There's a lot the government can do to 'smooth the transition'

Just one example. I think it was Toyota that has a small number of craftsmen who know how to build parts manually. Could be another company, but that is besides the point. They did this so the knowledge is retained and how to manufacture/improve is also there.

The government could have laws that a certain number of people oversee AI results for knowledge retention and sanity checks. For example, I worked on cancer/anomaly detection software for a few years. We got pretty close to some of the trial doctors. I'm sure it is improved since then. Does that mean that we can/should get rid of radiographer jobs? I don't think so. We could definitely lower some of the education and have it be more of knowledge retention/overseeing role.

Will it increase costs? Sure, but we can make it manageable. Even say if robots do lawn mowing. We could have regulations that say a human lawn mower can oversee a maximum of 5 robots. Or whatever it is. Yes, it's a bit of a job subsidy. It's also some knowledge retention, oversight...

This can help smooth any transition.

I don't know who downvoted you to a 1, but the 4 year degree has serious problems. I'd argue that mass 4 year degrees are one of the most harmful things Western Society has done to itself.

Let me preface this by saying, I am pro-education. I'm talking specifically about mass 4 year degrees, where everyone is expected to get a 4 year degree. Often it doesn't really improve the person's ability to do a job.

1. Education inflation. I'm in Canada and here it is very common to have to do a 4 year degree before you enter a specific program (med school, nursing, teachers college...). In many countries you can go straight into those programs. I don't think Canada's workers end up 'better'. The 4 year degree is basically just inflation. You need it just because other people get it. Now, even some tight program expect you get a masters degree. Well sure, if you're comparing applicants, and one has a bachelor and one has masters, surely you take the one with the masters right? This can definitely increase inequality as generally wealthier people have the time to get multiple degrees. The rest of the people need to get on with life.

2. The Birth Rate. Most western countries are suffering and part of the reason here is when you are able to 'start a life'. The longer your education, the longer people feel it takes to 'get started in life'. All these educational requirements do in increase the time it takes for you to get started in life. It's not uncommon today to be in school until your late 20s. Then you have to find a job. Feel a bit secure in the job, by that time you're in your early 30s. Then you have to squeeze in getting the right partner, pray the stars align and you can get pregnant. Maybe you can squeeze in 1 or 2 kids tops. There is no reason to spend so much time in school. It should be much more common to get a basic education. Get to a job. Start a family. Once you get some experience, maybe it is worth getting a masters degree... But so many people want all that education front loaded. It's very detrimental.

3. Unions have actually played a part here too. I'm in Canada again and it's weird to me that they too have participated in all the preference for 4 year degrees and masters degree. You should just magically be paid more or get preference just because; even if it has nothing to do with your ability to actually do the job. Like being a bus driver should have nothing to do with how much education you have. You should be a darn good driver and have good customer service skills...

4. Government subsidies. This one is tricky, but I'm going to say we're all subsidized to some level. What's tricky is so often people don't want to admit they're subsidized. A lot of government spending goes into things like universities. If you work in one, you're subsidized. If your city gets one, you're subsidized. Even healthcare. One way to see it is the government is helping the poor. The other way to see it as government funding healthcare workers.

Again, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with a subsidy. But you have to recognize it. These people often don't see it as a subsidy. So when the government tries to fund other people, they just see that as a subsidy and rail against it. What we've done in general is shielded educated workers (Somewhat) from the market, while exposing the poorest to complete global competition. It's sick in my view.

5. Neglecting trades. with so much spending on education focused on the 4 year degree, that has removed funding for things like trades in high school and earlier. Once again hurting a lot of people; often on the poorer end of the system.

I taught for a short time in Canada.

Yes, there are kids from decent parents. I won't even say good parents. You really and truly don't need much from the education system and teachers when you have decent parents. You basically just teach the lesson and grade. It is what it is. There's no magic sauce and you can pretty much leave the education system alone at that point.

The question becomes what do you do with those with troubled upbringing. I literally had a few kids whose parents wouldn't even answer the phone to talk about their kids. Just what exactly do you want a teacher to do in this case? That child is potentially a lost cause.

The answer is you do what you can and YES part of that will overlap with what should be the parents job. You can't magically make parents do their job, but you can certainly empower teachers or at least get out of their way. One of the reasons I left teaching was just being frustrated at being handcuffed. Some of these kids need discipline. Some of these kids just need a good talking to, but as a male teacher, you even fear developing a mentor style role to a female.

One of the worst parts of our education system is that every kid should be given the same opportunities. It all sounds nice, but is really so detrimental to the very kids that need help. Some kids are dealt a really shitty hand in life. What they really need is some structure and basics to get them a decent life. Maybe they can accomplish that and then their kids can do better. In Ontario, Canada there's increasing talk and action about de-streaming (making sure all kids attend the same class. There's no academic stream vs practical stream). People think this is good, but it's so harmful to the very kids who need it.

Yes, there may be bias and racial profiling so a really smart kid gets overlooked and gets placed in a practical stream when they have the potential to be academic and go to university. But that can always be rectified by the child and parent asking for it. But the very kids who are struggling the most don't get the help they need. Life is tough man. Maybe you were dealt a shitty hand in life. Maybe it is best you focus on a trade in high school or practical nursing... just something that YOU CAN do and get you started in life. It's so frustrating when I bring this up in the interest of the kids and all people can talk about in equality and what if there's a kid who could become the next Elon Musk, but they're never given the chance.

Here's what I say. I've yet to see a kid who want to learn and be something not be helped. I honestly haven't seen it. You don't need to worry about 'good' kids. They will find a way. Even if the education is not optimal, they will find a way and be okay in life. But not attending to the kids dealt a really bad hand and pretending they're okay and as capable to be in the same classes as everyone with the same chance of being elon musk is delusional and hurting those very kids.

I found this section interesting.

The data link challenge âoeis not easily solved,â Taiclet said, but with common architecture, once in place, it can be continuously upgraded. Taiclet added that in this âoebig tentâ approach to Pentagon buying services for a specified time means the commercial side needs to move away from âoevendor lockâ â" holding exclusive rights to proprietary information.

I'm going to respond here assuming 'reasonable positive intention'. I'm by no means under any illusion that some people are just greedy and want money. But let's assume for minute reasonable positive intention.

The problem with 'buying' software is always that there is no recurring revenue, unless you can lock people into support contracts or force/encourage them to buy the software again because of security holes, not being kept up to date, interoperability issues...

In my first few years out of school developing software, I was so often disappointed with the quality. But then I spent some time with business and sales. I don't quite know where the balance lies, but it's almost in their interest to NOT write perfect software because then no one would buy it again. When the 'cloud' model became more popular, I genuinely wondered if this would actually increase the quality of software.

Now the business is aligned with technology to not have to rebuild software all the time... It would be in the business interest to write good and reliable software so they have minimal spending on technology and they can just rely on the subscriptions for money. Even user-friendly features like interoperability and what not become less of a problem.

Anyways, reading Lockheed CEO's statement reminded me of that. If the industry can move to a subscription model, everyone can know they will be paid properly and sustainably, then everyone can work together to actually build better products instead of being paranoid about vendor lockin and this and that to secure their business future.

I really think countries/region should just be a bit more honest about their goals. In some ways, I like that the US for example did not sign the anti-landmine treaty. Not that I like landmines :P But I think it's better that the US is honest in saying in war, we might need to use them, so we won't sign this treaty.

I think it is clear that for a wide variety of industries, countries want their own domestic/friendly supply. Sometimes for military reasons, economic security, trade protectionism, redundancy...

While you naturally have to worry about 'over-protectionism' and lagging propped up domestic industry, some degree of domestic industry is something we should be comfortable with.

Even from an individual level. The world is sometimes so specialized that today you need to be in certain areas to even have a job in that field. That's kind of a shame you might need to move across the world just to have a go in your field.

I remember as a Canadian being utterly shocked we had virtually no domestic vaccine production capability during the Covid crises. To me it was just shocking. We've hopefully learned that lesson and have started 'subsidizing' or whatever term the government wants to use to have local production/labs. And that's a good thing. Canadian vaccine researchers and lab people have a local place to work. The subsidies aren't insane. It's less than a billion dollars.

Hey, maybe we could stop pretending we all want perfect free trade and accept a little redundancy. I think it is good China wants it's own chips, and the US does, and Europe does. The latest and greatest will probably only be in one place at a time, but it's okay.

As someone who had a pretty abusive and neglectful childhood, I do acknowledge that it all starts at home. However, the school should also serve as a place for parenting. If they're not getting it at home, she should get some of it at school. Including things like real discipline, consequences, various social rules, dress codes...

We obviously need to make sure it doesn't cross a line, but life is always about balancing things. Too much parental power... too much potential for unchecked abuse and neglect. Too much school power... too much potential for government controlled messaging and indoctrination...

And yes, I agree it has to be local. I grew up in a pretty bad area, and quite frankly I would even go so far as to say teachers in that area should have been allowed to physically restrain students and things like that. That may not be a good solution in a 'good' area where kids are generally well behaved. But people all start at different levels and thus need different things.

When I grew up we had pretty arbitrary rules about no hats, no chewing gum. Doesn't seem all that bad to say no smartphones. Heck... even no phones I'd say. Whatever emergency you think you need to attend to, it can wait till a break in classes. You're also in 'school' which is supervised environment, so if any real emergency happens, people are there.

Lastly, as someone who did teach a few years (in Canada) at least, let me just say that the 'good' kids will almost always find a way to be okay almost regardless of the school. It's the other kids that are of primary concern and rightfully so. In my view, we've really hurt the troubled kids by universalizing curriculum, standards of discipline...

I mean. I'm no robotics expert, but I would think 'mashing' the avocados and mixing ingredients would be the easiest part of automation.

It's possible they just want to not scare people into machines will take all the jobs, but it seems a bit silly they didn't just complete this process. I'm sure it's coming though.

Anyone have a grasp on how much of an impact this 7nm limitation is.

I understand it is most efficient and faster... but how much is it limiting real world use cases?

Industrial/military use I'd imagine that is fine at 10 nm or whatever.
I have an older Ryzen 5 3600 that is 7nm and still works very well.
I'm going to assume regular desktop computer is workable at 10 nm.

I'm guessing mobile phone chips and what not would probably have an impact given how size, battery life... are important. But you could still make pretty functional phones in 10 nm.

I'm just trying to get a sense of the real life impact. I understand it's not going to be as efficient, but can China make 'good enough' chips to function well.

I haven't bought an electric yet.

Personally, I still think plugin-hybrids are the way to go for the next few years. If solid state batteries or other technology comes into play, that can change the equation.

It's going to vary by the person, but let's say a good electric range is 200 km. Enough for a commute and a good buffer.

If you can get a minimal really efficient gas engine for long road trips or something like that, that's all people would need.

I think it is definitely fair to make sure gig workers get paid at least minimum wage.

However, I don't particularly like the idea of tracking how long they are logged into the app as a measure of their hours worked. I understand it to some level, but that just complicates the situation and is ripe for attempts at playing that system for all parties. Just think of a driver who stays logged in all day, but declines the vast majority of deliveries. Last I checked, they can't force you to take a delivery as you are a 'gig worker.

Personally I'd go for something a little more targeted.
How much time they spend driving for their delivery.
Add it some reasonable overhead time for setting up the delivery (whatever that is... 10-15 minutes? )

Yes, you could potentially have less pay the gig workers who are genuinely trying to get deliveries, are logged into the app, but they don't get many deliveries. But those gig workers would already know this gig is not a very consistent job. I mean, how much pay do you actually expect as a 'gig' worker if you don't get any deliveries? We have to play this game at some level accepting they are not actual employees and are contractors.

Yeah. I bought the kids Amazon tablets. Really good tablets and I was looking forward to the parental controls, which seemed really nice.

The problem came up pretty quickly that the Amazon App Store was always behind or missing apps. I eventually caved and installed Google Playstore... on it. Took some research, but it was pretty doable.

Whatever they do, I just hope they offer an easy way to get the Google services. Show off all the privacy stuff you want in your own store, but make it super simple to make it a 'regular android phone'

I just find the summary a bit humorous in context. The world is full of problems.

The summary basically says we can't spend on Climate Change because we need to spend on Women and girls.

Everything is a good cause, but one potentially is catastrophic to entire systems impacting whole populations, drought, farming, flooding, natural disasters.... The other a noble goal, but the world functions okay enough even if women's rights are bad in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or something.

I'm a Canadian, but I real a bit about the Texas power system during the last outage. The system doesn't seem all that in terms of pricing.

I remember something like 90% of all Texans are on a fixed rate plan. Meaning, they're paying the usual 10c/kwh of whatever. Note, I say usual as prices are normally like 8-20c/kwh depending on the state/province.

So most people aren't going to see this crazy bill because they're on a fixed rate plan.

For the people that aren't on a fixed rate, well that can be complicated. They probably save a lot when the market dips (like natural gas drops in price, or wind/solar is having a good time...) but then you can get something like this that just destroys you. I could see it making sense if you're a big business and electricity is a huge cost. Maybe it is worth it to you to gamble on the low rates, and then maybe even shutdown operation if rates get too high. I hope they have some kind of real-time system to monitor and action that.

Same thing with residences that choose to gamble without a fixed rate. Like it or not many people do stupid things thinking they saving a buck. I guess Texas wants to let people have that freedom. My canadian mindset wouldn't want to let that happen for the average person or at least have an auto-cutoff if the rate exceeds X kwph. Yes, I'd definitely rather have a temporary blackout than an insane bill.

I agree. It's a bit vague if this warning impacts any functionality of the drive, but assuming it doesn't, this seems like a really useful warning.

The devil of course is in the details. Does it keep pestering the user. Can they dismiss the warning? Does it reappear after 1 year...

Along that curve, but one of the biggest downsides of new languages is the toolchain needs to be done for a whole other language.

Things like security tools, 'devops', IDEs, various libraries...

All these things help with respect to 'coder competence' and getting the job done. Half the time a new language is released, I think the 'new stuff' could probably have been done by a library or god forbid a code generator or something. They may not be as ideal, but then you keep the rest of the tool chain in tact.

There probably comes a time when it makes sense for a whole new language. Something like the jump to VM languages (C#, Java...). But those are rare.