Everything that a human can do, a machine can do - including lying, cheating, and making wrong decisions.
Following an if-then statement is not making a decision.
But more importantly, machines don't get to vote in or write laws - only humans get to do that.
And while a machine may be programmed for corruption and self interest - both are quite natural for humans.
Which includes lawyers... who tend to be THE humans who write and vote in laws.
I.e. Lawyers will not allow laws which could put them out of work... while giving away the control of the judiciary system to machines and giving up democracy in exchange for a machine dictatorship.
It's not a matter of tech being there or not - it's a matter of humans being the only species with rights on this planet.
Give it time.
Can't. Don't have that much time in my life left. And I'm only 38.
When robots (cause you can't outsource services for people - cause you need them where people already ARE) become able to replace medical professionals - there won't be ANY workplaces anyway.
If a robot can operate on a human, do examinations, prescribe therapies... and do it in a way that it can replace human beings without increasing the number of deaths and injuries...
Then there is no job that a robot can't do.
Apart from those creative, artistic ones.
And since we can't all be writers, singers, actors, dancers etc. - and live from it... Hello communist utopia!
Or Star Trek. But that's me repeating myself.
I mean, I'd LIKE to see that in my lifetime... but let's face it - it ain't happening. At least not for a while longer.
Amazon made that moot already.
You are confusing being a consumer to being sold something. Salesmanship (and all other -ships) is a social skill.
All that computers accomplish when trying to simulate social skills is causing irritation in humans.
Why do you think there's so much money and effort invested in advertising if "selling things" is a moot point?
There's a third category: Government jobs, where you're required to act like a robot.
Some would say that you are required to be a citizen.
But the actual underlying requirement is that you are a human being, capable of understanding (and respecting) social contracts.
Which is why no matter how many tricks an animal can perform or how good it is at being intelligent sorta-kinda like a retarded human child - it doesn't get to be a citizen.
Then again, some humans are given way too much credit under the assumption that they are capable of understanding social contracts.
Thus, you know... Trump 2016.
Isn't there? When I had young children I heard about that constantly; men can make a very valuable contribution to the traditional women's jobs.
Child day care services jobs in the US are 94% female.
Nursing care is 84.9% female.
Health care average is 78.5% female.
Incidentally, HC alone is some 20.077.000 jobs.
Manufacturing (which is male dominated) is 15.338.000 jobs, while information industry (also male dominated) which includes everything from news and libraries to software and film industry is 2.988.000 jobs.
BTW, women also dominate the veterinary services (80.7%) - i.e. care for animals.
It's almost as if women gravitate towards (and clearly excel at) jobs which allow them to care for others.
Even when those they care for may bite, hiss and claw at them.
Yeah... women also dominate beauty (91.9%) and nail salon (73.2%) services too.
You can't outsource or replace with robots services catering to humans and their bodies.
Nor can you outsource or robotize salesmanship, leadership and all the other -ships.
And there will probably always be legal reasons why legal services and public administration can't be out given out to foreign employees or machines.
But speaking of services for humans...
Education and health services are about as female dominated as manufacturing tends to be male dominated.
Actually, slightly more... 74.65% for E&H vs 71.9% for manufacturing.
But much more important is that there are more than twice as many jobs in E&H services (33,678 thousands ) than in manufacturing (15,338 thousands).
Education and health services is actually the BIGGEST industry in the US, making up more than a fifth (but not quite a quarter - 22.62%) of ALL JOBS in the USA.
You can't outsource child care or health care cause you can't outsource people. And robots are nowhere near to be able to do that job.
Making those E&H jobs safe and secure.
Amazingly, that category has the most humans who, thorough a quirk of biology, tend to have the need for a safe and stable environment in order to gestate, give birth to and raise the next generation of humans.
It's just that the connotations changed over time, making "marriage" somehow a religious thing, with "civil union" being the same thing in practice - minus the religious connotations.
Thus, he switched his support for what seemed like a viable option. A bird in hand now.
Later years offered greater clarity - and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.
As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws.
I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.
He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.
What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. â¦
I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. â¦
Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
Guy is a politician and a government official.
It's his job to find a compromise and push a consensus in the best interest of the citizens.
Most those middle states have large tracts of land - occupied by very few people.
And no... Electoral college was NOT created "to get the politicians out of the big cities and blah-blah-blah".
Number of electoral votes has fuck all to do with where the voters are located, are they rural or urban, OR are they visited by the candidates during their campaign or not.
It was created back when there was no "flyover country" - but only towns, villages and farms along the coast. THE coast.
And it was created cause they were paranoid about Congress ignoring the will of the people, getting together and electing the president on their own - while also being paranoid about big states doing the same thing.
Which is why there's that stipulation about government employees not being eligible for the position of an elector.
And why it is based on the number of people living in a state (while each state still gets two votes on top of that) and not its geography.
Including those people counted as "three fifths of all other Persons".
Because a live performance, by a living human being, in front of an audience of living human beings is based on the performer's ability to interact with and perform in front of said audience.
I.e. To stand in front of and be observed by thousands of people.
Which is about as private as standing naked in the middle of a panopticon, and yelling so everyone can also hear you.
The fact that those people paid the toll to do that doesn't make any of it more private or less exposing.
Hell... Jim Jeffries got punched in the head by an audience member.
He later took the video of the event and included in his material - instead of demanding it be erased from the internet, because privacy.
Even though it is unflattering AND though he makes some bigoted statements about Irish in the "punch video".
Then again... he's not the kind of guy who would get a nervous breakdown and run away to Africa because he got paranoid about people wanting to see him in a dress or a kinda guy who'd file DMCA requests on account of being fat in a photo.
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.
Except that in this case Trump doesn't get the popular vote - he's at 42.5%. Clinton has 49.3%.
Also, electoral votes being a representation of the will and the number of the people in each state - they tend to vote in accord to the popular vote.
I mean... last time popular vote winner lost the election was in 2000 - back when Gore lost to Bush by less than 1% of the electoral vote, while wining the popular vote by 0.5%.
Last time before that... you'd have to go back to the '80s. 1880s. Before women could vote and just after black men got the right to vote... at least on paper.
Other than that... there are only two more cases of a winner of the popular vote not winning the electoral vote as well. In the 1870s and in the 1820s.
Winning the popular vote but losing the election is not a normal thing. It's an exception which happens very rarely.
Like, centuries can come and go between such elections.
You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?
What will their odds be in 3 weeks?
That would be the odds of note.
While having 666-1 odds on Trump presidency may be of note, it will sure be too unsettling for most people to place such a bet.
In any case, it is multiaxial.
Which is why you are seeing what you are interpreting as a circle. Or what others see as a horseshoe.
It's actually people's methodologies overlapping and blending into each other (what/how they do) instead of their ideologies (that which they believe/know to be true).
Thus "Different yap patterns, but always willing to dictate how others must act in minute detail." looks like a circle - cause it is a view along a single axis.
The "willing to dictate how others must act" axis of authority, while ignoring all others.
Cause both peaks and valleys come off as circles on a map.
We shoot Matthew McConaughey into space and that fixes everything.
Also, we get space colonies and anti-gravity plus Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are involved in the whole thing as well.
Oh, and Matt Damon gets shot out into space out of an airlock.
It's win-win-win-win-win... win-win all the way.
And that you misunderstood "implication" thinking it is related to if-then logic, so you are confused with something being "half true".
Instead of "implication" being used commonly as a synonym for "suggesting" - i.e. "insinuating", i.e. "claiming".
And let us also assume that you haven't actually read through the article you quoted.
Cause it actually has a video of Trump "making that claim".
The "half true" in fabula lies on the back of Trump getting the timeline correct.
That's the "true" part of the "half true". He got his A before his B. He got the order of the dates correctly.
Which IS somewhat of a feat for a man who can't get the date of election right.
But ignore him getting the timeline right and look at the claim as meaning "BECAUSE you got a subpoena you have deleted 33,000 emails." (which is what he is claiming) - and it's nothing but unproven bullshit.
Except it's not just any unproven bullshit - it's "after being investigated by the FBI - who found nothing" unproven bullshit.
Politifact didn't infer anything.
Nor did they set up a straw man argument as you seem to be implying there. As in, suggesting.
They are just too polite and too nitpicky to simply label it "bullshit". Which is what it is.
Cause he isn't talking about the order of the dates... however amazing it might be that Trump got that part right.
Well... if we assume that he isn't a complete imbecile who is simply thrilled about figuring out the order of the dates of the events, and that he is thus not talking about dates but about some sort of guilt regarding those events.
I mean... that could be true as well... but it's doubtful.
He's obviously at the very least a moron.
Secondly, the FBI finding "no evidence" doesn't even prove the implication false.
It proves that Trump was making statement WITHOUT evidence.
I.e. He was either lying OR basing his statement on other people's lies. Either case - he was spreading falsehoods.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it IS a proof that such a claim is nothing but unproven bullshit.
You think it's more likely that Russian hackers conspired with Donald Trump to keep Hillary from becoming president by starting a DDOS on Newsweek? That is the nutty conspiracy theory.
BTW, that's a nice canard.
Not that I'm judging your propensity towards aquatic fowl or its food, but no one is claiming that Putin and Trump actually conspired - just that the Trump is an useful idiot for Putin and Palls.
No... Wait... YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT!
Cause that's how you looney brain works. Conspiracies everywhere.
Oh... and BTW... Speaking of "more realistic theories"...
Oh... Looney, Looney, Looney... Whatever would we do without duck fuckers and fish rapers like you?
Who would we laugh at? Cats? I don't THINK SO...