Well rather hat tan being an anti wacs trump supporter, how could people wote fror a convicted criminal, I must be missing something

I worked for a farming automation company over 20 years ago now. There were a few things I noticed:

The first was that much of the low hanging automation tasks had already been automated a long time ago. People think automation is replacing a field full of 100 workers with 100 humanoid robots. But the reality is that we replaced those workers with a tractor and pesticide sprays. It's this observation that makes me skeptical about the whole humanoid hype fest.

The second thing is that people are damn cheap. I mean, a human can pick a lot of tomatoes in an hour. If the human breaks down, you just fire them and hire one that is in better condition. There is no capital cost for a human (perhaps a little to train them) - the farm doesn't have to pay to 'build' them. Even if a tomato picking robot was a few 1000's of dollars (not going to happen) that would still be higher than the cost of just getting another human. Further, if markets change you just fire your humans, or get them to pick something else instead, but if you've invested significant capital in tomato picking robots you've got a big problem.

I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which an automatic tomato picking robot wouldn't be viable - there definitely will be. But ultimately it's just an economics question. At the moment, making such a robot that can even perform that task well, let alone be cheap and, importantly, reliable, is a very difficult problem. I definitely think we could solve it - we could have solved it a decade ago - but there is very little investment for this stuff because the low price of humans sets a limit on the value of the resultant product, and that value is very low.

Seems to depend on location. In my home city in Europe, it was 3-4 times a day, even shortly after the war.

Numbers mean nothing once enough inflation is involved. But back in those same days, a mailman could support a family on his salary. Not a luxury life for sure, but enough to rent a place and put food on the table. Women working was still a somewhat new thing.

Yes, this stuff is moving digital as well. At different speeds in different countries.

I see you think anyone who wants work can have it and that basic dignity is something to be earned. For many millions of people this is not the case and I hope you develop some compassion without having to live it. Let's talk numbers. And if this doesn't convince you, you should probably admit that your point of view isn't based on reality, but on "I've got mine". According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics median hourly wages for many labor-intensive occupations are on the order of $15-$18 per hour.Home health and personal care aides: Around $16-$17 per hour.Warehouse laborers and freight movers: Median about $18 per hour This isn't minimum wage, it's prevailing wages. Those numbers are from a 3-5 years ago. Lack of increases and inflation have only made them more grim since.

Living wages vastly exceed actual wages in most locales. A "living wage" is the estimated hourly income needed for a single adult to afford basic needs (housing, food, healthcare, transportation, taxes) without public assistance. In nearly every U.S. state and region, the living wage for one adult working full-time comes out higher -- often much higher -- than the prevailing pay of manual labor jobs. For example:

In Chicago (Cook County, IL), the MIT Living Wage Calculator finds an adult with no children needs about $24.42 per hour (about $50,800/year) just to meet essential expenses. A full-time janitor in Chicago making ~$35k would need to spend over 50% of income on rent for a modest one-bedroom. The math doesn't work.

In high-cost states like Massachusetts or California, the required living wage for a single adult is about $19-$20 per hour. Even minimum expenses demand an income near $40k/year, yet median wages for jobs like home health aide or retail clerk in those states often linger in the low-$30ks.

Even in relatively low-cost areas, the gap persists. South Dakota has one of the lowest living wages for a single adult at an estimated $13.87/hour. But South Dakotaâ(TM)s minimum wage is under $10, and many service jobs pay around $11-$14, meaning a full-time worker might just hit the bare minimum living wage. Crucially, that living-wage budget includes no savings or extras. Itâ(TM)s a survival income. Any unexpected expense would spell trouble, and adding dependents would make it wholly insufficient.

In short, full-time earnings of ~$30k-$38k/year often fall short of basic living costs in both expensive and moderate-cost communities. This forces difficult trade-offs for single adults and virtually guarantees financial hardship for anyone raising children on a single low wage.

One of the clearest indicators that wages are insufficient is the growing burden of housing costs on low-income workers. From 2020 to 2025, the monthly cost of a typical apartment jumped about 28.7 percent nationwide, while median household income rose only about 22.5%. A Zillow economist noted, "Housing costs have surged... with rents growing quite a bit faster than wages," leaving renters little room for other essentials. The typical renter in New York City now spends over 54% of their income on housing. For low-wage manual workers, these statistics translate into severe housing stress. Many cannot afford stable housing at all, contributing to rising homelessness and housing insecurity even among those with full-time jobs. It is increasingly common to hear of the "working homeless." In fact, government data show that an estimated 40%-60% of people experiencing homelessness are employed - they have jobs, but "housing is unaffordable because wages have not kept up with rising rents."

Homelessness is on the rise in many communities, a trend closely linked to housing cost pressures. Nationwide point-in-time counts find the homeless population has surged roughly 30% from 2022 to 2024 (from about 1.75 to 2.3 homeless persons per 1,000 people. Among those who do have housing, housing insecurity is widespread. Approximately 70% of the lowest-income renter households spend over half their income on rent. Eviction filings and housing instability disproportionately hit low-wage workers who live paycheck to paycheck. In essence, many manual laborers must choose substandard housing, crowd in with roommates/family, or face constant peril of losing housing. The lack of affordable homes is stark. For every 100 extremely low-income renters, only 37 affordable units are available in the U.S. market, down from a surplus of affordable units decades ago. This structural shortage means many working poor must compete for scarce cheap units or rely on waiting lists for subsidized housing that stretch for years.

Housing is just one facet of dignified living. Food security is another basic pillar. Recent data show that food insecurity (lack of consistent, sufficient food) has been climbing, especially as pandemic-era aid expired and inflation hit grocery prices. In 2023, 13.5% of U.S. households (18 million households, over 47 million people) were food-insecure at some point, a sharp increase from about 10% of households in 2021. Nearly 1 in 5 children now lives in a food-insecure family. Feeding America, the largest hunger relief network, reports that in 2023 more than 50 million people turned to charitable food assistance, (food banks, pantries, community meals) a huge portion of them employed adults who simply arenâ(TM)t earning enough to feed themselves after paying for housing and other bills. In 2023, an estimated 37% of food-insecure people had incomes above the eligibility cutoff for most federal nutrition programs. These are often single adults or childless couples working full-time at $12-$18/hr who are deemed âoenon-poorâ by program rules, even though in reality they canâ(TM)t afford all their bills.

Even for those below the poverty line, cash assistance has become notoriously hard to get. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced traditional welfare in 1996) now reaches only a small fraction of poor families. Only 21 out of every 100 families in poverty received TANF cash aid in 2023, down from 68% in the mid-1990s. In many states the situation is even worse: extremely strict eligibility rules and work requirements mean very few poor families can access help. For instance, some states demand virtually destitute income and asset levels to qualify (often "far below the poverty line" in practice) The result is that most low-income workers cannot rely on welfare if their job income falls short or if they lose a job the program just isnâ(TM)t catching people as intended. And despite the strong need, some states have been cutting what little assistance exists: in 2025, South Dakota's legislature reduced TANF benefits by 10% (on the way to a 35% cut), even though the maximum benefit for a parent with two kids was only a few hundred dollars per month.

Moreover, the expanded federal supports that briefly helped low-income workers during the COVID-19 crisis (stimulus checks, enhanced Child Tax Credit, emergency SNAP allotments, eviction moratoriums) have largely expired. Poverty spiked sharply in 2022 after the expiration of many of these measures. In 2023 and 2024, many states also reinstated stricter SNAP work requirements and Medicaid eligibility reviews, leading to drops in enrollment even among eligible people. All of this means low-wage workers today have fewer safety nets even as their need persists or grows. For example, in early 2023 the federal government ended emergency SNAP supplements that had provided extra food aid during the pandemic at a time when grocery prices were 10-15% higher than two years prior. Food banks reported a wave of new clients after those benefits were cut, as families suddenly had $100+ less per month for food. Compounding matters, in 2024 the USDA cut funding for certain food purchase programs for food banks (such as the Emergency Food Assistance Program), citing budget issues. Food banks in multiple states reported fewer deliveries of staples like milk, cheese, and produce due to these cuts.

The need for many low-wage workers to juggle two or more jobs is a direct symptom of structural issues in the U.S. labor market. When one full-time paycheck wonâ(TM)t pay the bills, workers often take on extra shifts or side gigs. Data confirm that multiple jobholding is on the rise: as of 2025, roughly 5.4% of all employed Americans (about 8.9 million people) are working more than one job, the highest rate in well over a decade. Even a full-time job doesnâ(TM)t net enough pay, so evenings or weekends are spent driving for Uber, delivering food, or doing other gig work to supplement income.

Why is one job not enough? Wage Stagnation: Over the past 40+ years, wages for typical workers have barely grown in real terms, even as the economyâ(TM)s productivity and wealth soared. From 1979 to 2019, U.S. labor productivity rose about 60%, but the median workerâ(TM)s compensation rose only ~16% in real terms. In other words, the typical workerâ(TM)s pay has decoupled from productivity, creating a large productivity-pay gap. Most gains flowed to higher-income earners and owners, while low- and middle-wage workers saw almost flat inflation-adjusted pay. This long-run stagnation means that the inflation-adjusted value of, say, a $15/hour wage today is roughly what $15/hour was decades ago. But costs for housing, college, medical care, and other essentials have climbed. The minimum wage is a stark example: the federal $7.25 wage hasnâ(TM)t budged since 2009, and is now worth 26% less in purchasing power than in 2009 due to inflation. Many states and employers have raised pay floors on their own, but still, a $15 wage in 2025 has significantly less buying power than the same wage did in 2020 because inflation jumped post-pandemic. Recent years (2021â"2023) did see nominal wage growth for low-income workers amid a tight labor market, but inflation eroded much of those gains.

Benefit Erosion: Many manual labor and service jobs today lack benefits that were more common in mid-20th-century employment. Only 24% of private-sector workers in the lowest wage decile have access to an employer-provided medical insurance plan. Even in the bottom quarter of the wage distribution, barely a third have medical benefits at work. The vast majority of low-wage workers also do not have employer retirement plans or paid leave. This means low-income workers often pay significant out-of-pocket costs for health care (or skip care entirely), and they cannot easily save for retirement through payroll deductions. The gig economy has expanded (e.g. rideshare drivers, delivery couriers classified as independent contractors), offering flexibility but usually no benefits or job security. A warehouse worker might drive for DoorDash on weekends â" but that second gig has no health insurance, no 401k, and no sick leave. The result is higher expenses and risks that effectively lower their net standard of living. For instance, consider healthcare: if an uninsured worker has to pay for a doctor visit or medication, that cost can wipe out a big chunk of their paycheck. Lower-wage workers also pay more for essentials like banking (more likely to incur fees without direct deposit), car insurance (often higher in low-income ZIP codes), and borrowing (higher interest if credit is poor). All these factors squeeze budgets tighter. Thus, lacking benefits is akin to an extra "wage penalty." It's no surprise that lower-wage workers report high rates of delaying medical treatment or falling into debt, further destabilizing their finances.

Rapid Cost Inflation in Key Necessities: Weâ(TM)ve discussed housing and food, but other necessities have also risen in cost relative to wages. Child care costs, for example, have exploded in many areas â" often rivaling rent in size. Transportation costs (car payments, insurance, gas) eat up a large share of a modest income, especially in areas without good public transit. The combination of stagnant pay and high inflation in these necessary expenditures (housing, childcare, medical, education) creates a structural imbalance: even a very frugal budget for a single adult requires an income that many low-wage jobs simply do not provide. And while minimum wages are slowly rising in some states, inflation in rent and other costs often outstrips those increases. During 2021â"2023, rents rose ~10-20% in many cities while many low-wage workers saw raises of perhaps 5-8% â" leaving them relatively worse off. One concrete measure of this squeeze: by 2025, the share of Americans reporting they live paycheck-to-paycheck (with little to no emergency savings) reached well over 60%, including a significant fraction of middle-income households. But among those earning under $50k, an even higher percentage have virtually no financial cushion. Living paycheck-to-paycheck means any disruption -- a car breakdown, a week of illness, reduced hours -- can spiral into crisis (missed rent, eviction, new debt). This chronic instability often forces people to patch together extra gigs or overtime shifts just to tread water.

Labor Practices and Job Quality: Many manual labor jobs have unpredictable schedules or are part-time when workers want full-time hours. For example, retail and hospitality workers may get 25-30 hours one week and 15 the next, making it hard to earn a steady full-time income. "On-call" scheduling and just-in-time labor practices (common in warehousing and delivery as well) put workers in a bind. they must be available at the employerâ(TM)s whim but end up with less pay than a steady 40-hour job. This can compel workers to find a second job to fill the gaps. Additionally, lack of career pathways in many of these jobs traps workers at low pay. There are fewer "stepping stone" opportunities from a low-wage job to a higher-wage one than in the past. For instance, a warehouse picker or a janitor might find it difficult to move into a supervisory or technical role without significant retraining, which they have no time or money for. This means many remain stuck with minimal raises year after year. The decline of unions in many sectors also correlates with weaker wage growth and benefits for low-skill jobs.

A final dimension of a dignified and sustainable life is the ability to plan for the future, including some security in retirement. Unfortunately, low-wage manual laborers are often unable to save for retirement and will rely almost entirely on Social Security benefits. Benefits which, at current levels, barely cover basic needs and are facing uncertainty in the coming decades. Studies repeatedly show that Americans with lower incomes have minimal retirement savings, if any. The situation is especially dire for those in physically demanding jobs, who may need to retire earlier for health reasons but have the least ability to afford it. Many manual laborers work for employers that do not offer 401k plans or pensions. Even when a plan is available, contributing to it may be impossible because their wages barely suffice for immediate expenses. The consequence is that by the time they reach their 60s, they have little more than Social Security to count on. For example, the Federal Reserveâ(TM)s data on consumer finances consistently finds that about one-quarter of working adults have no retirement savings or pension at all, and this is heavily concentrated among the lower-wage workforce. Those that do have savings have very modest balances, often only a few thousand dollars, which is nowhere near enough for a retirement that could last 20+ years. Social Security benefits, while crucial, are not generous. The average Social Security retirement benefit in 2024 is around $1,900 per month (about $23,000 per year) For someone who worked their whole life in low-paying jobs, the benefit might be lower than that average, since Social Securityâ(TM)s formula ties benefits to earnings history. An annual income of ~$23k is roughly equivalent to a full-time wage of $11 per hour â" far below a living wage in almost any community. While Social Security alone does keep many seniors out of extreme poverty (itâ(TM)s an essential floor), it does not guarantee what most would consider a comfortable or dignified retirement, especially as healthcare costs tend to rise in old age. If our hypothetical manual worker retires and gets ~$1,500-$1,800 a month from Social Security, how will they afford rent on a one-bedroom that now costs $1,500? Many are and will be forced to downsize living arrangements drastically, rely on relatives, or continue working part-time in old age to supplement benefits.

Moreover, the future of Social Security benefits is uncertain under current funding projections. The latest Social Security Trusteesâ(TM) report (2025) projects that the programâ(TM)s trust fund reserves will be depleted by 2034 if no reforms are made, at which point incoming payroll taxes would cover only about 81% of scheduled benefits. Other estimates often cite a ~20â"23% cut by 2033â"2034 under current law. While most policymakers say they will prevent this outcome, the uncertainty itself is stressful for workers nearing retirement with no other safety net. Low-wage workers are the ones who can least afford any cut, as they depend on Social Security for the majority of their income in old age. Additionally, manual laborers often have shorter healthy working lifespans. Years of physically demanding work can lead to chronic injuries or health issues (bad backs, worn knees, etc.), sometimes pushing them out of the workforce before Social Securityâ(TM)s full retirement age. If one has to claim Social Security early at age 62 due to ill health, their monthly benefit is permanently reduced. They might receive only 70-75% of the full benefit amount, pushing their income even closer to poverty in retirement. For example, a home health aide who can no longer lift patients by her early 60s may feel forced to take Social Security at 62; if her full benefit at 67 would have been $1,200, at 62 it might be under $900. That is barely $10,000 annually. Itâ(TM)s clear that "aging out" of manual labor poses a huge financial risk for those without savings. We should also consider that many low-income workers have jobs without formal retirement benefits and thus may not even contribute consistently to Social Security (for instance, gig workers or those frequently unemployed). Gaps in employment or low lifetime earnings mean their Social Security checks will be on the low end. The median retirement account balance for the bottom quintile of earners is effectively $0, and even the second-lowest quintile is only in the low five figures. These people will rely on Social Security as perhaps 90%+ of their retirement income, whereas higher earners often have other assets.

In conclusion: The evidence gathered across wages, living costs, housing, food security, and systemic trends leads to a clear conclusion: a full-time manual labor job at prevailing wages is generally insufficient to support a single adult in the United States in a dignified, sustainable manner. This holds not just in the priciest coastal cities, but in a broad swath of communities nationwide. When working poverty becomes common, i.e. people laboring full-time yet unable to afford basic rent, food, or healthcare, it signals structural problems in the economy and policy.

All the functional checks are done in the producer and consumer client code - the only thing any Confluent hosted tier does is check to see whether the schema-encoded Kafka message contains a schema ID that matches one for that topic, it does absolutely no data validation otherwise.

So, if you have a bad client, you can publish data to a topic which does not validate against any schema, but the topic will accept it so long as the schema ID presented is valid. The entire thing is based on trust.

You can do much better validation than their implementation, essentially, and lose nothing.

So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results.

Socialism as a black market approach, interesting.

So you get to pay taxes AND fund other peoples basic needs voluntarily through a non-governmental path. Which means that only those people that are giving a fuck about others are actually contributing.

If lawmakers were serious and believed in the provisions they must have had a good idea in advance what reaction to expect from industry so why have they folded so easily?

I sometimes get the distinct impression lawmakers don't even care and just dangle the threat of promulgating good reasonable provisions just to rake in corrupt political contributions.

Actually he tried and partly failed because it was only partly legal.

That might not stop him from trying, and unless Congress or the courts rein him in, it won't stop him from doing it. As I pointed out above, in this case it's unclear that anyone would have standing to sue (not taxpayers; it wouldn't be tax money -- maybe nVidia or China, but they like the deal), so stopping him would probably require Congress to act. And what are the odds that the Republican Congress would grow a spine?

"Not be possible" is too strong.

It's clearly possible unless Congress or the courts prevent it, even though it is clearly illegal. But Trump is doing lots of things that are clearly illegal, which is why the courts keep issuing injunctions to stop him (and then SCOTUS keeps staying the injunctions to let him go ahead and do it anyway, at least for a while). In a sane world, the fact that an action is illegal would be a stronger constraint because the president would have to be concerned that Congress would impeach and convict him, and he would have to be concerned about potential criminal liability. In the world that exists, the GOP leadership in Congress refuses to do their job to rein in the executive, and SCOTUS has declared the president above the law so there are few practical limitations on his power.

So far, the only thing that seems to really make Trump back off is when the stock market crashes.

Nevertheless, a slush fund of several billion dollars per year that the president is truly able to spend with complete discretion would be a significant additional increase in power because it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue, so courts could not intervene regardless of constitutionality. Congress would be able to intervene, of course, but, again, the GOP-led Congress has almost completely abdicated. I had to add "almost" only because they actually did stand up to him on the Epstein files (sort of; the bill left Pam Bondi with near-total freedom to withhold anything she wants, not legally, but practically).

No, Trump is more secretive than most other presidents. You're confusing "unfiltered and disorganized" with "transparent". I do have to grant that he's incredibly transparent about his corruption. Well, maybe. He has been transparently corrupt in lots of ways, but it still seems likely that there's more corruption which he's keeping hidden.

Excel is dumpster with a hole rusted through the bottom leaving a trail of garbage everywhere it goes.

"A programmatic scan of leading genomics journals reveals that approximately one-fifth of papers with supplementary Excel gene lists contain erroneous gene name conversions."

https://link.springer.com/arti...

Whenever I get data in excel I cringe. The data will almost always be mangled requiring me to go back to the source and ask them to change their workflow.

Just before Thanksgiving I received a spreadsheet full of serial numbers. The serial numbers with letters in them were fine. The serial numbers that were all numeric all ended with a 0 due to irreversible loss of precision.

Decades ago I loved seeing all the shit people would come up with in excel, access and oracle forms. It let people who do not get paid to do this shit get useful value. Everyone else... professionals who should know better than to use excel is an another story entirely.

Where did you read that? If it's true it would be momentous. A totally discretionary fund of $2-6B per year (based on nVidia's projections of selling $2-5B per quarter to China) would give the president enormous unchecked power.

I've spend some time searching and haven't found anything to substantiate this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see where you got the idea from.

But you repeat yourself.