|
Young Freud posted:lol if you think you can wave a digital document in court and expect it to mean anything. This is why a bunch of corporations are excited about blockchain. I don't know enough about it to really evaluate the potential but their goal is to digitize contracts, legal docs etc and they are throwing a lot of cash at it.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
You've also got specialist e-signature intermediaries like DocuSign now. Digital signatures are absolutely a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:You've also got specialist e-signature intermediaries like DocuSign now. Digital signatures are absolutely a thing. True, and they're used for loan applications and tax returns, so they're definitely being used for financial documents. At the same time, there's legal stipulation regarding retention of records. For instance, bringing back to mortgages, creditors and issuers are to hold on to documents for three years after the consummation of the transaction, i.e. loan paid off or otherwise closed. So, every time those documents are sold to another company, everything that was generated in it's history has to get transferred, you can't just junk it in a shredder because you scanned it in a computer and have a digital copy now. While a digital document has the same weight as a paper hardcopy, the original documents are more important. So, a new loan generated digitally can be kept wholly digitally, but the paper documents for an outstanding loan from 1980 and all it's history have to be kept regardless of making a digital copy until after 3 years of being paid off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:This. When it's possible to lose $1 million dollars through a mis-stapled cover sheet (because the $25k was a number I pulled from my rear end, the mortgages ranged from shotgun shacks in Tennessee to apartments in New York and condos in Miami), you want to know who loving made that error. "Hello Automated Stapling Machine. What's happening? Uh we have sort of a problem here. Yeah. You apparently didn't put one of the new coversheets on your TPS reports. Did you see the memo?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
i am harry posted:God loving drat I wish I was on that plane. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Bates posted:This is why a bunch of corporations are excited about blockchain. I don't know enough about it to really evaluate the potential but their goal is to digitize contracts, legal docs etc and they are throwing a lot of cash at it. Jesus Christ no. No company anywhere was actually excited about blockchains. No company put "a lot of cash" at it. The dumb pyramid scheme that is bitcoin just blasts out that idea nonstop as one of their many dumb attempts to get you to buy their stupid failing useless currency. Blockchains are basically not useful for anything and the people that try to pump them up just have an incorrect belief that satoshi invented public key cryptography and don't know that has existed for decades and doesn't require "blockchains" at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Jesus Christ no. No company anywhere was actually excited about blockchains. No company put "a lot of cash" at it. The dumb pyramid scheme that is bitcoin just blasts out that idea nonstop as one of their many dumb attempts to get you to buy their stupid failing useless currency. Lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Jesus Christ no. No company anywhere was actually excited about blockchains. No company put "a lot of cash" at it. The dumb pyramid scheme that is bitcoin just blasts out that idea nonstop as one of their many dumb attempts to get you to buy their stupid failing useless currency. Ok ok maybe it's just hot air and vaporware. It's hard to decipher when companies like IBM and Microsoft talk about it as if it's useful. edit: Open Ledger Project Bates fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Bates posted:Ok ok maybe it's just hot air and vaporware. It's hard to decipher when companies like IBM talk about it as if it's useful. Bitcoin lawyers are the future in the same sense that they will all come from China
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
You're an idiot if you think that lolbertarians inside banks aren't pimping the hell out of buttcoin and buttblock technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Whatever happened to quantum encryption with the little light particle that self-destructs if you try and touch it? That is the most idiotic way to explain it but that's all I remember/understood of the process. I think we're gravely underestimating how fast technology advances. A little over fifteen years ago YouTube and iPhone didn't even exist, for example. Physical technology may take longer to advance but in general our ability to do things is advancing at a massively greater pace nowadays than it did a hundred years ago (which, a hundred years ago most people were still rocking horses and being able to call the house down the road was impressive).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Bates posted:Ok ok maybe it's just hot air and vaporware. It's hard to decipher when companies like IBM and Microsoft talk about it as if it's useful. Oh well then a couple very minor blog posts. This stuff is really blowing up! Now tell me second life is the wave of the future because ibm put meetings there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Rich people dont give a gently caress and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it anymore. Most people are not Bond villains, and don't actively want to hurt others. They just care about themselves first and foremost, and that is usually at the expense of others. So with that in mind, they will care if the situation negatively affects them. Rich people want to be richer, but they also want to live in something resembling a society, and they want to be safe, and they want nice things. In the worst case scenario where we just allow things to fester and massive amounts of people can't work, crime and violence will increase, and rich people will be targets. Politicians would be targets as well. No one wants that on either end of the power spectrum. What's the point of being rich if you don't get to spend your money in a functioning society? Or you're dead? What also gives me hope that we will find a solution, besides the obvious incentive of violence, is that for most of history, it's been a very specific class that has had their jobs taken by technological advancement. Once it starts to affect the upper crust of working society, the so called professional class, not the robber barren wealthy types who don't even need to work, but doctors, lawyers, financial services, then you might actually have something approaching working solidarity. Right now we can all huff and guffaw and look down our noses and Gus in Ohio with his oil stained hands and lament that he should go to school and get an education, like me, cause I'm smart. But once your uncle Jim the accountant finds he is no longer needed by society because no one needs a hard working accountant with 20 years experience, so he's working at Home Depot, our classist sentiments about getting reeducated to find a place in the new economy might change and we might realize we just need to figure something else out. Hey Jim the 45 year old accountant with two kids, why don't you just learn to program the software that took your job? Said no one ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:Most people are not Bond villains, and don't actively want to hurt others. They just care about themselves first and foremost, and that is usually at the expense of others. So with that in mind, they will care if the situation negatively affects them. Rich people want to be richer, but they also want to live in something resembling a society, and they want to be safe, and they want nice things. I mean you'd think that but look at how many societies have been driven to extreme solutions, some of which actively purge the rich, because the wealthy were so loving blinkered and/or arrogant that they straight up didn't think they could possibly be in any danger, or at risk of losing any of their wealth or status. Then someone sends them to a loving gulag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
This is a decent video on the whole automation thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Basically, lots of traditional low-entry jobs like driver, barista and even clerks are going the way of manufacturing, sooner rather than later. And you have to go down 30 positions on the "most common occupations in the labor force" to find a job that is 'new', like programmer; all of the rest have existed for at least 70 years. So unlike libertarians say, disruptive technologies will not create positions to make up for that, and even if they did, it'd take retraining tens of millions of people in the US alone, which is not going to happen because companies consider training a useless expense, especially when labor is so easily replaced. So yes, the future will not be just about masses of unemployed people, but UNEMPLOYABLE people, as all kinds of production become too efficient compared to the mass of available labor. TL;DR: World war 3 will surprise everyone by being between 8 billion angry starving serfs and 200,000 techbro billionaires.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Non-functioning societies aren't very fun for the rich, either. Rich people should consider how pleasant it is to drive down 5th Avenue without fear of kidnap, and eat in fancy restaurants without a security entourage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:TL;DR: World war 3 will surprise everyone by being between 8 billion angry starving serfs and 200,000 techbro billionaires. So pretty much the Terminator Future War without an evil AI and a lotta drones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:This is a decent video on the whole automation thing: Humans Need Not Apply is talking about things 100+ years out like they are 10-20 years out. Every time I hear we're 10 years away from self-driving cars I just can't help roll my eyes. If you're old enough to remember the 90s we were 10 years away from self driving cars then too. Hell, we've been 10 years away for the last 10 years. Even then once "perfect" automation exists it doesn't instantly displace people. It takes time for technology to deploy. Humans Need Not Apply is an interesting piece of pop science, but lets not pretend it is some sort of scholarly work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Xae posted:Every time I hear we're 10 years away from self-driving cars I just can't help roll my eyes. If you're old enough to remember the 90s we were 10 years away from self driving cars then too. Hell, we've been 10 years away for the last 10 years. They have had functional self driving cars for a while now. They have millions of hours of road time at this point. The 90s was about 10 years away from them being a thing that existed. In 10 more years we almost certainly are going to have cars that do major self driving functions. Even if they aren't fully autonomous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They have had functional self driving cars for a while now. They have millions of hours of road time at this point. The 90s was about 10 years away from them being a thing that existed. In 10 more years we almost certainly are going to have cars that do major self driving functions. Even if they aren't fully autonomous. Those "self driving" cars have huge restrictions on them and require constant operator oversight. The restrictions? No night driving. No driving at dawn or dusk. No driving in the rain. No driving in fog. No driving with snow on roads. If self-driving cars are like any software project ever dealing with the non-happy-path is going to take orders of magnitude more effort than dealing with the happy-path.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Unfortunately the social climate in the US is ripe for a Hunger Gamesian transition in the post-industrial world. Hard Work As A Virtue has been beaten into our societal consciousness since agrarian times. It has been used as a cudgel against social safety nets, labor protections, etc. In our hyper-efficient manufacturing age, industrial productivity has been uncoupled from wages and we have millions of people with no meaningful work outside service industries. Until we uncouple work from basic survival income this will be a problem--but the Hard Work As A Virtue brainwashing (especially of the middle class) is more likely to steer us toward The Running Man than any sort of Western European or Scandinavian socialist wonderland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Ora Tzo posted:So pretty much the Terminator Future War without an evil AI and a lotta drones? More like Elysium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Non-functioning societies aren't very fun for the rich, either. Rich people should consider how pleasant it is to drive down 5th Avenue without fear of kidnap, and eat in fancy restaurants without a security entourage. Adam Smith figured out this dynamic and published it for all to see in the Wealth of Nations over 200 years ago and yet the political and financial elite forget and re-learn this valuable lesson every 40 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I mean you'd think that but look at how many societies have been driven to extreme solutions, some of which actively purge the rich, because the wealthy were so loving blinkered and/or arrogant that they straight up didn't think they could possibly be in any danger, or at risk of losing any of their wealth or status. That's true, and that's why I think the lesson is that you can't just let it fester and work itself out. It's a matter of having blinders on. They don't realize that this outcome is on the table. It's all about how it's framed. All other things equal, being more rich is better than being less rich. All other things are never equal though. I also don't believe that there's ever been a scenario which is the same as what's coming, because we've never had the technology we have and will have. It gets more extreme over time, because less needs to be done and we have more people. There is a giant part of the population which is already doing nothing of real economic value.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:A collapse is inevitable even at current employment levels since pay is largely stagnant at best Upward pressure on wages starts when you get to full employment, which we're just now starting to see
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Xae posted:Those "self driving" cars have huge restrictions on them and require constant operator oversight. Google drives it's cars at night, why would night even be hard for a self driving car? They use active scanners, they don't even work off ambient light, lidar would have a harder time in the day if anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Non-functioning societies aren't very fun for the rich, either. Rich people should consider how pleasant it is to drive down 5th Avenue without fear of kidnap, and eat in fancy restaurants without a security entourage. True, but the rich can be very avant-garge in trying to see how far they can push it. If they just hire enough security, build taller fences, and buy enough politicians, they can live the life of modern feudal lords free of any consequence! Really, this time! Would Ayn Rand ever lie to us (unless it was in her self-interest, in which case props to her)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Xae posted:Humans Need Not Apply is talking about things 100+ years out like they are 10-20 years out. Something like McDonalds is pretty easy to automate. Most Walmart employees can be automated. It's not 100% replacement, but even 50% is millions of people. Those are the low hanging fruit in the service industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Google drives it's cars at night, why would night even be hard for a self driving car? They use active scanners, they don't even work off ambient light, lidar would have a harder time in the day if anything. Its just like the "we have autopilot, why do we have pilots"? thing. Even automated systems require the supervision of a skilled operator to be used safely, just not 3 of them like in the past. The autopilot lets the pilot focus on navigation, talking on the radio or looking for hazards like aircraft they might collide with or bad weather. I suspect cars will go the same way. Self driving cars will make driving safer, but this pipe dream of reading a book or having a glass of wine on the roadway is never going to happen. (Unless you have a hired driver, but you could have already done that for 100 years)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
baw posted:Upward pressure on wages starts when you get to full employment, which we're just now starting to see The problem is that we're almost certainly at the end of this cycle, which means we're going to get a year or two of wage growth if we're very lucky. The biggest jump in real earnings over the last few years has been thanks to plummeting gas prices too, which means that a lot of progress is going to be if erased oil jumps back up for any reason. Throw in the issues that are starting to crop up on the lower end of lending and I'm not at all confident that we're on course to break the declining wage trend that's existed since the 90s ended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:lol if you think you can wave a digital document in court and expect it to mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Google drives it's cars at night, why would night even be hard for a self driving car? They use active scanners, they don't even work off ambient light, lidar would have a harder time in the day if anything. Because Tesla named their driver assist suite "Autopilot" and so everyone assumes all self driving cars are as limited as Teslas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
New York Times says that Trump intended to name his Secretary of State Nominee last week, but there's been intense infighting in his transition team over it and that's why there has still been no nomination. It's between Romney and Guilianni. And 50% of Trump's transition team each thinks the other will be a disaster. There are concerns about Mitt Romney being loyal to Trump and the fact that he would be one of the main people involved in drafting internation trade deals and is a vocal fan of free trade and he himself has outsourced and laid off millions of peoples; directly and indirectly. Gulianni's law firm represents hundreds of international businesses and foreign governments. They also worked for the MEK, an Iranian opposition group that is on the list of US terrorist groups. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/u...v=top-news&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Here's to hoping he nominates the sociopathic android and not the mentally challenged goblin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
I want to go back in time and tell the 2012 version of me that Sec. of State Romney is going to be the good option in four years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
At this point Romney would be a blessing. Especially if he's not loyal to Trump. He's a bad person but I trust that he doesn't want to see the international order fall apart completely. On the other hand neither of them has any foreign policy experience whatsoever so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Here's to hoping he nominates the sociopathic android and not the mentally challenged goblin. I really really hope his administration collapses in on itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Its just like the "we have autopilot, why do we have pilots"? thing. Even automated systems require the supervision of a skilled operator to be used safely, just not 3 of them like in the past. The autopilot lets the pilot focus on navigation, talking on the radio or looking for hazards like aircraft they might collide with or bad weather. I suspect cars will go the same way. Self driving cars will make driving safer, but this pipe dream of reading a book or having a glass of wine on the roadway is never going to happen. (Unless you have a hired driver, but you could have already done that for 100 years) This doesn't really seem hypothetical anymore, products are on the market now. It's about what people predicted. Highways are basically fully autonomous, with the human interactions being legal rather than technical limitations. Surface roads work well enough but require some human input for technical and legal reasons and private driving areas like parking lots just go hog wild and will drive without you even in the car at all. All three of those seem about the way it'll go for a good long time. Highways are totally human free, surface roads are hitting confirmation prompts, private areas are let the car do whatever crazy thing because there is no law and the max speed was 15mph anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
How do self driving cars handle birds? One flying straight at you head on, or a flock of them on the road in front of you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Ahahaha, http://www.propornot.com/ has BAR listed as a "fake news" site spreading Russian propaganda. It's almost--almost--like liberals are perfectly cool with diversity just as long as it doesn't veer into actual leftism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:59
|
|