You would need to add at least a couple of 0s for it to even begin to seem reasonable.

Yeah, as if we needed any more reason to consider this bloated "security" software to be malware. I really don't understand why anyone in their right minds would install it or allow it to be installed on their systems. Giving some third-party company complete control over what software can run on your machines basically screams "I don't understand anything about security" better any almost anything else you could possibly do as a system administrator, IMO, short of posting the shared-across-all-machines root password on USENET.

You oversimplify. I despise Rust, but it does address real problems. (I'm not sure how well, because I won't use it.) I'm thinking of thinks like deadlock, livelock, etc. As someone above pointed out, there are lots of applications that don't need to deal with that, and subsets can work for them. (The above poster worked in a domain where all memory could be pre-allocated.)

Rust felt like programming with one hand tied behind my back. So I dropped it. Only one reference to a given item it just too restrictive. Perhaps it is really Turing complete, but so is a Turing machine. But multi-threaded programs really do need a better approach. (My real beef with C++ (and C) though is their handling of unicode. So I'm currently experimenting with D [ https://dlang.org/ ], which seems pretty good for the current application (though honestly since it's I/O bound Python would be quite acceptable). )

Government: So I see that your H-1B jobs are all for "Computer Programmer (I)" and your U.S. hires are all for "Software Engineer (III)" or "(IV)".
Company: Yes. We haven't had much luck in hiring level one programmers here in the U.S. We put the jobs out there, but nobody is applying.

Prevailing wage for the job doesn't mean what you think it does. A bunch of sleazy outsourcing firms made sure of that.

Surprisingly little money. As soon as the extra cost exceeds the cost of hiring one person to maintain workarounds, it is cheaper to do the workarounds. Tricks like that might ostensibly work for individuals, but they fail badly every time when you're talking about big corporations.

Ten tiny companies, ten meters.

I've said this before. That won't work. Business, unlike homeowners, have the ability to create shell companies. The effort required to avoid rules like that is negligible for businesses. All that does is massively increase the billing hassle for the power companies.

In California, they have messed with the cost structure enough that solar without storage is usually not worth doing beyond your peak usage, because your excess power production won't net you nearly as much as you pay to buy that power back later in the afternoon.

Part of the problem is that trains are really, really heavy. A double-decker passenger train car might weigh 180,000 pounds and carry only 100 people, for a total weight of 1,800 pounds per car plus the person. So you're carrying half the weight of that Prius. The trains are still vastly more efficient because you have one powertrain accelerating all of those people in Priuses (Prii?) instead of hundreds, they accelerate and decelerate slowly (and rarely), they have low rolling resistance, etc.

Imagine how much more efficient they would be if train cars were improved with modern technology to bring the weight down.

Wow. Their refrigerators reportedly have among the worst reliability stats out of all the major brands, but ads are the reason you're rejecting them? I'm kind of assuming the ads are to recover the unexpectedly high cost of warranty repairs and food loss claims. :-)

Having used a lot of their Blu-Ray players and TVs over the years, Samsung reached peak ensh*ttification a long time ago, IMO. What remains is the long-tail death spiral.

Depends on whether the test pilots were in them at the time. ;-)

You're wrong about potatoes. They *are* high in starch, but they aren't "nearly all" starch, like corn or wheat.

Until the tools get better, yes. Slavery would likely have ended by now even without the Civil War because of the cotton picker. The same thing is happening to the remaining agricultural jobs now, thanks to AI.

Strawberry picking robots are already good enough to do the job, just with a ridiculously high up-front cost (like $300k each, which is probably well over a hundred years worth of labor costs, and possibly several hundred). The next generation are going to be more like $12k, which is more like 20 years of labor costs, assuming $4 per hour sub-minimum wage, 40 hours a week, and 4 weeks of picking in a year, and more like 5 years at U.S. minimum wage.

But that's not the whole story. The latest generation are also faster than people, and can work 24x7, so you can use less than a third as many. So now you're at more like a year or two for break-even.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if all the screaming from California about lack of farm labor isn't just a cover story, all while quietly letting the Trump administration reduce the immigrant farm labor because they won't be needed in the future. It makes the left look good to their base by paying lip service to defending them while making the right look good to their base by terrorizing them and scaring them out of the country. And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the farm tech companies building these picking machines aren't actively lobbying for it. I mean, maybe that's happening a few years too soon, but we're not talking about decades before that labor no longer provides any real benefit; we're getting very close to that point.

Yes, it's got a long way to go. Unfortunately, at least SOME of the changes are (currently) on an exponential growth curve, and people have very poor ability to project those. (And also at some point "limiting factors" will manifest, which aren't significant during the early part of the rise.)

There are quite plausible scenarios where we are still in the early part of the exponential growth curve. Nobody can prove whether this speculation is true or false, but we should be prepared in case it is true.

See that's the opposite of what we actually need to do. Realistically, the average person gets maybe five or six usable hours in a day, so right now, work gets five of those blocks and we get two. With that scheme, work gets six of those blocks and we get one.

A better plan is four five-hour work days. One extra usable day for ourselves, plus working hours tailored to knowledge workers' actual ability to focus rather than longer hours in which productivity rapidly goes towards zero or even negative.

Spend half as much time working, and everyone will be healthier. More daylight hours to be outside and get exercise. More time to spend with friends and family and de-stress. And so on.