You can keep trying to beat the machine but you're not going to in the end.

They're going to keep trying this and they're going to gradually improve it to the point where they can automate some tasks and where they can drastically improve performance. Also AI is going to take people who normally could not compete with you for jobs and provide them with a crutch that lets them compete. That will drastically increase the number of people you have to compete with in the job market.

This is what's driving me nuts about America we completely lack any sense of nuance or complexity. Either the AI job apocalypse takes all of our jobs and we are all broke and homeless or it's nothing to worry about carry on.

Instead what is likely to happen is that we're going to hit a tipping point where automation hollows out the middle class and we don't have enough people with disposable income to drive a capitalist economy causing a collapse into tax base and a general spiral into abject poverty for 95% of the population.

Long-term if the technology works out for the Epstein class they will replace everyone except a handful of engineers and a handful of thugs to keep the engineers in line. There's a well understood process for doing that used by guys like Vladimir Putin and Kim jong-un. It's a more advanced version of feudalism. What the cool kids called techno feudalism.

But short-term we already have a major crisis on our hands. The only people with significant disposable income in the US economy are the baby boomers and they are blowing through all that money on our healthcare system and just living their retirements and making it to 80 or 90 years old because of various drug cocktails. Current estimates are that only about 30% of the wealth held by the baby boomers will be passed on and most of that will go to a handful of individuals this proportionately.

So right off the bat in about 5 or 10 years we are not going to have the disposable income needed to keep our economy functional without major systemic changes we are not willing to do. Basically some form of socialism and wealth redistribution.

Instead it seems we're going to pretend they'll be magic future jobs that nobody can describe but somehow save us. But I don't see how we get there when virtually all of the energy on new tech in our society is being spent automating jobs away not creating new things. Literally trillions of dollars are being spent to free the Epstein class from the shackles of capitalism and having to sell their products to us and employ us.

It's not a doomsday scenario it's not cool like that. It's a gradual wearing down and breaking down of the social order and a return to the worst kind of societies where everything is built around glorifying and exalting a handful of kings and queens.

No, they were asking for money to invest in modern infrastructure. The typical ways governments fund infrastructure was asking for it to be hacked.

Yes those governments who grossly underinvest in water infrastructure leading to systems that are decades out of date on modern security standards should fine themselves, that'll show them.

False as usual. The design and automation of water networks has grown orders of magnitude more complex from before the internet existed. But speaking of time, it is worth noting that funding and staged upgrades means a not insignificant portion of them date back to over 20 years ago, long before IEC 62443 become common place.

It's not politicians who want convenient access. It's you. You the person who demands an always available water supply with stringent quality, accessible from any tap in the city. You're the one who is pushing them to make sure the hundreds / sometimes thousands of pumps, and valves in the water network can be controlled by operations quickly to make sure problems are quickly addressed and supply is always available.

I know a lot of people have this idea that operating a water supply is as complex as turning on your kitchen faucet, but the sheer logistics of getting a signal from A to B necessitates an insane network in the modern era.

How much are you willing to pay to wire it all up? By how much do you want your water bill to increase? Put a dollar figure on it, and let's see if it even remotely covers the investment of keeping a network of this size off public infrastructure.

So we've spent the last 40 some odd years automating everything we can get our hands on. We didn't automate meat cutters and burger flippers though. There's some people playing around with that but it's mostly for advanced robotics research. We focused on high paying jobs because of course we did.

So the guy doing mining making 100K a year got his job automated away and now he can go work at Walmart selling cheap crap made with the stuff pulled out of the mine.

The problem is that you're replacing 100K worth of income and economic activity with 30k.

This is why we have consistently seen the labor participation rate drop and this is why we keep having to cook the numbers on unemployment. This is why we have to pretend driving Uber is a full-time job and one the people are choosing instead of turning two out of desperation.

There's a concept called functional unemployment which is when you technically have a job but you can't support yourself on that job. I don't mean you can't support yourself well I mean you're working homeless or you are mooching off of family if you aren't somehow homeless. That's about 20% of our population.

Go to Google and search for the phrase "70% middle class job automation". You will find a study about that and about how automation has devastated the American middle class.

And here's the thing it didn't have to, but it did. That's a concept I think people have a hard time with especially people who dabble in progressive ideas or at least futurism. The idea of that well it didn't have to happen so it couldn't have happened. We could have created an economy where the benefits of that automation boom made it to everybody.. but we didn't. And we're not going to because every time you suggest doing that a bunch of old farts screams socialism in your ears.

Given your post, that is a clear lie.

My god, how do you come up with examples so stupid? That takes serious energy.

Your example: Tokyo-London: Currently BA and JAL both avoid Russia and fly over the pole. If Russia didn't block them they would fly over Russia, and over the pole..The whole point of discussion is that you're flying over the pole. You fly over the role one way or the other, it just makes the most sense for your spectacularly poorly chosen example.

Speaking of making sense, it makes a lot of sense for Tokyo London, because Tokyo is so on the edge that it's barely much of a flight deviation. Now on the other hand if you go even slightly more east, you will find plenty of examples of eastern airlines which very much do fly over Russia. For example you want to fly Tokyo London with China Southern you'll be on CZ689 which spends most of its flight time in Russia. But to your "when it makes sense" example, given Russia's size, and the prevalence of airlines operating out of the middle east, there's only a select few flights that make sense to fly via Russia in the first place. Most Europe / Asia flights mostly deviate south to avoid Ukraine, thanks to MH17.

Thinking that flying over the north pole twice is in any way changing your life expectancy even if you don't have latent blood cancer is a failure of the education system and nothing to do with radiation.

This education problem is corroborated by the fact you think people don't fly over Russia because of some war, whereas in reality you don't fly over Russia because most of the world recognises the earth isn't flat, and a trans polar route is often the fastest and cheapest way to get across the northern hemisphere. In fact most airlines still fly over Russia when it makes sense to do so, including several from Europe. This is doubly silly once you realise that a shitton of Asian flights fly over the pole *AND* through Russia.

By the way you're not even remotely close to getting a CT scan. You're *TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE* off. The polar route Frankfurt to San-Francisco will dose you around 110uSv worst case scenario, quite often considerably less. The lowest dose lung screen from a CT scan is 1,500uSv, and a cardiac CT around 21,000uSv (the latter two are normally quoted in mSv to reflect the difference in order of magnitude (maybe you misread the unit?)).

Errr yes. No seriously, does your office not follow ergonomics regulations? There's a reason my employer has sitting / standing desks and mandatory breaks. Get your arse up and walk to the watercooler.

Slut up? I think you're conflating some serious issues here. This has nothing to do with "slutting it up". Male Stewarts are fully dressed all over and yet suffer the same radiation doses. You can dress up and dress down as much as you like, to stop radiation in any meaningful way requires wearing cloths that are, simply put, not at all comfortable to wear for more than the shortest periods of time.

You're ignoring very real practical issues with radiation protection.

Interesting, because the original story was based on an actual bookseller (someone who presumably uses the same terms as you do) describing them as rare.

Now I know nothing about this, I'm just an engineer, but I do know in my profession there are very much people across the planet who use the same terms in different ways including different engineering associations. So forgive me for saying this but your definition of rare is somewhat of an appeal to authority no stronger than the original definition of rare.

You may not be, but what about someone who owns said toaster trying to figure something out? That's the problem with the value of written materials. YOU can't judge the value of anything other than what YOU desire. The value is a personal opinion, and as someone who spent 6 months scouring the world for a repair manual for an amplifier from the 70s which I ultimately purchased for a couple of quid, I could tell you the value of that to me was worth 2 orders of magnitude more than what the guy selling it valued it as.

So the value of worth of knowledge is determined by its desirability? So if someone prints 100 books and only sells 1 of them we should just destroy the rest?

No, they didn't trust people to code in C++ for the job. C++ is a tool, there's nothing trustworthy or untrustworthy about it. It can't lie to you.