Even these jobs are under attack. Think of the number of artists that it took to make
snow white versus what it would take to make a film like that today.
Many jobs like accountants,engineers, and artists are in the same boat as farmers where
1 person can do the work of 100 now using advanced tools.
Efficiency isn't a bad thing as long as there is still work that people are willing to pay for.
The rise of zipcar, tiny homes, and the likes will also complicate things as currently society is
built on people paying for more than they need. If people start significantly downsizing
then we'll see pressure on the consumer side too as it will get harder and harder to find
something that someone is willing to pay for.

Why would that be? If we can get a small ship that travels at 50% the speed of light, we could reach a star like this in around 2 years.
Once we reached it, if it was lucky enough to have a habitable planet then we're golden but even if it had a marslike planet, it still
would be considerably easier to colonize a mars size planet around another star system that it would be to build a generational ship
to get to the next closest star. Making a self contained environment for 2 years is alot easier than making one that can survive for
50+ years.

Yes, the two party system operates the same way as does a host of other areas.
Basically, people can recognize monopolies but tend to ignore duopolies. There
are probably more duopolies in existance today than monopolies because they
can pretend to be competive if they share and price fix with a partner in crime.
The republicrats are obviously one of the biggest and most entrenched and alot
of people have figured it out but not enough see it or care yet to make much of
a difference so instead they argue over technicalities like whether to spend
$100 million or $110 million on some pet project when everything pretty much
stays status quo.

I'm not sure this spiral downward is a given. There are plenty of jobs at the bottom like digging ditches that have been eliminated as well.
Jobs that are not cost effective to automate aren't all at the bottom. I would argue that many of the ones at the bottom will be eliminated
first. Once that spiral hits rock bottom and starts working back up we'll probably all be better off unless we end up with a situation where
there are not enough jobs or the jobs at the top are too difficult to retrain certain people.

This only holds as long as someone is willing to give you food/money for your work.
The problem we're seeing today is that 90% of the stuff people want and need is produced by a handful of people.
Food is provided by just a few farmers. Software is written once by a handful of people and cloned millions of time.
Movies are created once and cloned millions of times. Millions of people all watch the same handful of ball players.
What happens when you have no useful skills to barter with because a robot can do the work cheaper?

Ironically, what you don't realize is that the advertisement is working. So you like pepsi better than coke. What about all the other
much cheaper colas? Yes, in some ways pepsi and coke are competitors but their prices are the same and they are both actually
better off pretending to be competitors. Their real competition is the offbrand but they have managed to convince everyone including
you that they are a premium brand when in reality if given 10 different colas you probably would have a hard time narrowing it down
to which one is the actual coke.

If you're talking about a "touch of autism" then you might be right but autism at the far end is most certainly a disease.
People with severe autism can't read, write, talk, or take care of themself. They also many times have poor motor
skills and weak muscle tone. Even if you removed them from a neurotypical society and put them in a jungle somewhere
they still would be unable to take care of themself so it's not the neurotypical society that is the problem.

This isn't entirely true. There are plenty of companies that offer free phone support for their products. Some
like your cellphone and cable companies might put you on hold forever but not all of them. I work for a small
company that charges $35 per month and has about 2000 customers. We almost always answer the phone
on the first ring. At only $35 per month a single customer could easily burn thru their profit each month but for
the most part only a small percent of our customers call any given day. Yes, a few of them probably cost us
more in support per year than we make from them but it averages out as many rarely call at all.

Sure you can, it's called a dongle. What you really want is a dumb tv and then plug in your choice of roku, google, amazon, etc..
I agree with the OP and wish TV manufacturers would stick to what they are good at and just produce dumb tvs. If they feel the
need, then sell them with a free roku stick, amazon stick, etc... but stop trying to develop an inhouse solution that will almost
always be subpar to what a 3rd party can offer.

The point is that they are forcing a guilt trip on every single customer for some
vague good cause and expect you to donate to but can't even tell you what it
is that you're suppose to be supporting and are suppose to feel guilty if you
don't support.

I think it is you that have misread the summary. I think the "until recently" is the real deal
breaker for me. If his wife was epileptic but had things under control then having a panic button
for the kid and/or a sensor for the wife makes sense but only in the same way it makes sense to
teach a kid to dial 911 in a fire. If she is having frequent episodes then there probably needs to be
someone else present in the house.

I get this all the time at the checkout. Would you like to donate $1 to save needy children, to save a cat in need,
to promote clean water, etc... I once asked a cashier who actually got the money on a "clean water" campaign
and they couldn't even tell me. I always say no as a matter of course even for organizations that I regularly
donate to. I don't want to encourage them to use that venue.

That's assuming it's a permanent kill switch. If it's just that the IMEI is tied to your account until you release it, then this
isn't a problem. They can steal you phone but unless they can also call up the cell company and get them to release your
phone it does them no good. Paypal has a similiar system. It only allows a credit card or email to be tied to a specific
account. If you try to use the same credit card on a different account, it just doesn't allow you to do it without calling
and answering a bunch of questions which a thief probably wouldn't know.

So my connection to my bank is encrypted? So what? They have access to my bank statements by just asking the banks.
The little key fobs that stores give out that give you discounts are tracking all your purchases even if you pay in cash.
Encryption is worthless when the endpoints are compromising. Your cell phone company knows where you are at all time
and shares this information with the highest bidder. The only way to stop being tracking is to give up your credit card and your
cell phone which no significant portion of the population is going to do.

I think one of the problems with a subscription model is that each month a person gets
to evaluate whether it is still worth the cost. With the upfront purchase, you basically
lock them in for a few years and all their peers and coworkers see them using their
software.