Why are we calling this "fake" news instead of "incorrect news" or "wrong news" or "wacko conspiracy theory"?
Because the "news" in question isn't just false, it's deliberately false and inflammatory. As in, made up out of whole cloth by trolls, just to wreak havoc, or by paid provocateurs, to drive gullible people towards advertisements by provoking them. The people behind the fake news are well aware that it is 100% fiction, and they don't care.
That's different from inadvertently getting a story wrong, and it's different from being genuinely insane and thereby sending out incorrect information that you honestly think is correct.
"Fake" is in fact the most accurate way to describe it. So if you're going to question other peoples' ulterior motives, what dark motives are you concealing?
The closest to an argument I've heard is we'll tax factory output instead of income, but that doesn't work. You'll be accused of seizing factories ala Communism.
No matter what you do you're going to be accused of something by the people who stand to benefit from the status quo. If you let the possibility of accusations veto a plan, then you'll never be able to plan anything; which is de facto equivalent to planning for the problem to be resolved (one way or another) for you via massive civil unrest.
"Tax the robots" is probably as close an answer as you're going to get to the "who's gonna pay for it" question. Elections are won on feelings, as you say, and I suspect there are going to be a lot of anti-robot feelings in the future, unless/until this problem is solved.
Nevermind that their entire success is dependent upon everyone from the mailroom employees to the sales staff... I don't quite understand how people at the top lose sight of this all the time. If, tomorrow, every one of their employees quit, the CEO would be SOL...
People are the foundation everybody's business. You may be the head, but that only means you are standing on the shoulders of everyone else.
1st day at Finance 101 in college. What is the job of a company?
a. make money
b. make great products
c. Raise the share price.
This was on the final exam too and no I am not exgerating as the most important lesson of finance. The answer is
Nothing else. CEO's are accountants whose job is to raise the share price at any cost by doing liquidity, raiding assets, and taking on unneccesary debts to get hte perfect debt/assets ratio and liquidity ratio to meet Wall Street expectations.
They get a big bonus by hoarding and using innovative thoughts on doing strange things to make Excel look good.
That is what CEO's today do. They do not guide the company and this all started during the Reagan years with Jack Welsh at GE. He regretted saying this, but it is true the accountant, not the engineer nor salesperson gets the top position usually picked by the top banks out there.
Eh, I think you meant "mechanical engineer"(*)
(*) I don't mean a robot who is trained in engineering, I mean a human being who designs physical objects
Expand in India and that won't be a problem
You see CEOs actually provide value. They are thought leaders! Only they can provide ideas or sometimes managers. Employees are black boxes which cannot provide value at all or come up with ideas!
We need more thought leaders and less products and services
I don't know what you want to achieve with this long post.
You bring stuff like: Researchers in the early 20th Century had made measurements which suggested that additional CO2 would not have an effect on the Earth's climate. The theory was widely discredited on that basis, even though Arrhenius' equations and calculations seemed to be sound.
You give an argument and a counterargument in two sentences, is that your idea of "controversial"?
For me the counter argument is mainstream. When ever one comes with a claim that CO2 is not a problem or there is no AGW or everything is a natural pendulum, one comes and rectifies: CO2 is a problem, AGW is a problem. The "idiots" coming up with their "weird ideas" don't make the whole topic "controversial".
This thing you're doing where you're denying objective facts which you could trivially confirm, and only reading enough of what is presented to confirm your biases, is rather rude.
And what are you doing? Pushing your idea that it is controversial, by brining up idiot scientists that got debunked instantly?
If something gets debunked instantly, then it is not controversial. At least not how I understand the word.
Out of the three or four languages Europeans are supposed to learn English isn't one of them?
Yes, we learn minimum 2 languages. Or more precisely: get fed up with them, as teaching languages seems to be something no one knows how to do it properly.
However, that makes them not a requirement to enter university, nor to gain a diploma in an university.
Otherwise foreign students e.g. had no chance at all.
And who cares if you e.g. study biology or electric engineering what your grades where in school in english or french? They don't matter for writing your thesis, and they don't matter for getting into the studies.
write at the 11th grade level. The average American reads at the seventh grade level. That does not tell me anything
I read what ever I want to read. Only high level math is beyond me (my current level). No idea on what level I write, neither german nor english. And I doubt "Xth grade" makes much sense
Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.