|
Freakazoid_ posted:Textile manufacturing left its cottage industry roots during the 19th century, so I don't think I'm being too loose with that one. While child labor is deplorable, child labor was estimated to be around 25% in southern US textile mills in 1900. The 19th century is 17 years before your timeframe, and the cottage industry era is the only plausible time when textile manufacturing could have been considered majority-high-skill work. Even that's a stretch, since even then there were a lot of jobs, like carding wool, that were just labor-intensive drudgery frequently given to children or the elderly. The textile industry was way more like food processing than it was like auto building, even in the 19th century. I, too, don't know what computer parts was getting at though.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:
"Middle Class" in general is a very vaguely defined term, and a "Middle Class Job" seems to just be a job that hasn't yet been effected by automation and isn't literally McDonalds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Middle Class" in general is a very vaguely defined term, and a "Middle Class Job" seems to just be a job that hasn't yet been effected by automation and isn't literally McDonalds. I think you'd have to factor in management rank too - nobody's calling C-level stuff a middle class job, even if it's in an unglamorous or small company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Middle Class" in general is a very vaguely defined term, and a "Middle Class Job" seems to just be a job that hasn't yet been effected by automation and isn't literally McDonalds. Most definitions I've seen of middle class focus on income and general proximity to the median. That's usually what's being referred to when people talk about the middle class being hollowed out. Middle income jobs are slowly vanishing as the labor market becomes more polarized between higher and lower income jobs, which is a net loss on the whole since a few people who were doing alright now doing much better doesn't make up for people who were previously doing alright now just barely getting by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Most definitions I've seen of middle class focus on income and general proximity to the median. That's usually what's being referred to when people talk about the middle class being hollowed out. Middle income jobs are slowly vanishing as the labor market becomes more polarized between higher and lower income jobs, which is a net loss on the whole since a few people who were doing alright now doing much better doesn't make up for people who were previously doing alright now just barely getting by. Yeah, but I'm struggling to see why people think that hasn't happened until now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, but I'm struggling to see why people think that hasn't happened until now. Its been going on for the past 30-40 years in the form of offshoring - which is made possible by modern transportation and communication. Politics haven't caught up to the realities of the anthropocene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yes, there will be standards that emerge over time. Your phone doesn't refuse to talk to an access point just because it's a different brand. Actually, it does! Due to competing and incompatible technologies and protocols in the cellphone industry and a lack of standardization throughout the industry, most US phones are outright unable to talk to many access points because they use a different communication technology from the access point. some sort of fish posted:Ya and we did that with virtually no government regulation or oversight in an industry that has a vested interest in creating walled off ecosystems of products. Wait, what? Are you talking about the internet? Cellphones? "No government regulation or oversight" indeed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
When Google completes their sentient AI program there will be no more need for humans or "jobs". Make sure you sign up at the nearest Singularity Clinic when they are announced within the next few years if you want to keep your consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
http://mashable.com/2016/01/15/dot-connected-car-testing/#Hd9g7HWJISqm But remember. Self-driving cars are 20 years away, at a minimum!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:http://mashable.com/2016/01/15/dot-connected-car-testing/#Hd9g7HWJISqm 10 years of testing on "designated corridors." Ready for prime time! I love the idea of automated driving in no small part because my grandfather who is in his early 70s currently works as a delivery driver. He's driven 20+ hours at a time and makes about $8.50 an hour. Sometimes I contemplate what I would do to his boss if he were to fall asleep at the wheel and crash. I wish the robots would come sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:10 years of testing on "designated corridors." Ready for prime time! The point is that it's going to happen way faster than detractors claim. This just means that the federal government is paying attention and regulation will be more standardized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I love the idea of automated driving in no small part because my grandfather who is in his early 70s currently works as a delivery driver. He's driven 20+ hours at a time and makes about $8.50 an hour. Sometimes I contemplate what I would do to his boss if he were to fall asleep at the wheel and crash. Long haul trucking, at least, is probably one of the worst jobs in existence. I realize some people love it passionately but it's really not a way of life we should have compulsions about eliminating. I know people who come home Saturday morning and leave again Sunday evening with the rest of their lives spent in a truck driving to and fro. They're not paid well, it's unhealthy and they basically don't see their families. It's just bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:The point is that it's going to happen way faster than detractors claim. You haven't proved that, no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
So do you guys think that all of the car companies saying 2020 are just bullshitting or what? http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/nissans-ghosn-cautious-on-self-driving-cars-news-quotes/ quote:Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of the Renault-Nissan Alliance, is extremely cautious about self-driving cars. Luxury automakers like Tesla claim that they can have a fully autonomous car on sale in two or three years, but Ghosn firmly believes the technology won’t be ready to hit the market until 2020 at the earliest. I can see expecting it to take a bit longer than expected maybe 2025 before there is more market availability but the people saying it's going to take 20 or even 50 years seems ridiculous to me. EDIT: Ok so they claim that they will be autonomous but with manual override by 2020, you really think it will take 15 years minimum to take the final step to fully autonomous? http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/nissan-autonomous-plans-news-details-launch-date/ quote:Finally, the intersection autonomy feature that will be introduced in 2020 will give a car the power to drive itself at lower speeds, including in crowded urban centers. Nissan stresses that the driver will be able to take over at any time, meaning the car won’t be entirely autonomous and it will still be equipped with a steering wheel and pedals. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
It's in the interest of entrepreneurs, businessmen, CEOs, and other such people to hype up their bullshit. They want to sell cars and hype up their cars, so they tell everyone they're all going to have self-driving in a few years. Gets everyone excited. They're sales people. Even scientists do this poo poo for grant money. How many "breakthroughs" do we hear about once and then never again because they turned out to be bullshit? A ton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:It's in the interest of entrepreneurs, businessmen, CEOs, and other such people to hype up their bullshit. They want to sell cars and hype up their cars, so they tell everyone they're all going to have self-driving in a few years. Gets everyone excited. They're sales people. Even scientists do this poo poo for grant money. How many "breakthroughs" do we hear about once and then never again because they turned out to be bullshit? A ton. That's not a very good comparison, those "breakthough" articles are usually based off of one single preliminary study in a lab with no proof that it can be turned into an actual product. The situation we have now is CEOs from several major car companies all saying that they're coming within a few years, and giving concrete dates. Tesla says 2018, Nissan says 2020, the CEO of Ford says "the next four years," and Kia says fully autonomous by 2030. I don't see why it would be in their interest to all say this stuff if it was basically a complete lie and totally technically unfeasible like people in this thread seem to think. EDIT: Another one to add to the list, the Mercesdes R&D director says "a bit longer" than 2020. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/122317/20160108/mercedes-benzs-head-autonomous-driving-sooner-better-automakers-create-uniform.htm MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
The theoretical groundwork for self driving cars is there but it isn't robust. You can't just brute force your control architecture using neural networks. This is very frowned upon in academia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I don't see why it would be in their interest to all say this stuff if it was basically a complete lie and totally technically unfeasible like people in this thread seem to think. The people being skeptical about this are probably just older and have seen this cycle happen a few times already. Video phones have been "five years away" from universal adoption since the forties, and technically feasible in some respect since at least the sixties, but they were infrastructure-intensive and had drawbacks futurists refused to care about (having to put on clothes to answer the phone, etc.), and the internet solved one of those problems but not the other so now we have Skype and people sort of use it sometimes if they have a good reason to. That's how most tech hype works out. Importantly here, the eventual real-world implementation of a video phone wasn't a phone at all, just like self-driving cars will probably not end up being cars as we know them, but more like what's really being described when people talk about them, "trains but you don't have to sit next to a stranger."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You haven't proved that, no. Well since predicting the future is indeed not possible we can revisit this topic in a few years and see who was right. Meanwhile every major car manufacturer on the planet and many of the biggest tech companies, along with governments and research institutions are investing billions of dollars in this. And they are pretty much all saying that we are no more than 5 years away. With some claiming it will happen sooner. But since that can be dismissed as marketing hype I guess posting quotes and projections is for naught. I suppose you could make an argument that these claims are like fusion where we are always " just 10 years away!" for half a century. I truly doubt that will be the case here though. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:
Lack of videoconferencing is as much about social issues and not wanting to look at each other as it is technology. We have the technology to do it freely right now and people don't becuase we don't loving want to. Videoconferencing also has a trivial impact on society compared to letting virtually everyone have access to transportation. The demand and potential profit are not on the same scale. crabcakes66 fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Video phones have been "five years away" from universal adoption since the forties Did several giant companies come out at one point and all claim "we will have video phones by X date!" and then not follow through? This isn't just one company making wild claims, it's many major car companies all over the world making a particular set of claims and providing similar dates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes why would a company tell lies to get attention. The only problem that kept video phones from catching on is that nobody actually wants a video phone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Did several giant companies come out at one point and all claim "we will have video phones by X date!" and then not follow through? This isn't just one company making wild claims, it's many major car companies all over the world making a particular set of claims and providing similar dates. Yes, you halfwit. Multiple times. Because ours is not the only decade with tech press that has column inches to fill. I'm sorry that history as a concept is such a shock to you, but growing children shouldn't be getting this much screen time anyway. Go play in the yard and then ask your dad to show you some old copies of Popular Science when he gets home. Woolie Wool posted:The only problem that kept video phones from catching on is that nobody actually wants a video phone. I'm sure that didn't occur to me in my writing and had no relevance to the analogy I was making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Ironically I had a lecture with a guy from the Air Force recently and they frequently mock Silicon Valley for making poo poo up about self driving anything- especially when FAA regulations must apply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Wake me up when the "self-driving" cars don't still require a DL to operate. Until then, no different from the usual cars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
This is the biggest problem of society - from the computer, to the car, to their own bodies - some individuals seem willfully ignorant - they demand the freedom to be conned and the people ripping them off use the money to defend their freedom to con. It's hard to tell fantasy from reality and this benefits capitalism. The self-driving car technology is real and coming into common use - the question now is a ton of liability headaches but it's conceivable to see the technology replacing most human drivers by the Tricentennial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Did several giant companies come out at one point and all claim "we will have video phones by X date!" and then not follow through? This isn't just one company making wild claims, it's many major car companies all over the world making a particular set of claims and providing similar dates. LOL yes! Virtual reality, for example, was hyped like hell back in the 90s, and then it disappeared. That's probably going to happen again pretty soon. Now car companies are pushing self-driving cars even though the technology is decades away. Of course they aren't going to have self-driving cars by 2020, and we're going to see articles saying "What happened to self-driving cars?" Futurists continue to make jackasses of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:This is the biggest problem of society - from the computer, to the car, to their own bodies - some individuals seem willfully ignorant - they demand the freedom to be conned and the people ripping them off use the money to defend their freedom to con. It's hard to tell fantasy from reality and this benefits capitalism. By the time you have eliminated the headaches you have built a train.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
The auto companies are hiring a bunch of people to work on designing and developing self-driving cars, so they believe that it's worth spending money on. Whether that's true or a result of hype is something that only hindsight can really tell us, but they're not lying about believing in it as a real possibility. Before anyone asks, no, they're not hiring people to work on flying cars.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, you halfwit. Multiple times. Because ours is not the only decade with tech press that has column inches to fill. I'm sorry that history as a concept is such a shock to you, but growing children shouldn't be getting this much screen time anyway. Go play in the yard and then ask your dad to show you some old copies of Popular Science when he gets home.  You sure are getting worked up over this, I'll go ahead and believe all of the people actually involved in working on this stuff over notoriously pessimistic D&D goons and I guess in 2020 we will see who was right. None of the people I quoted were "tech press" BTW.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:
January 15, 2020, The Day MaxxBot Learned History Exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:LOL yes! Virtual reality, for example, was hyped like hell back in the 90s, and then it disappeared. That's probably going to happen again pretty soon. Now car companies are pushing self-driving cars even though the technology is decades away. Of course they aren't going to have self-driving cars by 2020, and we're going to see articles saying "What happened to self-driving cars?" Futurists continue to make jackasses of themselves. Self-driving vehicles can save corporations billions in salaries even if it's only trucks driving themselves on freeways between cities. It is potentially a practical and useful technology. VR has few applications beyond hobby use and will fade to niche use for the same reason the video phone did. It's not a good comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:January 15, 2020, The Day MaxxBot Learned History Exists. For someone so loving smug I'd think you would have more than insults to back up your point of view. I guess all of those companies spending billions of dollars on this are just dumb futurists like myself though. Effectronica posted:The auto companies are hiring a bunch of people to work on designing and developing self-driving cars, so they believe that it's worth spending money on. Whether that's true or a result of hype is something that only hindsight can really tell us, but they're not lying about believing in it as a real possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:For someone so loving smug I'd think you would have more than insults to back up your point of view. I guess all of those companies spending billions of dollars on this are just dumb futurists like myself though. Haha so we circle back to "Corporations can't be wrong"  I am so sad thinking about all the shocks coming your way in adulthood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
There are some major reasons why companies would want to put money into self-driving cars that don't exist for many other futuristic technologies. Not just trucking, but sales work would become a lot easier for the company (and harder for the sales reps, in all likelihood) when you can automate the majority of the process. Most futuristic stuff that would make people's lives easier or more entertaining or whatever won't get any money or attention unless it's massively monetizable. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha so we circle back to "Corporations can't be wrong" I think you're just making some kind of reflexive denial of anything that sounds futuristic. Or maybe you have some unique insight as to how a self-driving car is much more difficult than a production line that runs itself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha so we circle back to "Corporations can't be wrong" Self driving cars may still be several years away but I think I've discovered an automated strawman generator!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:By the time you have eliminated the headaches you have built a train. In terms of how we will pay for and use it -sure - but it will be much more dynamic and individuated than trains. It could mean anyone in America could take out their phone, pick a city a couple states away, pay a reasonable fare- a car pulls up, brings them to a highspeed rail station or some other mass transit like self-driving van hub. Vehicles could be a socialized capital cost for most people, letting them focus on life and work in the 'smaller' modern world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Again fusion power generation is probably a relevant comparison if you are talking about life altering technology that has been promised for many decades but never delivered. The difference being that self-driving cars are on the road at this very moment logging miles and improving every day. It's okay though. I forgive all of the cynical old farts who were promised robo-waifus and atomic toothbrushes in their childhood and never had those dreams fulfilled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So do you guys think that all of the car companies saying 2020 are just bullshitting or what? why 2020? why not 2019 or 2022? 2020 is a nice round future number, it's not a hard date. self driving cars are coming for sure but nobody can really say "our ambitious technology will be ready 4.8 years from now" because projections don't work like that. especially when every car company worth its salt is positioning itself as a leader in The Future. it's all marketing speak, especially when all of your competitors are talking about that date you're going to say "yeah uh we anticipate having the same product at that time" while it's certain that self-driving cars are going to happen because now, as opposed to the last forty years of autonomous car research, there is a viable product that actually works. it just needs to be refined. but just because manufacturers are bullish and hyping up their future concepts doesn't mean you can actually expect to see self-driving cars on the market in five years. maybe so but i dont think anyone would be suprised if that date slipped a futurist is just someone whose expectations haven't been met a sufficient number of times
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
here's a demo of self driving cars from the late 90's that was so promising it was certain that self driving cars would be on the road by the futurist year of 2002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9G6JRUmg_A this time the technology is actually mature and robust enough to happen but still, it's a lot easier to make bold claims that revolutionary tech is right around the corner than it is to actually get that tech out and get people using it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Is it fair to say the predictions of it taking 30 or 40+ years for fully autonomous cars to be sold is equally as asinine as claiming it's going to happen tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:14
|
|