Comment Streaming is bad. (Score 1) 305
Unless the switching costs are trivial, streaming doesn't provide flexibility.
Unless the switching costs are trivial, streaming doesn't provide flexibility.
If you have people being forced to train under multiple financial threats (unemployment eligibility, severance), that is enough evidence of a qualified person. The job is then handed to someone that has no qualifications prior to the involuntary knowledge transfer - aside from being a non-citizen.
How about removing the ability to do that to someone? That is, give the at-will provision some teeth for the employee side of things so that quitting can mean something.
...which will be worse than the local team.
They just want to see things as less permanent, which means more easily managed people. In turn, that means people are worse off overall for lack of access to opportunities that go a more conventional route.
Thankfully as more cars are designed for global market, rather than just US
That's not a good thing given how globalizing a car makes it blander than an unsalted cracker.
When you're dealing with non-human drivers, it's a case of the law not catching up to account for software error.
That tends to blow the "rule" out the window.
Interesting to see that there's very few brave individuals willing to put a name to their advice of removing all humans from driving.
How about adjusting the car to act more in tune with the humans on the road?
No thank you, but that's no W series. It might be a bridge between the T series and the full-fledged W series, but it is not the typical workstation-type laptop. The W series was meant to be a larger, traditional, no-compromise laptop limited only by technological progress - not as some cut-down box.
Nice catch! The article: Are we headed for a new ice age? By Phil Plait | June 17, 2011
Unless Phil Plait is a time traveler then he didn't address this new model's predictions 4 years ago.
While I generally agree, what happens when the only jobs left are those that require creativity or critical thinking. There's a lot of people out there who can't do anything more complicated than repeating a few simple tasks over and over again. These jobs are going to be replace by robots. When the only jobs left are jobs that require high levels of thought, there's going to be a lot of people who simply can't hold down a job. I don't think that changing the way we educate people or making education free or anything else is going to be able to change the fact that some people don't have the cognitive ability to do the high level jobs that robots won't be able to do.
Also, realistically there are limited jobs for creative and critical thinking and most of those aren't really necessary. Food, Shelter, Clean Water, Transportation, Energy are the really critical things that people need on a day to day basis. And those things can be produced more efficiently in more industrialized and automated ways. Creative and critical thinking are overrated as useful skills. Especially when you have a thousands of people that have those skills applying for one actual job.
That leaves the rest of us pattering about on blogs and making babies, drinking which is all well and good until someone decides they aren't getting enough or are pissed off that the person who cheated to be
What is your snark free plan for dealing with the people displaced from the farms? Remember, the overwhelming majority of the labor force used to work on farms.
Speaking from the perspective of someone that descended from a farming/mining/manufacturing/computing family tree:
A bit of historical perspective would help.
The transitions from agriculture and (early) mining to manufacturing left a wide margin of time to retrain. International threats largely DNE while plenty of work existed to receive and integrate such individuals over time.
The transition from manufacturing to early computing represented a narrower escape. Early computing was an escape hatch that provided relative stability in a much shorter timespan. This point marks the beginning of the effort to reduce overall stability.
Today, the emphasis is in removing any remaining stability as it also represents a higher cost. The Aspen Institute's invention of the "sharing economy" buzzword exists only to sugarcoat the effort to remove any large-scale stability in work arrangements.
Want to know what works? Stop trying to remove stability from work arrangements.
From ~2007/2008 to present day, the rallying cry has been to kill off anything with stability and replace it with high instability.
When individuals have a stable form of employment, they are less controllable. Less stable forms of employment, such as mentioned in my reply, impart more control over the person.
Aside from very few lines of work, provide some certainty by training the people already in existence. Another option is to adjust compensation to get the people you want.
There is no skills gap, just pay and training gaps.
The old nobility and the aristocracies damaged the economies of the old kingdoms by so controlling wealth and power and rights that there was no incentive or even possibility to innovate or build anything new. The nobles had everything locked down and it was there way or they'd literally kill you.
Yet you advocate a new aristocracy, based on business ownership and friendliness. That is, individuals and governments are obligated to bow before the interests of business owners - lest they threaten economic devastation.
What is critical is economic mobility. Not equality. That is... equal opportunity. NOT equal outcome.
Except that the current, human-eliminating, approach to robotics cuts off the ladder.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson