Many of the comments to this article downplay the jobs replaced by robots, after all, that's what the assembly line is all about, right?

I find it interesting that most of the comments related to AI's potential for replacing jobs, often take a decidedly different tone.

Wages have never been "proportional to productivity", not ever.

Wages (the price of labor) are based on two things, like the price of anything else: supply and demand.

If you do a job that anybody can do (supply is high) and demand is low, wages will be low. If you do a job that only a select few can do (supply is low), and it's in demand, wages will be high.

The idea that wages should be tied to productivity, exists only in the imagination.

Actually, 70% of the middle class is no longer part of the middle class, because they moved to the *upper* class.

https://www.pewresearch.org/ra...

Yes, the middle class shrank from 61% to 50% of the population. But of that 11% drop in the middle class, 2 of 3 moved to the *upper* income category.

Yes, 1 of 3 did move to the lower income category, and that's not good. But it's nowhere near as bad as saying that "70% of middle class jobs lost were due to robots." That's simply false and made-up.

I loved how you cropped the quote from Wikipedia.

Yes, I do agree with the goal of improving the human condition...through personal liberty, personal responsibility, and the right to keep the rewards of my labor (less taxes, a necessary evil). In my view, government is also a necessary evil, that should be restrained and controlled as much as possible, to keep it from becoming an Orwellian monster. So, are we still on the same page?

The wealthy are wealth-creators under capitalism. I have no love for Elon Musk. He is an arrogant SOB who is motivated by nothing but insatiable greed. But the man also employs nearly 200,000 people, very many in good, well-paying jobs.

Under Socialism, the wealthy are leeches. They gain their wealth through sucking up to the people in power, who dole out tax money and government favors to their friends.

Every economic system has wealthy people. The question is, under which system are wealthy people the lesser evil? From everything I've seen, it's the wealthy under capitalism who do the most good, and the least harm, to regular people. The more power you give government, the more the wealthy people tap into that power to take the people's money for themselves.

We actually do know what causes people to abuse the welfare system: people will do what we incentivize them to do. If you offer more money for more children, people will have more children. If we cut welfare benefits the moment recipients get a job, people will not try hard to get a job.

I'm well aware of the concept of wealth inequality (another progressive hot topic). Inequality is a fact and has always been a fact. It's not something that can be eliminated or even meaningfully reduced. What *can* be done, is change the kinds of things that reward people with wealth. In Socialist countries, people who the political elite, or friends with the elite, are the ones rewarded with wealth. In Capitalist countries, people who invest money and create businesses (i.e., jobs) are the ones who are rewarded with wealth. The second option does a lot more good for a lot more people.

"Progressive" does come from the root word "progress" but the meaning has significantly diverged. This Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of explaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

My real wages link is from the US Federal Reserve, you can't get more reliable numbers than that.

I thought sure he was going to work the word "billionaire" in there somehow, but the closest he got was "billion". I'm kind of disappointed!

That is not something you can substantiate.

The specific organization I work with is Hope House Houston. https://hopehousehouston.org/

Well, you can call me a liar, but that doesn't change the facts.

It's a cycle. New baby comes, income goes up a bit. Mom gets tired of taking care of the new baby, it goes to foster care, Mom's income goes back down. Mom has new baby to get the income back again.

I suggest you go to your nearest Salvation Army center (or other inner city charity of your choice) and volunteer. It will both be a rewarding experience, and it will open your eyes.

Or you can sit in your nice house typing stuff into your nice computer, about things you know nothing about.

Every human drive does stupid stuff *sometimes.* Even accidentally wander into a construction zone.

Maybe they're just sending out a recall notice. That's what all the other car companies do.

Perhaps there are coffee snobs who actually like that muddy flavor.

Yep, I've had percolator coffee. Because it steeps so long, the process extracts a lot of unwanted flavors from the grounds into the water, giving it a "muddy" flavor. The percolator was from an era when there was just...coffee, and the stuff diners served was good enough.

Yes, I agree freeze-dried coffee is great for camping. But while camping, exceptional taste is not a priority!

If you like your French press, you might want to try AeroPress. https://www.amazon.com/AeroPre... It's a similar concept and inexpensive, but you don't get as much of the bitterness and "muddiness" that you get with the French press. It allows you to get a richer, stronger flavor, without the unwanted parts of the flavor profile.

For sure! Just like the blind test done, comparing sound quality between Monster cables and coat hangers! https://gizmodo.com/audiophile...

Yes, every form of snobbery has its pretenders, and Monster Cables are a good example. The pretenders don't do it for the love of the thing they are snobbish about, but to impress others. I'd argue such people aren't true snobs, but merely show-offs.

As the very title of my thread pointed out, my main issue is with *industrial scale.*

Who knows, maybe the process would make great coffee at a small scale! I personally doubt it, because I think heat does some things to the coffee that ultrasound will not. But I could be wrong, and if it turns out to be great, I'd consider buying a personal-sized machine.

You'll notice that the inventors don't claim that the process makes superior coffee, only "comparable" to heat-based methods. That's not the type of endorsement that will draw the attention of coffee snobs everywhere.