Actually, reviewing U6 and discouraged workers, we are at record levels of unemployment. Close to 25% of the working age population isn't working. They are going on disability early, retiring early- but many 16 to 54 year olds who worked in the past are not finding employment. I know several people in this category.

It is much rougher for 30 year olds than it was when I was 30. Some retrain and then the job they were training for is swamped by so many applicants that wages are supressed.

I was hoping retiring boomers would take up the slack but I read 80% of them have no under $20,000 savings and will not be able to voluntarily retire. Plus boomers in good slots are simply continuing to work and have no intention of retiring and letting those slots open up to younger people. By the time this group dies or retires at 77 to 82- the generation behind them is nearly at retirement age- never having had the good earnings years the generation before them had.

Advances in AI will make it possible to replace large swaths of 'smart' and 'creative' jobs by 2050. And they won't even consider that to be "real" AI by them. Whenever we get a real AI, it will be a massive paradigm shift. Robotics already have superhuman performance when "plugged" in . So an easily clonable AI combined with super human bodies obsolete humans overnight.

I'm confused. The chart you linked shows.

LED consumes less electricity.
LED lasts much longer (so less physical waste)
LED has a total cost of ownership lower than CFL. (About $110led* vs $126cfl vs $496inc)

Also
LED doesn't have mercury (and I know most CFL bulbs are not disposed of properly)...

75 watts are past the sweet spot now (tho you can get good ones for $19).
60 and 65 watts are $9 to $12 now.

Personally, I like 65 watts-- friendlier on my aging eyes. 900 lumens vs 850 lumens makes a big difference.

Really- I hate CFL. Even the 3500K ones. Even 65w ones. The rated life isn't what they say it is. CFLs may be rated for 10,000 hours but by the time I hit 6000 hours, the lumen output drops visibly. I'm replacing LED with CFLs as much as possible. So far.. I have never replaced an LED yet due to failure.

*with a 26.50 bulb addressing error you point out.

Great... for the half of the population at iq 100 and above. What about the average to below average 3.5 billion people?
They supposed to just roll over and die?

One of the links was to a company where robots are already constructing robots.

Robot development jobs are under 1:1000 of the jobs replaced.

Robot repair also needs under 1% of the workers.

If robots were not cheaper than humans, businesses wouldn't replace humans with robots.

Going forward- it's pretty much leadership as you point out (under 1/1000 of the employees) or creative jobs. But-- they automate everything except the creative part and lay off 140 employees while retaining 20. They also use the code phrase "focus the humans on the 'best parts of their jobs'" and "cost savings" (i.e. staff reduction). There are a million security guards in the country.

Projected results from the new robotic security guards in the pipeline are 95%. They can patrol, video, raise alerts, - even detain suspects- as well as a human being.

If we don't figure out how to transition effectively, you are going to see large scale civil unrest.

Unemployed humans. And significantly depressed demand for goods.

Just last week I had a strong disagreement with someone who said robots were not ready to effectively replace humans. He's spoken to industry people personally and they told him robots were not ready yet.

And he ignored the numerous examples I linked him where robots are already replacing humans-- and damn fast too.

This could be about half a million skilled employees who were making $5000 or less- yet robots are replacing them because the robots are less expensive. How can a 1st world employee hope to compete?

Not as long as John Oliver is on the job keeping them honest. Hard to believe he's accomplished so much so far with only 15 minutes a week dedicated to examining one issue in depth.

That's not nearly as true as you'd think. Besides which, there's a difference between Oracle's database (which is widely used), and Oracle's consultancy arm which while used has never put out a decent project in their history.

"America" - or rather the commerce/3-letter/politico corporatistic conglomerate rooted in the US of A - does it cause it believes it can. They feel they have a monopoly in the field of international money transfer and when I take a look at my options to transfer money to a internet based business in NZ or in fact even at home (within the EU) they do.
It is Visa or MasterCard of Paypal. and apparently all of them listen when a US senator tells them with whom they should not make business.

Why is it that basic backgound infrastructure like financial networks, social media, internet search, is so firmly in US hands an there is no serious competitor based in a different locale?
It might be that constantly waging war against half the planet supplies better means to establish worldwide networks.

Very nice. That costs $120 a month in Houston but it's only 50 megabits per second and there's a 250 gig data cap.

But there is no competition in Houston and hasn't been for decades.

My only option is DSL which is much slower (6mps "elite" is the best available).

Your date is well chosen. Things went south starting in the 1880s.

So we got the sherman anti-trust acts in the 1920s thru the 1930s and things started going badly again in the 1980s when many of the protections were bypassed or repealed.

Companies would still be making huge profits if they shared the wealth with their workers and the economy would be more robust. It's sort a tragedy of the commons. When one company cuts salaries, it does well. When most companies cut salaries, then things are just miserable and the companies get no competitive advantage.

Walmart's raise won't really give a raise (it's about .3% of their profits- affects a tiny percentage of their workforce). But a real raise by walmart ($5 for every employee) would still leave them with enormous profits and their workers would have more money to spend (which would largely be spent at walmart-- raising walmart's sales and increasing it's profits).

The actual figures are-- annual profit of Walmart $19 billion. Cost of $5 raise, 7.5 billion. Leaving Walmart with a profit of 19 billion.
But wait... they spent 7.6 billion buying back stock to raise stock prices (which is a very expensive way of increasing pay to the executives). And they gave $12 billion to investors in dividends. So they could have a net profit of 20 billion, give everyone a $5 raise (or a $4 raise and put staffing levels back where they were in 2012 before they cut staff too far with disastrous results), still give 12 billion to shareholders in dividends (executives and walton family have a lot of stock so they are getting a nice chunk here) and cut the 7.6 billion stock buy back.

Of course... that article is dated before the ruling.

Today, the front page reads this way.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

I case you don't choose to read the ruling.
Let me summarize:

EFF LOVES THE RULING.

I looked at rolling wave and it looks good as long as the programmers are not allowed to do the easy predictable stuff first. That path leads to huge spending on failed projects.

My experience was that unless a legal or customer deadline wasn't behind it, executives preferred predictable delivery over efficient delivery.

I think another thing behind the executives odd behavior was they had a priority to get a "big win" fairly early in their time on the job. And they were often calculating in the fact they would be gone in 3 years or less to some other position.

So different priorities than a long term programmer who might want to tune and refactor the code to a polished easily maintainable gem.

Beep... Beep... Beep...

You think being responsible for the literal lives of your passengers for 8 hours a day, needing to be alert the entire time is *less* responsibility and stress? You're out of your fucking mind.

In my experience, unless you really really fight it, all programming collapses to waterfall.

In my opinion, it is MUCH better to deliver a testable object every time-boxed period. Any changes (even just move one field) require a realistic re-estimate which must be signed off. But the actual creation of a testable object with feature sets that the testing department can test and confirm is key.

First- testing big O time is exponential. So solving smaller sets of bugs takes much less time.
Second- foundational bugs are found much earlier and can be fixed easier- or called out as significant problems.
Third- you get an actual percentage of completion this way. We've delivered 27% of the promised features and we are 30% along our schedule. We are a little behind schedule so let's work a little overtime next period and get caught up.

Never ever delay a build to get a feature in. Well, maybe a few hours- but not by a day.

Test equipment is allowed to transmit and receive on those frequencies. If it looks like a radio, it can't. I have a number of cellular testers hanging around here that can act like base stations, mostly because I buy them used as spectrum analyzers and never use the (obsolete) cellular facilities. Government has different rules regarding what it can and can't do in the name of law enforcement, although FCC has been very reluctant to allow them to use cellular jammers.

If you can afford it, something from Ettus would better suit your application.