a hull-shape as they are being towed, and yes melting does reduce drag (if only because it keeps a clean smooth surface).
Shaping an iceberg with a little blasting is straightforward - ice is really easy to drill through to set blasting charges.
A lot of people posting thoughts on this seem to be looking for ways to save the water loss - neglecting the fact that the ice source is free, abundant, and constantly renewed, and thus the only cost associated with any melting is the towing cost incurred thus far for that fraction of ice that melts. As long as the loss rate is tolerable (fairly easy to estimate really) then there is no problem that needs to be "fixed' with more complicated schemes. Most of the suggestions to 'improve' the process drive up costs dramatically (cutting it up and putting it in a supertanker, wrapping it in plastic for the journey, etc.).
Once in place at Dubai the iceberg would be surrounded by a floating plastic containment curtain and seawater pumped out and replaced with fresh as it melts, forming a reservoir.
In the very good horror movie (still in theaters) Get Out one of the key horror elements (it appears) is that everyone uses Windows phones, the Edge browser and searches on Bing! This brings that horror to real life!
You should care about his motivation if you care at all. If his motivation is purely ego driven, then the minute it sinks in that he really isn't going to be around to take the credit, and no amount of executive orders is going to change that, the funding is going to disappear.
Indeed. The funding isn't there now. Did Trump propose a massive increase in the NASA budget in his announced budget plans? No, what he proposed for 2018 was slightly less than the House and Senate plans for 2017. If he had "go to Mars" as a priority, he would have proposed a massive NASA increase in his budget plans announced six weeks ago.
What? You are telling me that this is a new priority for Trump, a major change in thinking over the last six weeks? Well, how likely is it that will still be a priority for him six weeks from now much less eight years from now?
"These are things that are superhuman, and we think this will be in every industry, will probably replace 50% of human jobs, create a huge amount of wealth for mankind and wipe out poverty,"
So, he thinks we will replace 50% of human jobs and that will somehow wipe out poverty? It seems he hasn't noticed that when a huge amount of wealth is created, it often doesn't result in reducing poverty. Will AI be replacing Capitalism too?
Indeed so.
We have actual experience with what happens when an industrial revolution eliminate a large share of jobs in a short time (roughly 20 years). The First Industrial Revolution (FIR). Between 1770 and 1800 about 25% of all jobs in Great Britain were eliminated.
What happened? Did all those who lost jobs making textiles get other employment?
No they became destitute. By 1800 20% of the population of Great Britain were paupers with no jobs. Petty crime sky-rocketed, leading to a boom in prison construction which could not keep pace, then the use of delerict ships hulls for floating prisons, and when these overflowed export of petty criminals to North America (for a time) and then Australia.
Work houses are created to put paupers to work and take them off the street. At their peak 10% of the entire population of Great Britain (entire families) were confined in these prisons for the law-abiding poor.
The average health of the British population declined sharply, with dropping lifespans and adult heights.
The vast squalid slums and legions of paupers where thoroughly documented by Charles Dickens, he was describing actual conditions - no figment of the imagination.
When the fruits of the FIR finally eliminate the millions of unemployed? It took until about 1840 at the earliest, more like 1850 really, to accomplish redistribution of the industrial wealth. From 1770 to 1850 is eighty years, four generations. Even trimming it to an optimistic 70 years makes little difference.
it was not the unemployed textile workers who benefited, it was not their children, it was not their grandchildren, is was their great grandchildren!
Of course the Georgians and Victorians had an excuse for allowing this situation to develop and fester. The FIR was entirely unexpected and nothing else like it had happened in the whole history of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
"By the age of 25, this addiction is cemented in the brain and it becomes very difficult -- almost impossible -- to quit," State Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, told KGW.
Absolute rubbish. Plenty of people, myself included, have managed to stop smoking after the age of 25.
Sure - the anecdote of your personal story, combined with your personal beliefs, negates the findings of the entire field of addiction research on nicotine.
Sure.
Marked "Troll" as I read this, but this is an accurate description of how "society" - the dominant culture including politics, the law, and the media - deal with these respective situations.
This is an interesting idea. Adoption will be an immense problem of course, but it is not as if HTTP/HTML is a required method of Internet communication. An alternate protocol set could be run over the net to provide the same - or better - functionality. Some major player deploying it would be needed it to prevent it from being DOA I expect.
What is that saying about the Internet routing around damage? Perhaps it could route around damaged protocols.
But the web with all of its investment is not going away. So we still have to deal with it.
You are correct about this - it is the largest number of people killed in such a short span of time since the beginning of history. But the time frame was more like 10 seconds, the time it took the blast wave to reach the periphery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the most people killed in a 24 hour period though it was the Great Tokyo Fire Raid that did that.
This was already thoroughly explored in the 2006 documentary Idiocracy.
And before that The Marching Morons by Cyril M. Kornbluth.
Unlike Japan, the US is not severely overpopulated.
Japan is not overpopulated. They've made the decision (collectively) to move everyone into cities. The Tokyo-Hiroshima region has a lot of people, but the rest is full of open space.
Well, Tokyo and Hiroshima on different islands, so I am not sure what the "Tokyo-Hiroshima region" would be other than "Japan" perhaps.
But I suspect you meant Tokyo-Yokohama, and yes the Greater Tokyo area (basically the whole Kanto Plain) has a population of 38 million, or 30% of the entire country. Now if you through in Keihanshin down the coast (the Osaka-Kyoto Metropolitan Area) with 19.4 million, then these two megalopoli have almost 50% of Japans population.
Who ... wants to live in such close proximity to that many people?
Apparently 13.5 million people do.
Nobody lives there anymore. Its too crowded.
(As Yogi Berra would have said.)
Did not know Elsivier was pointing a gun at these poor down trodden universities and their professors.
In fact, they kind of are.
Elsevier has been in the business of buying up prominent scientific journals - the journals in which a researcher who want to build up a career, scientific credibility, and get read by other scientists must publish.
Boycotting these journals has real, serious impact on researchers who choose to do it. And remember, Elsevier has bought up all the papers of anyone who ever published in the journals, even if they are now long dead. Want to research a topic with papers that were published decades ago, before Elsevier owned the journal? You must pay Elsevier's charges, whatever they are.
All other paradigm shifts in working environment that have displaced people opened up new opportunities. Farm hands that got obsolete when farming was automated were needed by the emerging industries in the towns.
Each of these two sentences makes a point that, while not entirely wrong, is quite misleading.
Most important is the first claim that all other iterations of mechanization (the apparent meaning of "paradigm shifts in working environment") have opened up new opportunities.
In the very first iteration of this, the First Industrial Revolution (FIR) starting about 1770, this did not happen for 70 years. Massive job losses in textile making started around 1770, putting 20% of Britain's entire work force out of work and rendering them paupers. The economy did not finally provide enough alternative employment until about 1840.
This horrendous slums of Dickens, the imprisonment of up to 10% of Britain's population in prisons or workhouses for the destitute, was a situation lasting for generations. People who lost their livelihoods when the FIR hit never got re-employed, nor did their children, or even grand-children.
The Cybernetics Revolution now underway is likely to have the same immediate effect as the FIR, massive job elimination far faster than any natural evolution of the economy can accommodate.
Farm hands that got obsolete when farming was automated were needed by the emerging industries in the towns.
This is a story that puts the plow before the plow horse.
Quick question for the reader - when do you think farming automation started a large drop in farm employment? 1900? 1910? 1920? 1930?
The answer is 1950.
In 1900 there were 12 million people employed on farms, with a farm family population of 30 million.
In 1950 there 10 million people employed on farms with farm family population of 30 million.
But in 1960 there only 7 million farm jobs, and 15 million people living on farms.
By 1970 it was down to 4 million farm jobs (at which point it leveled out), and the farm population was 8 million.
The elimination of jobs in farm employment occurred almost entirely between 1950-1970, long after there were "emerging industries" in towns. In fact the exodus from farm employment began the same year that U.S. manufacturing as a share of U.S. employment began its steady decline. One does not usually think of the decade of the 1960s with the Vietnam War and the Moon landing as one where there were "emerging industries" in towns.
Most people have the idea that there was a large loss of farm employment some time early in the 20th Century, inspired by graphs like this one where it looks like a steady drop in farm jobs from 1840 to the present. Employment as a fraction of total U.S. jobs combines two different effects though, the total number of agricultural jobs, and the total U.S. population. Until 1950 the drop in agricultural employment was due almost entirely to the rise in U.S. total population alone.
Now there were people leaving the farm to get work in the cities from 1900 to 1950, about 600,000 a year. But they were simply the excess population on farms due to the large average farm family size producing 2% surplus each year that could not be absorbed by the stable level of farm employment.
The "300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power" requires considering one kilogram of solar panel as being toxic waste equivalent to one kilogram of spent reactor fuel. This is a preposterous comparison.
Furthermore it treats all solar panels as being as being the same source of hazard. Cadmium telluride panels are a special concern for disposal, but they are 2.5% of the global market and only used in special situations, whereas 95% of production is silicon panel and not toxic at all.
The disposal of solar panels is a valid concern that must be addressed, like the disposal of all electronics, and solid waste generally, but this framing is wildly deceptive.
Name the city.
When you put it that way - being buggy cr@p was just icing on the sh|t cake.
Exactly.
Ubuntu being Ubuntu, Shuttleworth being Shuttleworth. T'was ever thus.
1940 had encryption too...
But not in real time.
Well they did. It was SIGSALY, developed with the aid of Alan Turing. Of course it weighed over 50 tons, and used about 30 kW of power, necessitating an air-conditioned room to hold it.
About a dozen of these systems were built.
Yeah, the very idea of providing affordable phone service to everyone in America. What was up with that? The B-astards!
It would have been much, much better to have private companies only running phone lines to well heeled customers who would have to pay whatever they were charged. The ROI would have been insane! Freedom!
Yeah sure, the only thing holding back cell phones in the 1940s was lack of allocated bandwidth! If there had only been bandwidth allocated specifically for them cell phone systems would simply have burst forth.
In other historical news, the only thing holding back automotive travel in the 1890s was lack of gas stations. I mean there were hardly any! I they had simply built lots of gas stations the roads would have been flooded with cars in 1895.
Also, the only thing holding back popular air travel after the turn of the century was lack of airports. If we had only had lots of airports in 1910 the sky would have been full of airliners.
The Green Revolution actually started in the United States in 1938. That was the time and place that agricultural productivity abruptly shifted from an annual productivity growth of near zero (less than 0.1%) which stretched back hundreds of years, to about 1.5% every year. Here is an illustration of the phenomenon. This USDA chart starts in 1948, setting everything equal to "1", but the trend goes back to 1938. After WWII this trend spread from the U.S. to the entire world, and has (so far) tripled agricultural productivity. The overall trend shows no sign of slowing down yet. This growth rate is actually a bit higher than the economic growth rate introduced by the Industrial Revolution.
The revolution appears to be the synergistic effect of all science-based inputs into agriculture: evidence based practices, scientific breeding, use of fertilizers, pesticides (selectively), etc. The actual level of inputs into agriculture have been essentially flat for half a century, so the growth in the use of fertilizers and pesticides led the way early on, but are no longer a factor, superior practices and breeding now dominate.
... since gas is only a tiny bit cleaner than coal...
Its actually a lot better than coal. CO2 emissions for burning anthracite is 228.6 pounds CO2 per million BTU and 117.0 for natural gas, or almost exactly half as much. And for other pollutants (which affect air quality) the difference is much larger than that - zero sulfur emission, zero particulates.
But offsetting the sharply reduced CO2 emissions is the fact that methane is a potent green house gas itself, so source to furnace leakage must be kept low, but the necessary low rates have been demonstrated in practice (below 3.2% is needed to be superior to coal, 1% had been demonstrated). Natural gas leakage is a much bigger problem with fueling vehicles that stationary power plants (which is why natural gas fueled vehicle is not the way to go - electric is).
... pumping brine into the coastal waters...
I just did some googling, looking for more information about their plans and found this which is quite interesting. It puts the plan in a somewhat different light, and answers many of comments made here.
A key reason for this iceberg towing plan is specifically local environment modification. All those desalinization plants are pumping bring into the coastal waters, and the icebergs are going to be allowed to melt in open water to counteract the increased salinity and restoring the ecological balance in those coastal waters. And through feedback effects they anticipate that is will modify the local climate, creating a cool air layer (basically an artificial inversion effect) and increasing rainfall.
...Ok, maybe only like 10% of water will come from the iceberg, but it has to go through a water-treatment plant before it'll be used...
Umm... why? Water is treated to bring it up to quality standards - amount of dissolved salts, concentrations of bacteria and so forth. It isn't a ritual required to bless the water for drinking. If water is already up to standards no treatment is necessary. Glacier water is already eminently potable. You can buy glacier ice in stores (a fancy luxury item) and it meets all standards for human consumption.
The idea of sculping the iceberg to reduce drag is interesting... perhaps less like a sphere and more like a hull would be a bit more efficient. Though it might happen naturally in warmer waters as the iceberg is pushed North and the rougher edges melt away.
Also, the melting ice itself might reduce drag.
Would need to just go ahead and do it once with the ice berg as-is to practically baseline the efficiency.
Your guesses here are very good. Iceberg towing has been studied a lot (though if you look through the many reports about this online there is a curious tendency for people to think they are analyzing this for the very first time and approach it with a blank slate).
Yes, icebergs do naturally assume a hull-shape as they are being towed, and yes melting does reduce drag (if only because it keeps a clean smooth surface).
Shaping an iceberg with a little blasting is straightforward - ice is really easy to drill through to set blasting charges.
A lot of people posting thoughts on this seem to be looking for ways to save the water loss - neglecting the fact that the ice source is free, abundant, and constantly renewed, and thus the only cost associated with any melting is the towing cost incurred thus far for that fraction of ice that melts. As long as the loss rate is tolerable (fairly easy to estimate really) then there is no problem that needs to be "fixed' with more complicated schemes. Most of the suggestions to 'improve' the process drive up costs dramatically (cutting it up and putting it in a supertanker, wrapping it in plastic for the journey, etc.).
Once in place at Dubai the iceberg would be surrounded by a floating plastic containment curtain and seawater pumped out and replaced with fresh as it melts, forming a reservoir.
In the very good horror movie (still in theaters) Get Out one of the key horror elements (it appears) is that everyone uses Windows phones, the Edge browser and searches on Bing! This brings that horror to real life!
You should care about his motivation if you care at all. If his motivation is purely ego driven, then the minute it sinks in that he really isn't going to be around to take the credit, and no amount of executive orders is going to change that, the funding is going to disappear.
Indeed. The funding isn't there now. Did Trump propose a massive increase in the NASA budget in his announced budget plans? No, what he proposed for 2018 was slightly less than the House and Senate plans for 2017. If he had "go to Mars" as a priority, he would have proposed a massive NASA increase in his budget plans announced six weeks ago.
What? You are telling me that this is a new priority for Trump, a major change in thinking over the last six weeks? Well, how likely is it that will still be a priority for him six weeks from now much less eight years from now?
So, he thinks we will replace 50% of human jobs and that will somehow wipe out poverty? It seems he hasn't noticed that when a huge amount of wealth is created, it often doesn't result in reducing poverty. Will AI be replacing Capitalism too?
Indeed so.
We have actual experience with what happens when an industrial revolution eliminate a large share of jobs in a short time (roughly 20 years). The First Industrial Revolution (FIR). Between 1770 and 1800 about 25% of all jobs in Great Britain were eliminated.
What happened? Did all those who lost jobs making textiles get other employment?
No they became destitute. By 1800 20% of the population of Great Britain were paupers with no jobs. Petty crime sky-rocketed, leading to a boom in prison construction which could not keep pace, then the use of delerict ships hulls for floating prisons, and when these overflowed export of petty criminals to North America (for a time) and then Australia.
Work houses are created to put paupers to work and take them off the street. At their peak 10% of the entire population of Great Britain (entire families) were confined in these prisons for the law-abiding poor.
The average health of the British population declined sharply, with dropping lifespans and adult heights.
The vast squalid slums and legions of paupers where thoroughly documented by Charles Dickens, he was describing actual conditions - no figment of the imagination.
When the fruits of the FIR finally eliminate the millions of unemployed? It took until about 1840 at the earliest, more like 1850 really, to accomplish redistribution of the industrial wealth. From 1770 to 1850 is eighty years, four generations. Even trimming it to an optimistic 70 years makes little difference.
it was not the unemployed textile workers who benefited, it was not their children, it was not their grandchildren, is was their great grandchildren!
Of course the Georgians and Victorians had an excuse for allowing this situation to develop and fester. The FIR was entirely unexpected and nothing else like it had happened in the whole history of the world.
We don't have that excuse.