|
Cicero posted:I think what you see today with kickstarter, patreon, youtube, etc. shows this doesn't have to be the case. You can be moderately popular in the entertainment/art sector with some niche and still make a living. This kind of thing is only going to expand in the future. why is this extremely marginal business model, only really viable at all in the past decade and only for a relative handful of well-positioned people, going to become the new paradigm when there's vastly more desperate people struggling to get in at the supply side and vastly fewer consumers with discretionary money to blow on the demand side? Not enough else left for Amazon shareholders to spend their cash on? The other side of the namedropping silicon valley #brands as an answer to mass-scale unemployment is bittorrent, tumblr, youtube again. People who aren't sure where their next meal's coming from aren't the primary supporters of the arts, and technology's made it easier than ever for someone with more time than money to rip off most profitable (because reproducible, resellable) forms of artwork for free. It used to be that fine art was the luxury of the idle rich; now paying artists is. Right now we're in a narrow window where micropayment schemes have allowed producers to sell to the entire global middle class at once, whose constituents have small individual amounts of disposable income to blow on small-potatoes bespoke/niche work but who collectively can make up in volume; that middle class goes away, as it will when nearly half of your potential customers are out of a job, Kickstarter and Patreon go away. When all the actually valuable careers that've outcompeted cottage industry as sources of income for so long are getting annihilated you aren't going to switch to an economy founded on the inefficient smalltime pieceworkers who once subsisted on their spare change selling twee knitted moustache-print coffee mug cozies to each other and just carry on. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 5, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Death Bot seemed to be saying that you'd get rid of in-store management in favor of some very well paid IT types who would troubleshoot the program while the program ran the store. I don't think that's ever likely to happen, at least in fast food. You might be able to shave off an ASM here and there but the meat of that job requires human judgement and human presence. IDK why you'd expect fast food automation to look like 'McDonalds but Rosie the Robot is wearing the manager hat' and not 'hamburger vending machines' but either way this is more broadly on the money about the trend: Veskit posted:I'm surprised how much of this thread is about physical robots doing tasks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah, but that was mostly done in the last few decades - even people shooting for white collar jobs have trouble getting an entry level job, when back in the day you could just work in the mailroom or as a typist or whatever There's still plenty of room for it to get worse. A kid newly the job market today probably couldn't get to where I am now from where I started ten years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
turn it up TURN ME ON posted:I think you're missing what the other people are saying. They're software engineers or automation engineers, and they're saying that more jobs like theirs will be created. They're saying that when a menial job is created it will be replaced by a job maintaining whatever thing replaced them. What do they think the appeal of automation to business owners is, if it leaves them paying the same number of people more money to maintain the crappy machines that keep breaking down on the job?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:You wont come into work one day and find yourself be replaced by PROJECT MANAGER 3000, you will gradually see small parts of your job be automated. Or perhaps not even your own job, but the jobs of the people you are managing as part of your own job. Until a moment comes were you really arent that necessary anymore. which is a process that's already happening; how many hours out of your week are getting saved by using something like TeamworkPM (or, gently caress, Outlook) instead of having endless team meetings and manually micromanaging your crew's schedules the way folks did in the 70s, so you can be re-tasked to take on someone else's job like product design? The chaotic do-everything kind of interstitial jobs tend to be what's left over of what was once three or four specialists' jobs mushed together, and as algorithmic solutions to some of your more time-consuming tasks get developed your position will be merged with someone else's to leave one person doing the work of ten, and nine people the market doesn't really need anymore. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Why is two years a real solution and not four? Why not a PhD? The job market isn't demanding higher and higher academic credentials because a normally clever person who'd have been a machinist in 1960 couldn't figure out how to use Microsoft Outlook without an associates' in math. The job market demands degrees because it's contracting and employers can take their pick from the hundreds of applicants struggling to find work, so an otherwise intelligent accomplished person with a high school diploma is at a crushing competitive disadvantage against scores of equally desperate intelligent accomplished people who do have one. When everybody has a college degree, the goalpost for basic employability will shift to the next thing that makes a candidate stand out from a hundred others, and the next, indefinitely so long as there's substantially more people with the same baseline qualifications who need a job to live than there are jobs to help keep them alive. UBI addresses this problem by exchanging the promise of a basic living (and, looking at what a 6+ month gap in your resume can do to you already, the promise you'll never again see better than that) for surrendering ownership of everything to the capitalist class and giving up the last bargaining chip the average worker has in negotiating with the rich - the economic value of their labor. It's a reversion to feudalism, except this time around the nobles don't actually need 99% of the serfs for anything at all, which through mysterious means translates to they'll happily underwrite them taking up a life of fingerpainting and playing DOTA indefinitely. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Not everyone's going to be a CNC operator or a radiologist, though. In fact, you couldn't employ even one in a hundred people doing that; there'd be nothing for them to do! An associates' degree won't help you get into those positions even now, and we've got no shortage of aspiring doctors and engineers with better qualifications than that who still can't get jobs. And you're misreading me: UBI will never become "a necessity", it's a dead end predicated on the fantasy that if you let them have all the money and power in the world the Goldman Sachs board of directors will ask the government to redistribute it to you. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The ideal solution is probably socializing the means of production, not just giving everyone a paycheck. But that's never going to happen and neither will UBI. "technology" isn't a Sid Meier's Civilization score that's easy to quantify but there've been absolutely tremendous changes in how we relate to work and what work it is we do in the past three decades, prompted by technology. Networked computers are blowing steam engines out of the water, like imagine trying to explain this sentence quote:There are jobs that are threatened by automation but it's mostly stuff that can already be done over the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
if millennials have the patience to navigate one of those loving phone mazes where they force you to talk to the robot that can't understand human speech, then God bless 'em.
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
ok 'liberal' has finally lost all meaning if STEMlord horseshit counts
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:This has been the opposite of my experience. What specific restaurants have you visited that are like this? Dude went to a lot of Old Country Buffets on his Thailand trip?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Even if people could just go down to the job store and pick out whatever new job they felt looked good when the old one expires, those shelves are bare; there's just plain orders of magnitude more people bereft of work in the fields they've got any particular qualifications for than there are entry-level positions for newbies in anything. Yeah, there's a good number of niche trades here and there each capable of supporting whole thousands of specialists, on the scale of America that means you might as well be exhorting people to buy the scratchoff and hope to make rent on that. At least that sucks up less investment of time and money before you find out you're not the lucky winner. We are not going to replace "the auto industry" with HVAC repair or PHP programming or sword swallowing, or even all three put together, not even if you personally got a job doing that.Ignatius M. Meen posted:I have been told I have a pretty clear voice and I've played text adventures so I know how to keep it simple. Creating jobs putting up with bureaucratic horseshit for people is the closest thing we've had yet to a viable trade substitute for the masses, but if you think I'm going to waste time on a wager that you'll only be on hold for ten minutes where I don't even get anything when I win, you're sorely misguided in your business model. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 22:59
|
|
Sucks to be old and mumbly I guess?
|
Tei posted:True that. I heard mobile computing is very popular in places like Africa, where maybe building a cable grid would be to complex and pointless, while setting the antena in some places and selling cheap phones make more sense for everyone involved. well, we still employ the people who made maybe three of those products in the electronics manufacturing field (plus some Congolese coltan miners); instead of having the state of the world outside our personal range of vision dripfed to us by one of a half-dozen national news conglomerates we're inundated with live in-person video feeds of newsworthy events and/or cats 24/7; smalltime musicians and artists can reasonably self-publish and make an actual living selling to an audience of thousands distributed across the continent (and take your credit card, cause who uses cash anymore); without extraordinary measures that will mark you as an antisocial wierdo everywhere you go and everything you say and do will be automatically tracked and analyzed by multiple sinister organizations compiling your secret biography for uncertain motives; anywhere you go you can instantly and effortlessly know where to get anything you're looking for, the quickest way to get there, the meaning of the word that guy just said, how to fix that thing that just broke, with no prior knowledge; and so a lot fewer people bother to retain deep personal knowledge of that kind of day-to-day knowhow. Just off the top of my head. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Not really. Crowdsourced news is really good at some things, like ensuring that many police shootings and protests are livestream, but really bad at stuff like investigative pieces. Print media was pretty bad at investigative work too, let's be real here. For every Woodward and Bernstein team there was about a decade where the Washington Post just republished whatever press releases someone sent them. The instantaneous and free nature of online news hurt the newspapers' distribution until they adapted, but it was traditional journalism that discredited its own self once there was a venue for people to fact-check the New York Times and get the word out on when their columnists were just straight making poo poo up A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
ok, do you have any concept of what 'conceptually change what a road is for' means in practice, on an urban network carrying millions of human-driven automobiles a day.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
what the gently caress no, it is not a "solved problem". if spending more money than exists to be spent on technology that doesn't work outside is just a matter of wanting it enough to you, we can eliminate the hazards of the individual commute by putting all the office towers on big wheels and having them slowly roll from house to house picking up workers instead. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Electric cars can drive on the same roads normal cars can, they just can't get more than ~20 miles from a glorified DC power adapter. Before there were one or two installed in the city centers, early adopters just charged at home and metered out their commutes, which left them largely unsuitable for leaving town but really nobody's problem except the owner's, who presumably didn't care. Early robocar adopters aren't going to just bring their own traffic lights, and you need more than a couple per major city, and to accomplish this would oblige the public to pay a breathtaking amount of money for no near-term benefit but to make a bunch of private companies' gimmick cars for the idle rich work right, and in the meantime none of those things better get a dirty lens and hit a stroller.
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Cost of maintenance is kind of one of the biggest things people weigh when choosing a car, so unless they all form a cartel and decide to DRM-lock their new models simultaneously, that probably won't go well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:*nine autonomous cars circle a bar as a large party of twentysomethings decide to get one more round* Maximum Overdrive was a great movie
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Gloried Elon will waft us to the promised land of cars actually being trains on a wave of techno-musk
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I wonder what quirk in human psychology causes threads like this one to go down the automated-car rabbit hole over and over instead of pursuing less circular topics. As machines are adapted to take on roles once reserved for humans, humans move to corner the former machine role of getting stuck in a loop and doing the same dumb thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
sorry OOCC I do not believe you will ever be a real boy
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm uncertain as to which college educated jobs are the current flavor of the year, but in the event those who are college educated can't find a job in the relevant field, they can attempt another degree or fall back on basic income. heh heh, stupid american sheeple, mindlessly worshiping their ability to keep themselves necessary in the face of a hostile elite class, can't they see that begging for handouts to stay in college forever is the only rational way to live A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
The age of the 50-year-old freshman is, of course, merely a transitional stage. I foresee a bright future, a shining utopia: one where all the world is NEET, and the Kochs in their mechanipalaces give us a daily allowance to buy the products of their autofactories, so that we may give their money back to them. Finally a rational, scientific society; one free of the medieval hocus-pocus of an economy based on the exchange of goods and services mediated by currency, where the rich are free to amply reward those who provide nothing in return.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
I want people to actually have ownership of the means by which they subsist, such that no millionaire or politician bought by millionaires can simply take it from them with the stroke of a pen. We made some reasonable inroads into securing this for workers during the last century, which is what the whole elaborate rigamarole with robots and shipping goods from slave camps halfway across the world is entirely a response to. The state and capital have gone through tremendous, expensive, systematic effort to shift the paradigm away from centralized domestic factories Americans worked in and simply did not get a cut of the profits of, and the brilliant vision of UBI is that since the situation has changed people should simply stop trying to reassert a speaking role in the economy, cede ownership of all wealth to the Kochs and Zuckerbergs and their top hundred shareholders, and in return be offered vassalage which will surely consist of being given a comfortable middle-class living to stay out of the way and play DOTA all day. The most direct approach to actually giving people a sustainable place in a world without labor would be to start nationalizing industry and make everyone in society a shareholder in its wealth, regardless of where it comes from. Which first requires a democratic state that's not beholden to the oligarchs, and that'll take some doing, though it's still more practical than hoping that once they don't need you anymore plutocrats will become your personal Daddy Warbucks. Or you could smash all the robots and sink all the cargo ships and force the developed world back to the economic status quo of the 1950s where most people work and draw a paycheck if you think that's easier, whichever. The point being that the basic conflict between the haves and have-nots hasn't changed substantively just cause the factories moved, only the short-term tactics to address it have, and UBI is just a bait-and-switch con of 'optimized capitalism' to convince exceptionally dumb liberals to throw away everything that actually matters, of the same order as libertarianism. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:So you'd prefer a Citizen's Dividend to UBI? Sounds good, but how do you get from where we are now to that without passing through UBI? How do you get to UBI without passing through a citizen's dividend? The reason it's "UBI" and not plain old communism is it entirely skips the step where we address the tiny discrete propertied class that owns most of everything, including the government that'd hypothetically be responsible for this redistribution. Either you have a role in the system comparable to the oligarchs', or you don't, they're not going to magically become generous and uplift everyone who's impoverished now if you just let em take everything and write a petition to change.org. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
yo protip you can pretend your dumb ideas are being persecuted for being "not ideologically pure enough", or you can deny the lived experiences of anyone who thinks your ideas are dumb to make up stories about how they must be secretly personally impure, but you kinda have to pick one or you blow your cover as a petulant internet loon.
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:But where does capital disengage to? Without a public to buy its stuff it can't make more money. I guess you could have a situation where the rich only trade with each other, either with products or on the stock market? What does 'the public' bring to the table when they don't actually contribute anything of value themselves, just inefficiently shuffle the billionaires' money around for them? Why bother with people if bank transfers alone were the wellspring material wealth came from? The rich could much more efficiently set up a computer to shift money between a few million of their own accounts thousands of times a second and light the products of their factories on fire without bothering loop you in. There's a reason nobody's offering to pay you right now to just consume. The social-democratic welfare state makes sense as a way to maintain a stable workforce when the vast majority of beneficiaries are simply taking a temporary break between periods of producing wealth far in excess of what they ever receive. There's no incentive for the rich man to stay in a system with a million permanently unemployed dependents who bring him nothing beyond the promise of eventually circulating most of his money back to him, versus cutting out everyone not involved in maintaining him in comfort and defending his holdings against the rabble. Let the rest starve and watch 'em from your gated community or Carribean island, pour encourager les autres, and let that hang over anyone thinking of asking for a raise. Like you're literally fantasizing about making the Atlas Shrugged world real, where the nonproductive masses live off the largesse of the tiny cadre of taxpayers who'd be objectively better off without them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Wouldn't the logical endgame for any full automatization scenario be that a single person owns literally everything? Namely, the person that controls the food production. Scale back production to what's necessary to keep them plush? There's already hundreds of millions of people in the world going hungry that modern industry easily has the capacity to feed, but won't because there's just not any money in it. It's not like we can't extrapolate what'd happen to us if we developed a meaningful permanently-unemployed class, that's a done experiment, it's something that is already the case in much of the world and the end result is families subsisting off whatever they can find in landfills while el presidente's friends and sycophants are sequestered in their palaces, not Scrooge discovering the true meaning of Christmas is other people. What I think isn't getting through is we're not talking about some impossible hypothetical slippery-slope endpoint of 'one person owns everything', or even 'a few hundred people own everything'. We're already here and now living in a world with an immense and growing divide between haves and have-nots and anyone reading this is perched on the sloughing-off perhiphery of the haves; a difference of a few percentage points will mean an utter transformation of your life and capacity to steer it, and the end of your modernized existence won't be the point that suddenly inspires the capitalist class to start making their responsibility the good of all mankind. Societies where the currently alive population is in excess of the population useful to the elites who control the flow of wealth aren't some out-there sci-fi hypothetical internet debate clubbers need to write YA novels about the NEET Star Federation over, that's just fuckin' Haiti. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:The value of currency doesn't depend on whether you are giving it in exchange for work or in exchange for nothing. 45% of Sweden's GDP is in exports (mostly traditional heavy industry) and they've got a 6.5% unemployment rate; the population as a whole is massively economically productive (that is, they produce things of value, not that they consume a lot, which is not productive) and the welfare state diverts a small percentage of their productivity to maintain them as such. This is completely unlike a situation where welfare is primarily directed towards supporting a large and growing class that produces nothing of value, ever. Rich people have lots of money, but its value ultimately derives from their stake in actual industry making things and providing services, that doesn't mean you can write yourself a check for a billion dollars and become rich too. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:It doesnt matter if is 1 person/computer producing everything or 100 million people. Its not about how many people are productive, but about the total amount produced. If that stays the same with less people than yes, you can give those people who now do nothing the same amount of money as they got before without any wealth loss for society (well except for the capitalist i guess). In fact it might be better to give it to those people so they can continue to consume. It sure as poo poo is about that for the people who own the wealth, dogg you are not the player in Sid Meier's Civilization tweaking the 'social welfare' slider to get your 'happiness' bar up for a nation; "you", internet-debater somewhere on the lower-to-middle-class spectrum whose political relevance amounts to roughly a vote in the general, are not giving the people anything. It makes rather a lot of difference to the capitalist class, who are the ones who'd actually be making that call in a system where they continue to own the means of production, whether they get to keep their money for themselves or whether it's redistributed to a bunch of people who as far as they're concerned basically just light it on fire. Your consumption is not a valuable service you provide them, it is worth nothing to anyone but you except as a means of capturing the wealth you produce through labor, as expressed in your paycheck. These are matters of pretty immediate concern for someone involved with ensuring that real physical people in the real physical world will continue to receive the stuff of life instead of sinking into the misery that already awaits anyone the capitalists do not need, but instead you keep glossing over stuff like the basic word-salad nonsense of raw consumption producing value in what's evidently the world's only non-automatable service to arrive at the same conclusion that you don't need to make any fundamental changes and everything will turn out fine and it's the part where you offer anything in exchange for your comfort that's optional. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I enjoy this argument that capitalist economics would continue functioning in a situation where there is no one to sell to. What's an overproduction crisis, precious? There'll always be a class of non-aristocrats useful to the aristocracy, they just don't nearly have to include everyone (and, in fact, don't right now). Is your gameplan to be Warren Buffett's majordomo, or wine steward? A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
call to action posted:Interesting that unfettered globalization and the reincarnation of international organized labor as a concept lead to the exact same conclusion, isn't it? Well, technically, one drives us all more equally towards the global mean income of around $10k/yr, while the other drives us all less equally towards less than half of that, another half of everything being reserved for literally eight people. First-world workers are absolutely net beneficiaries of global capital right now regardless of the tremendous wealth inequity even within the first world, but their position is a temporary one hard-won in the face of capitalism, not some universal constant, and the gains of the past century are being actively chipped away even now. It is not a judgement from God or the patriotic instincts of multinational corporations that keep you from living like a Bangladeshi shirtweaver or Brazillian landfill picker, you're not just special. Tei posted:This is a interesting point. I'm having a little trouble parsing this but nationalizing industry and distributing the profits among the people from that point is, as ever, the whole premise of communism, which is the terrible spectre D&D lolberts are trying to avoid by weaving fantasies of the private industry barons just giving them stuff for taking on the onerous burden of owning 20 pairs of shoes for them. If there's not a distinct class of oligarchs who actually own all the stuff and decide whether it serves them personally that you get to eat every day, a whole lot of issues change fundamentally. They're not super inclined to just forfeit their ownership of everything to their employees, or the people of the world generally, but they're not any more inclined to keep their dominance of everything and just forfeit their money instead. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Sort of like ignoring the litany of problems that already exist within the current hegemony? Power has already been consolidated to a select few, the most powerful government in the world is massively corrupt and billions live in disease and poverty. Mass automation could make things marginally worse but at this point I don't blame people for being hopeful for the chance that massively reducing the burden of human work could press society into a more positive direction if applied correctly. p much, future technology could potentially eliminate human drudgery but technology we've had for your entire lifetime could factually eliminate human hunger. What's supposed to change with the same system and the same basic guys deciding how it's utilized, are real people starving just... less motivational? Does poverty only 'count' insasmuch as it personally affects Americans/Europeans who post a lot on the Internet, or is their Counterstrike-honed keyboard rage just going to cow the heads of multinationals into giving back to society in ways that millions in an actual struggle for survival here and now couldn't
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I wonder how much malnutrition in terms of starvation has been replaced by well, bad food? Is there a way to measure that? what, like, vitamin A deficiency from eating only white rice vs. literally eating nothing? A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I absolutely agree, I'm just wondering if that kind of thing is measured. I'm not saying that making sure everyone has SOMETHING to eat isn't important and laudable, but I do think throwing brown people scraps and making sure garbage food merchants are able to make money at their expense isn't good enough. We can do a lot better. yeah fair enough. malnutrition for the sake of those counts tries to incorporate all those things; there's a big focus on getting people nutritional supplements because outside of emergencies like war or natural disaster a lack of raw calories isn't generally the problem. Volkerball posted:So does welfare not exist in the fantasy marxoteen world or welfare in capitalist economies is workforce maintenance; it is there to keep people mothballed and able to eventually return to productivity in situations where temporary incapacity, unemployment, or life-consuming responsibilities like supporting family would otherwise mean a permanent end to their contribution to capital. the logic of the modern welfare state assumes close to everybody is either productively contributing to the economy, or will be soon, and in order to qualify for it you typically have to fill out a whole bunch of forms to confirm that you do, in fact, fit into that rubric. it's not just free money for the hell of it. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Again, maybe you go to doctor house MD and he is using his genius brain to think up brand new diagnosis and then curing them with brand new treatments. But most of real medicine is failable doctors trying to vaguely remember symptoms within the limits of human memory then poorly looking up the symptoms they don't remember then giving treatments based on whatever the research said the last time they looked at the research mixed with how they "feel" about it. you can pull up WebMD right the gently caress now and self-diagnose to your heart's content with the power of technology, and if you search around a bit and insist hard enough can almost certainly find a doctor willing to go along with whatever you say your problem is if you pick something not totally off-the-wall that'd need Dr. House to begin with. this isn't some miraculous futuristic Jetsons cure to illness, it's an extremely terrible means of diagnosis commonly used today by total nutbars Cicero posted:Yes, but it's presumably a lot easier to identify and eliminate biases like that when you're using essentially a single model across thousands of software deployments vs trying to identify and eliminate biases across thousands of individual brains. that would depend on who's doing the QA to check for those biases (it's the same closed institution of 98% young bougie white libertarian dudes that built the search engine in the first place), and how motivated they are to aggressively identify and correct that particular shortcoming (they think homeless people should just make a Kickstarter). you're proposing replacing thousands of doctors, some lovely, with an encyclopedia and a tech bro who can be in thousands of places at once. This is a real problem we have with software here and now, and it's only getting bigger as what San Francisco feels objective reality is starts pervading more and more aspects of everyday life. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 17:20
|
|