Treadmill? That can be optimistic.

One place I worked for, I was hired to do DB and coding. Sped their database up by a factor of 60, and resolved tickets efficiently.

Another place I worked for, I was hired to do QA. Found numerous performance issues and dangerous security holes.

Didn't last in either, because politics are more important than people, and revenue is more important than wages. Once all the factors that seriously impacted profit were removed, keeping me would merely have meant a better product, not more cash. The market is only so big, and once you've taken all the share you're going to, being better won't increase it. Companies don't think beyond the next quarter.

Two other places I worked for, the CEO was using it to scam money off investors and get cheaper healthcare. They never intended to produce a product.

If you're forced to treat employees well, these things will still happen but they'll happen less often. Because the risks are higher, the payoff is lower, and penalties for getting caught are a whole lot worse.

That's how it works in a coupled system.

Agreed. There's deliberate undercounting for the long-term unemployed, and a failure to account for the fact that firing seasoned workers with acquired skills isn't the same as hiring inexperienced yoofs who have no meaningful experience in producing robust, high quality products. Although, to be fair, corporations don't seem keen on producing those.

However, there's another factor to consider. The number of retirees is smaller than the number of people entering work for the first time. Due to Covid, a LOT smaller than usual. This means that the markets are expanding. If the markets are expanding but the numer of people being added is only keeping pace with job circulation and retirement, then the job market (as a percentage of those who can work) must be smaller relative to both the markets and the work that needs to be done.

This is the most misleading part of employment statistics. Whilst total unemployment is important (but only useful if not deliberately undercounted), you also need to know the employment:activity ratio and the employment:expected employment in a fully functional market of that size ratio.

We used to have EDDs (etc) which companies could inform of their job openings, and people could go to them and find out about opportunities that matched their backgrounds. These evolved into places to get help with resumes and searches for jobs, but not with job listings themselves. While those are clearly needed functions, having a trusted source of job listings with a legal obligation not to needlessly disclose information about you to third parties was also valuable.

At least with a government program there is a reasonable possibility of useful oversight under some administrations. With private operators it always seems to go wrong for lack of transparency, as opposed to only most of the time.

FFT didn't exist for another decade.

On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

On the basis that a woman from the Radiophonics Workshop innovated a technique?

Perhaps you are going to argue Einstein was a moron because Noether figured out the relationships between symmetry and conservation laws.

I know there are some idiots here, but frankly you are one of the worst.

No they aren't "guesses", and nobody goes by what a single model predicts. That's not the way you use models in this sort of simulation.

Climate latency is around 40 years, so if 2025 is when the climate trajectory passed the point of no return, then the actual prediction is that Miami will be in serious trouble by 2065 and that no viable path to Miami recovering will exist, that CO2 won't drop to levels that permit such a recovery within the remaining lifespan of any part of Miami.

This isn't true. All you need is a lot more people than there is work for them to do for it to make sense. We're well past that, and very far into make work for the sake of employment. That's waste, i.e. inefficiency, and therefore worse than UBI because it requires resource consumption to maintain.

This is quite possibly true. If we don't learn to work together and control our government rather than having it controlling us, then UBI won't really make things better. It will only change how we are oppressed.

Honestly, I don't know if you've been watching too many Penelope Pitstop cartoons or too much CSPAN. It's getting hard to tell the difference.

Because you are only accessing a 'local' node and the change is applied instantly because you are connected to where the change occurs.

If you VPN to some other geographic location far away in their hierarchy, your account may not be available for some time.

It also may get updated quickly to start with, but then its cached and tge cache will exist for some time until it expires.

The cache could potentially be cleared, but when there are potentially millions of cache locations it could be in, you arent purging them all instantly.

Large distributed systems hide ALL of this from you by alway directing you to the same group/cluster where cache can be managed efficiently without global performance impacts.

You cant delete the evidence but keep the data.

The pictures have to be available to challenge the data. ALPR are wrong A LOT, and people get falsely accused often.

You either keep the data so the defense cand defend itself fairly, or you immediately throw out the license plate data AND ALL DERIVATIVES CAPUTRED AFTER AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT result. Meaning anyone can claim any data collected after ALPR data was accessed must be thrown out as tainted, since the ALPR data gave you a hint to look further in a specific direction.

He was from West Virginia?

Yes, that's perfectly obvious. If you check the Oramics machine from 1958, that's basically what it was.

If you had specialists do so, I'd agree.

This is why programmers do not check every corner case, they hire QA enginers to check every corner case.

You hire generalists to see how interactions between technologies impact things.