Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The only way to fix it is to fix the rewards (Score 1) 91

> lay all the problems at "capitalism" a dog whistle for the USA

Well, those are distinct problems, economics (the social science) and authority figures.

But actually who said capitalism is the root of all problems in this case?

I know of no one who uttered the word that "capitalism is the root of all problems"

However, is that an actual point making the many posts speaking of end stage capitalism, or is from OP "With capitalism we are rushing off the side of a cliff."

not If you demand specific wording, no - I saw no such exact wording. But unless you are new here, there is a lot of hate heaped on "capitalism" Especially towards one particular country where there is a narrative that said country is run by capitalism. It isn't

How would capitalism do if the market accounted a lot better for negative social costs and the playing field's current maximum rate of unlevelness was rolled back?

Well, let's look at the country in question. Here in the USA we are not living under capitalism. We have a combination of corporatism, with a lot of socialism effects tossed in.

There are many benefits for people of low economic means. Free phones, free laptops, Heating oil assistance, low cost internet, section 8 housing (if you are not an American, Section 8 is a program where a low income person pays a small amount, perhaps a couple hundred dollars a month for their apartment and the Government picks up the rest) WIC- Women, Infants, & Children program giving free food. Medicaid for children and many adults. Medicare, Social Security disabled benefits for adults, and children, even Social Security benefits for children of older parents. We have food Stamp programs, we have free transportation for poor and retired people, including personal pickup and delivery for people living in areas not served by regular public transportation.

This does not sound to me like Capitalism in any shape or form.

These are things that don't get mentioned much. At one point in the past, I provided cites and links to all of this. It varies by state, but even deep red states have these programs.

How would capitalism do if the market accounted a lot better for negative social costs and the playing field's current maximum rate of unlevelness was rolled back?

You tell me. Should there be a maximum allowable salary? How do we make a completely level playing field? Force the driven not to work?

I have to note, I was born in poverty, and worked myself up to around top 10 percent. Zero help. Put myself through college, built a salable skillset. Doing 6 figures in retirement. So I'm probably in the group who need penalized for success.

So how do we deal with the driven vs the non-driven? How do we deal with those who build something? I built my money through frugal living and saving while young and then at around 50, really hit my stride. Waited until interest rates were down, then bought a house that's below what I was approved for, and paid it off in less than 15 years. Kept saving and investing. Don't want to turn this into Ol's financial classes though.

And I'm astute enough to know that not everyone is going to do that. But in the modern parlance, I am the bad person, and they must have the same economic resources as I do. So yes, I've been told I was part of the problem.

Now I might not be the brightest person in the room, but my experience has been that while some are whining about how bad it is that only some people have money, that the proper gestalt is a level playing field, I would propose that it really isn't possible to make that level playing field. Mainly because of different abilities and individual drives.

What do we do with the "obscene" rich, and the poor that are not driven or mentally capable on the other end. I've personally shown that with drive, a very poor person can work their way up that ladder. Takes hard work and financial smarts. No, not everyone has that combo. And here in the land people love to hate we have a way to help the people that might be stuck on the lower end of the economic scale, and don't really care about rising any further. I support such a system.

Now your solution for a level playing field?

Comment Re:Does anyone like touch screens on a notebook? (Score 1) 72

Does anyone actually have a use case for a touch screen, that can't be better served with a device that prevents it?

Yes, but not for you and me. Graphics designers have been using stylus-displays for years and years, because it's great to draw on the thing you are making instead of drawing on a different surface like a Wacom.

But I'm like you, I don't have a use case for a touchscreen and if you touch my notebook screen I'll be angry because I prefer it without fingerprints, thanks. So my first question is: Do they offer this thing with OLED but without touch? I guess not. Pity.

Comment Re:Wrong question. (Score 3, Insightful) 75

If you haven't read the interview, in it she relates a story where her young daughter's teacher asked her to write three things that made her child special. Apparently she is such an awful mother that she couldn't do that, and turned to AI for assistance. The AI shat out some generic Hallmark style platitudes, and she was delighted.

People like her want to dehumanize all of us to that level.

Comment reason to buy (Score 1) 171

I've been slowly moving towards my dream setup: Solar panels, battery, EV car, island mode capability. This is one thing that'd be a factor in my buying decision. Using your car as a battery or secondary battery is a big plus, and if they built the necessary equipment to run independent of the power grid, it'd come in a neat package.

While power failures are rare where I live, I expect them to become more common with the move to renewable energies. I support that, but it's more fragile than constantly running power stations. So being able to run your home at least for a few hours on your own energy is something that I consider a good idea.

Comment Re:Never Should Have Been So Nothing's Changed For (Score 1) 135

I always thought that coding questions during interviews were stupid anyways even before AI: it's information that one can simply look up with a simple internet search or programming book.

If you could learn to code with one simple internet search and having one book on your shelf, then you'd be right. Also, ha it occurred to you that you've been asking the wrong questions?

The only reason to ask programming questions is to figure out if the person was "fibbing" on their resume about their skills.

Kinda. That's the point of an audition. A substantial number of programmers can't write a simple program in a language of their choice or read existing code they're not already familiar with. I know there are companies that hoover up loads of mediocre people and they just kind of grind doing tiny amounts. And I'm pretty sure some people can only code by randomly permuting code in an existing codebase and seeing what happens.

Plus it shows absolutely nothing about their interpersonal skills, which are as important to be a valued member of a development team.

Gosh it's almost lie you can ask two interview questions or even 3! You don't need to ask a single question than answer every topic.

Comment Re:The only way to fix it is to fix the rewards (Score 1) 91

We don't have to call it communism if it hurts too many snowflake butts. We can call it collective ownership of the means of production or we can say major corporations of a particular size should be majority employee-owned, so as to better include the people who produce the wealth by their labor in the utilization of that wealth for the better of all, rather than it being consumed by the extravagant (and greenhouse gas heavy) lifestyles of the few already morbidly wealthy. Not just RSUs and other tricks of finance to make people think they have real equity in a company, but actual owning, voting shares.

We should definitely shift to renewables and stop looking for more new and harmful ways to get at the last million barrels of oil in a reservoir, etc. The story we're being fed since at least the 80's is that we'd all die without oil. We use it for so many things and processes that we need to continue extracting at such a rate as not to cause a global collapse. So that is what we're doing, exactly as the industry wants to keep profits growing. Capitalism is not democracy. The US and countries that claim to be democracies should keep capital investment out of politics. Capital is short-sighted for the most part, and does not take into account a long-view of what the majority of humans on the planet want, which is to survive as a species. We don't ultimately know how to do that, but we can see what obvious mistakes we're making on the scale of decades and centuries and correct them.

Well, to clarify, since we're. worried about communism versus capitalism, the US is in no way shape or form capitalism. It is a mixture of corporatism and (cover the kid's ears folks!!) socialism. Don't believe it? Tax dollars, quite a few of them in fact, go to things like free laptops and smartphones for the low income, subsidized fuel oil, medicare, medicaid, free food for Women, Infants and Children as well as Food stamps, Section 8 housing, where low income people pay a very small amount per month, while the Government pays the rest. When you are in a 2000 dollar apartment and paying 200 dollars a month, government is picking up the tab. Free or very reduced internet. Free buses for the poor and retired people. If you live in an area without bus service, you can call and get a free ride and return. May older and poor use this service to get back and forth to doctors and other appointments. This even in some very red states.

Doesn't sound much like capitalism to me. I am not opposed to such things. I am not claiming that there are not some economic issues we have. But it creates cognitive dissonance in people that get their facts from our adversaries.

But yeah - there is a middle ground. Collective ownership can work as long as people understand there has a be a group of business savvy people running the business. That said, what I have seen in life is that many to most people don't actually have that savvy.

Comment Re:10000 a year! (Score 1) 25

It probably does cost Google something. They scan apps and devices for malware, and anything that increases the number of apps and ways to distribute them will increase the cost. They also have to certify these app stores, they aren't just going to let anyone set one up and start distributing malware or pirate streaming apps.

It feels calibrated to deter unserious applicants, but not cause further legal woes.

The real issue is F-Droid and similar open source app stores. It remains to be seen exactly how it is going to pan out.

Comment Re:The only way to fix it is to fix the rewards (Score 1) 91

You've tried nothing, dear. You're the epitome of human condition, taking it up the ass and pretending you love it.

Well, how bow the communist revolution? Howbow Chairman Mao, Uncle Joe Stalin, Pol Pot. The revolution of the proletariat. Ha's that workin out for ya Comrade? The were some of teh best humanitarians amirite?

Comment Re:Thermostat (Score 1) 91

First, 'climate' and 'weather' are two very different things. Second, we can't control climate, we can only affect it in very specific ways. Pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere is easy, getting it out is hard (likely impossible).

And we had a very very clear target all along - limit the global temperture increase to no more than 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures. We missed that target.

Yeah, that was the target. Doesn't men that 1750 was the sweet spot, the correct amount of CO2.

I understand that a target is needed, but that target was seriously unrealistic, requiring zero emissions from humans, and a concentrated effort of re-sequestering every bit of Carbon release of over 200 years of release. Even when the concept of radiative forcing was known, we were never going to return to 1750 levels

Comment Re:AI Can't Solve It (Score 1) 91

I was having a serious conversation about this exact issue with AI a few weeks back. The energy is already in the system on earth, how can we reduce that energy, or reverse the effect of climate change. We can't.

That is correct. All we can do is wait it out as the methane degrades to CO2, and the CO2 cycle does its work We're on a roller coaster ride at this point.

This planet is doomed to failure, either like so many before it, or the first in the universe, it doesn't matter at this point.

No, it isn't. It is a human aided change. There have been times in the past when there was much more CO2 in the air. Carbon was sequestered in various times like the Carboniferous, and where the final age, the Pennsylvanian, enough Carbon had been sequestered that the average temperatures on earth cooled enough to stop the large scale forest growth. Humans ended up de-sequestering much of the stored carbon, and that's why we are returning to something like earlier times.

There is a lot of proper concern over the rate of de-sequstering, and we face serious issues. And unless we do something stupid, humanity isn't likely in danger of extinction. But the planet isn't going to fail.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

Working...