This is just the latest escalation in a long-running arms race that incentivizes both sides to spam and use automation. It goes back at least as far as employers using keyword filtering. Now with AI-generated applications, AI-hosted interviews, and ghost jobs, the process is so completely broken that hires rarely happen without "connections." It's turned previously somewhat-meritocratic job markets into the pure cronyism of a corrupt 3rd world country because that's the only hiring option that hasn't been ruined by automation.

Unfortunately applying for 100 jobs doesn't mean getting invited to 100 computerized interviews these days, on average you'd get a number of interviews you could count on one hand, so things are far worse for job seekers who have clearly lost the arms race and are getting absolutely massacred.

I've heard people propose attaching fees to job applications to keep job seekers from growing the haystacks with spam, and while it would work to do that it would also act as an inequality accelerator. But if there were some system in place to limit the number of applications that job seekers could send and punish companies that post ghost jobs it would greatly improve the system.

My latest vaccine shots had the 6G upgrade, to take advantage of the higher-speed web access when the networks upgrade, but if they're selling those frequencies to high-power carriers, then I won't be able to walk into any area that handles AT&T or Verizon. :P

Seriously, this will totally wreck the 6G/WiFi6 specification, utterly ruin the planned 7G/WiFi7 update, and cause no end of problems to those already using WiFi6 equipment - basically, people with working gear may well find their hardware simply no longer operates, which is really NOT what no vendor or customer wants to hear. Vendors with existing gear will need to do a recall, which won't be popular, and the replacement products simply aren't going to do even a fraction as well as the customers were promised - which, again, won't go down well. And it won't be the politicians who get the blame, despite it being the politicians who are at fault.

Not enough to affect overall costs signficantly.

I remember seeing a study that came out around the pandemic that found that at that time, replacing all fossil fuels with synthetic e-fuels would require world grid electricity production to be tripled to quadroupled, in which scenario at least 1/3rd of this theoretical world's grid power, more than the entire output of the real world's electrical grid at the time, would end up being turned into waste heat through combustion engines (vs EV powertrains which are well over 90% efficient). How much have things improved since then?

We've had a few decades of "experience" and the build times have only gotten longer, if a lack of experience were the problem you'd expect build times to get shorter over time, especially after clusters of successful builds, but what we see is closer to the opposite. I'll get to the reason for that later...

Being proven wrong would be mildly annoying to me but what I'm really afraid of is being proven right, that would be catastrophic for the only life-bearing planet in the known universe.

Actually that's quite plausible. It's the only competitively priced option for new energy generation builds.

And that artificial construct is tied exclusively to nuclear power. It's social constructs doing it rather than the laws of physics, but the end result won't be much easier to escape in our lifetimes. Attempt nuclear power build, receive development hell because most countries have a societal phobia of nuclear energy.

Most countries don't have the relatively low nuclear power resistance of Canada or France unfortunately. Germany has fucked up mightily by closing nuclear plants unnecessarily and becoming highly reliant on Russian fossil fuels at the same time, but even with that they haven't been doing that badly on emissions, with fairly steady decreases in emissions per capita and global CO2 emissions percentage. Gross emissions only kicked up as Russia invaded Ukraine:

https://www.worldometers.info/...

The problem isn't the technology, it's the public perception and the increasing regulatory scrutiny that comes with it. It gets worse after every blockbuster nuclear scare movie, actual nuclear disaster no matter how improbable like Chernobyl or Fukushima, or overblown nuclear hiccup like TMI. The only regulatory barriers getting worse for renewables are from fascist backlash which is generally not a majority opinion.

Renewables use storage now, so a solar plant still puts out energy in the dead of night. You should look into it.

Synthetic fuels won't work as a mainstream solution, they're incredibly energy-intensive to produce and then they go into engines that turn most of the energy the fuel holds straight into waste heat anyway. So having an advantage for synthetic fuel production isn't much of a positive.

That's just an average of construction time over roughly the entire history of nuclear power, which doesn't account for the fact that building nuclear power in modern times is much slower:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/20...

Saying that the average build time is under 8 years now is like counting all the cars made since the Model T and arguing that an average new car has a significant chance of having a carburetor or whitewall tires.

I want to avoid tarpitting any money that could go to decarbonizing the grid in nuclear development hell. That money could go into renewable power that could be putting electricity on the grid before the nuclear project has even defeated all the NIMBYs and anti-nuclear groups for a site to finalize a plant design on. Nuclear has a much longer and more failure-ridden history of trying the same things over and over than renewable does. Renewables look like a runaway success in comparison:

https://ourworldindata.org/ele...

If nuclear power could help then why couldn't renewable? They both produce electricity which faces similar challenges for fueling vehicles and producing fertilizer. Nuclear is more expensive than renewable and far, far slower to build. If waiting for a solution is dangerous, then nuclear power is the most dangerous of potential solutions. Reactor build time is measured in decades. We should start building reactors now for areas that don't have the geography for renewables, but they'll only be possible to complete in time to put the finishing touches on a mostly-renewable solution.

The reason fossil fuel use isn't in rapid decline in favor of renewables is mostly that existing fossil power is cheaper than new renewables. It's the same problem for an ICE-powered vehicle you already own vs. a new EV, or an existing LNG plant vs. a new wind farm.

A big part of the problem is economic, this won't be cheap to fix and we have an economy where an ever-increasing share of humanity's productive output goes toward pointlessly filling up the Scrooge McDuck vaults of the ownership class, and when they do spend a decent chunk of their wealth it's on stupid shit that often makes the problem worse. Instead of having a middle class that can afford new EVs and renewable energy we have billionaires with full-scale rocketry hobbies and ruined social media sites accelerating the spread of pro-fossil-fuel fascism.

You build a Mr. Fusion nuclear reactor and use it to power your DeLorean time machine with which you go back in time several decades and get a whole planet's worth of nuclear reactors started in time to contribute to solving today's global warming problems.

Orrr you could build lots of renewable power today which is cheaper and way faster and doesn't require a time machine, but may cause damage to conservative feefees.

I have a friend who used to work for a call center. Specifically for Visa. He told me they have idiots on the line because most clients are just idiots.

I asked him why the fuck whenever i call the support number i have to listen to my statement read by a computer. Your total is x. Your minimum is y. Your statement due date is z. Your available credit is $, and on and on and on. He said, it's because 90% of our calls were people asking for that information. They made it skippable, so people skipped that part and insisted in asking the same to a human. So they made it unskippable and still, a few people get through and ask for the questions the IVR just answered.

So yeah. Support is very expensive if all of your agents have to be qualified, knowledgeable, and able to help, because 90% of the clients don't need that. They need a human that will spoonfeed them the same information they can get over the IVR or an app.

It's weird that you understand that Trump is a nutcase and yet you also buy into every manufactured culture-war controversy that his party excretes.

It sounds like you'd like a President who does all the anti-woke culture-war crap that Trump does but with more level-headed economic policies.

The "racism and sexism" you have a problem with is largely a strawman constructed by the right for the right.

This. Bernie is wrong. We should've had a 3-day work week back in 2021 based on productivity improvements since the '70s.

It's quite similar to the way phones have phased out keyboards though...

It would be good if CEOs switched to scaring employees and appeasing shareholders with threats from AI rather than fake job posts.

My point was that with little to no unoccupied autonomous cars actually driving around, it's disingenuous to say that it's possible to reduce cars' access to public roads without reducing people's access to public roads. Maybe the number of people getting access overall is higher, but they're not all the same people. Using public transport is such an apples-and-oranges difference from driving that a lot of people were probably forced to leave their job and/or move by this change. Congestion charges work by forcing the drivers who can least afford it to stop driving. It reminds me of how in a lot of American cities in the 20th century, ghettoes were razed to build highways or parks or stadiums.

That'll keep those unoccupied autonomous cars from causing traffic now that they have to pay with their...bitcoins? AAA points?

The idea seems much less anti-poor if you simply skim over who is no longer driving, which the people who support congestion charges always do. They're masters of whitewashing and euphemism.

Would you argue that this program didn't take the poorest 10% of drivers off the road?