It sure seems to be a Quantum Computer to me.
It either works or it doesn't.
Nobody seems to know for sure one way or the other, not the CEO who is still running tests to see, and not their detractors who can only speak in percentage certainties.
Prediction: When the question collapses into one state or the other, it will either turn out to be just an exotic classical computer, or it won't work at all. Because if it turned out to work as intended, then it would effectively prove that particles are both waves and particles and that we know what they are doing, and AFAIK that's against the rules.
But until then, the whole question is in a super-position.
What is usually going on in cases like this, (and they are far more frequent that you'd suspect) is that you're not going to look simply because you don't want to feel 'wrong' about something. In your mind, you honestly believe that if you don't see it, then you can maintain your illusion of reality. Most adults reach the emotional maturity of a five to eight year-old and then stop developing, and this is why such childish systems of management are so common among adults. This is not your fault. Society does this to you by design to keep you weak and ignorant.
It is the result of growing up in a hyper-competitive culture, in a school system which pits children against one another, causing them to build emotional and mental shields for protection.
I've done the work to move beyond that. As a result, I don't care about winning arguments. I care about knowing reality and sharing that knowledge with others who don't have it, such as yourself. I don't want your outrage and I certainly don't mind what you go away thinking.
But until you explore the world and the (easily) available material on a subject, it means your opinions on that subject are worth exactly nothing.
Those who profess wisdom while refusing to explore the world are insignificant. This is a sad truth. You can fix it, but it is a rare, rare thing when people actually do.
It takes a monumental amount of work to take down those walls and build new systems of spiritual management which will then allow the processing of actual knowledge.
I could be wrong, of course, but I'm probably not. In any case, please feel free to ignore and forget the preceding. This is for the benefit of others reading here as much as for your own.
I see. All of the advances in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries are "a blip".
Now you're catching on.
Look around you, look at the world. We're presently experiencing the tail end. Enjoy it while it lasts. These are the good times.
What the holy fuck are you talking about?
Don't worry about that. Forget I said anything.
Dude, the pot's made you paranoid.
Yeah, also you shouldn't let the fact that I don't use drugs alarm you. You're certain I'm full of nonsense, right? So there you go! You're fine. The things you ignore can't hurt you, right?
Secondly, 2) if you knew that was such a fucking weak piece of evidence, why didn't you explain it in your original post, thereby diverting everybody who instantly thinks "wow this guy is wrong" reading it? So you're wrong and dumb.
No. People who are not programmed to be offended by these ideas would quickly recognize what I was talking about.
The question you could benefit from asking yourself is "Why am I reacting so strongly to this?"
The answer is this, and it's worth taking a long moment to consider this, because it may be the only truly important and valuable thing you will hear all year: There is a predator in your mind which knows that it is being threatened by ideas which would make you stronger and it weaker. It's response is to pump anger into your mind which you will mistake for your own. This is how it controls you. This is how it has always controlled you.
You are a prisoner. When you understand that, then you will have a chance of moving forward.
So what I come away with from this is, "My words don't mean what they say, they mean something else! If you can't figure out what that is, it's your own fault."
No, I was actually being relatively clear; more so than is normal around here. The fact is, I was specifically addressing another person who was using the fact that people generally hold different definitions for many common wordings to evade an idea s/he was uncomfortable with. It wasn't that this person did not understand; s/he did not WANT to understand.
You are doing something similar; you are deliberately getting hung up on inconsequential differences in the stream of communication while avoiding the central ideas, which if they were truly hard for you to grasp, you could ask for clarifications on. But instead you attack nonsense.
Did it occur to you to actually check that before typing it? Cars only look expensive if you fail to account for cost-of-living and inflation-- they're cheaper now than ever before.
This is false in a couple of ways. I've covered this in my responses to others.
Yes. We've gone from having periodic famines to an having an obesity epidemic. Haven't you been paying attention?
We have rising standards of living around the world. That is how it worked out.
If you think we are beyond famines, you will be having a very difficult awakening quite soon, I think. Our industrial revolution thus far has been a blip.
In any case, I wasn't being quite so literal, and I think you knew that. There is an economic crash still in progress, wars, homelessness and a general chaos wherein many millions of people are being squeezed ever more tightly. THAT is the end result of our activities in the industrialized West. It should have been a panacea, but instead people are losing their homes and going hungry.
Facts on the ground, right? THAT is how things are currently 'working' out, and this is all a direct result of our business practices wherein we treat people as though they are commodities.
You were talking about makework jobs inasmuch as the person you were responding to was talking about automation. Denying automation on the basis of creating/maintaining jobs is the definition of makework jobs. If you wanted to talk about something else, you should have made that clear, because nobody else was talking about that.
If you want to get hung up on definitions, then you will make no progress. I'm talking about something larger which does in fact make sense. Try to step outside the equation you have been taught, because that equation has resulted in the economic mess we are all living in at the moment. Clearly it doesn't work very well.
And tribalism is not the same as neighbourliness. Neighbourliness isn't exclusive. Tribalism is. Neighbourliness is also inherently limited in scope (people in New York are not the neighbours of people in California -- if they were, why wouldn't people in India be your neighbours?). Tribalism is not.
Sorry. I have no interest in diving into a nonsense semantic argument filled with revolving definitions. If you cannot understand the intent behind my words it is because you are being evasive. What good is that? It's the same as covering your eyes and singing loudly rather than learning. The old patterns have failed us. Why cling to them?
Typically a stay-at-home parents were still doing work; it's not a lifetime vacation.
Yes, and the work of parenting still needs to be done on top of the regular jobs mothers and fathers have to hold. The difference is that today there is less time and energy available for this exactly because both parents need to be working in order to earn a living income. This leads to exhaustion and a weakened family structure. I'm not sure what your point is.
Can you see how this plays into the economic structure? If people are having to work harder for the same end results, then the numerical price tag on a car is not a true reflection of its real cost.
Automation should result in a freeing up of time, but our time is tighter than ever. Clearly, the system is leaking wealth, and the point of that leak is the banking system with its usery/interest scam and the oligarchy which is milking the populace dry.
Sending jobs away without replacing them is just a symptom of a psychopathic system where people ignore the needs of the others in their community. That's a small piece of the puzzle, but it is very telling.
Try to grasp what I am saying here rather than seize on those definitions which do not happen to match your own. One can always find discrepancies among words.
That is useful data, but it doesn't really address the point of my post.
I suggest going back to read what I wrote, unless you were deliberately ignoring it and were simply offering these calculations for the sake of interest.
And people in other countries don't need to buy food? Shareholders don't need to buy food or save to pay their expenses (food again) after they retire? Lawnmower engine customers don't need to buy food? Mechanical engineers doing factory automation don't need to buy food?
Of course they do. What does any of that have to do with automation? Since you didn't supply a point with your questions, I'll do it for you:
Automation should make it easier to feed everybody. Except that's not how it worked out, is it? That means there's a leak in the system. That leak is two-fold; banks charging interest on money which cannot be paid back because not enough exists to pay it back, and oligarchical greed.
Together, these small improvements are the difference between a modern 21st century lifestyle and a 17th century subsistence farming lifestyle. Which one is better?
That's not a fair comparison. Industrialization isn't the problem. The problem is that it was perverted and corrupted so that the populace barely sees a fraction of the wealth which has been created. And that little fraction of a bone the psychopathic bosses toss us isn't even enough to prevent the coming food riots.
That's because psychopaths are not capable of forward thinking beyond their immediate desires.
Shipping jobs overseas without first ensuring alternative systems are in place to feed and employ the newly unemployed is an apt example of that kind of psychopathic greed.
"The Free Market" is just a lofty-sounding excuse for "Unfettered Fuck You Jack Greed".
Many people will object to that on grounds that it makes them sound as bad as they actually are. And that's the point. They are.
Um, actually, yes, they are. The car of today is cheaper (after adjusting for inflation), more efficient and more reliable then it has ever been.
"Um" yourself. You're just plain wrong.
1989 average car price was around $15,000
1999 average was around $21,000
2009 average is closer to $27,000
Adjusting for inflation doesn't cover that by a long shot. Why? Because the number of hours the average family needs to work has nearly doubled since the 80's.
In the 80's, it was quite possible for a middle class family to have a stay at home parent and still maintain a comfortable lifestyle. Today, that's a fantasy. And even with that, people *still* don't have enough left over income. That's the result of industry feeding on people, not the other way around.
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself. And intentionally perpetuating inefficiencies in order to create makework jobs is trying to make the population at large serve industry.
Don't put words into my mouth, please. I'm not talking about makework jobs. I'm talking about banks fucking off and stopping the practice of usery which is destroying us all. I'm talking about preventing the psychopathic executives, the top 5% of the population taking home 75% of the national income.
And also. . , there is nothing wrong with tribalism. Why? Because it's just another word for "Neighborliness". Taking care of the people in your immediate community is the *point* of this wonderful industry; to allow people more time and free energy to explore and grow in spirit.
If people far away need better lives, then what we need to do is leave them alone rather than poison them and corrupt their systems for our benefit.
The flaw in your argument is that people still have to pay their mortgage and buy food, etc. The labor, at the moment, is free now to starve, because the banks have enslaved everybody and the jobs are not within walking or driving distance. Is the labor supposed to move overseas?
If the automation process allowed people to work less, then you'd have a point, but they still need to put in as many hours to get paid in order to survive.
Put another way. . .
Are cars getting cheaper because labor costs have dropped? No, they aren't. Cars are getting more expensive. -In a balanced system, the cars would need to get cheaper in order to compensate for the fact that people are getting paid less.
The thing people are forgetting is that industry was invented to serve the population, not the other way around.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759