Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
Thank you, Wendy, for your (as always) civilized and reasonable reply.
I completely agree with everything you've just said. I do support free markets, but I also hate monopolies - esp. those propped up by governments playing favorites - with a passion.
Free markets don't mean anarchy - they depend on firm, well-enforced rules of fair dealing. Cronyism and rigging of rules to help the politically well-connected (as is endemic in the telecom industry) is the antithesis of free markets.
And I fully agree that we need to provide better for those harmed by the changes that progress requires. Nobody should be a sacrifice for the greater good. Personally I support a Universal Basic Income, but there are other ways to do it.
But we must find ways to ensure that progress happens - because in the long run that's the only way to reduce human suffering and create prosperity for everyone.
Luddite arguments are bad arguments - even if they're arguing for a good policy (as here).
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
Wendy, people have been making that argument since Ned Ludd smashed spinning jennys.
Yes, of course people need money to make the economy run.
But it matters where and how they get it. When jobs are "killed" because of efficiency improvements, that frees up employees to take new jobs making new things, that weren't being made before.
(Eventually, most of them. Not saying it isn't traumatic for many to have to switch.)
In the end both the old things and the new things get made. More stuff getting made + same number of people = more wealth in total. Progress.
If you oppose the merger, probably this report isn't something you want to emphasize.
"Killing" jobs is pretty much the definition of progress.
Doing more with less - providing the same services while freeing up resources (in this case labor) for other things - is what progress is all about.
The Industrial Revolution was "progress" because it killed farmer jobs by automating them with machinery, freeing up the farmers to take industry jobs - thus producing both food and industrial goods with the same number of workers.
And making everyone wealthier in the process.
Ya, it's no fun when it's your job that gets killed, but that transition cost (trauma, for many) is the price of progress. And always has been - this is economics 101.
I oppose the merger because it will decrease competition in the cell services business (and there isn't much to start with, thanks to FCC, state, and local rules that support monopolies).
Re: Batteries wear proportional to depth of discharge.
Actually, for Li+ cells, it's both extremes of charge that are wearing (not just discharge).
But if the charge management system avoids those extremes, modern cells can last a long, long time.
There are Tesla Model S cars on the road with over 500,000 km on them - still on the original battery pack and with > 80% of the original charge capacity.
That's more miles that most cars (ICE cars, anyway) get before going to the junkyard.
(Will all-aluminium electrics last longer? Hard to say, but if they last long enough to wear out the battery pack, they'll be LONG out of warranty by then.)
I don't think Tesla is going to have a financial problem re battery wear.
If this is scary, it was scary before Tesla unlocked the full battery capacity for the hurricane - doing that was a good thing regardless.
The scary thing of course is the potential for the manufacturer (or the police, or a hacker...) to brick a car remotely.
There are 2 simple workarounds to deal with that, which are routinely use in other industries:
1 - The car owner should be able to prevent/reject an over-the-air firmware update or commands.
2 - Even if the firmware is installed, the owner should always be able to force a 'factory reset' to an older, stable version of firmware. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the latest version, but the car will move.
Do those two (simple and common) things, and 99% of the problems go away.
My alternative: The state may not take property without a conviction in court. Real consequences, including prison, for police officers who abuse their powers. Deregulation, including drug legalization.
A state that respects the rights of citizens and limits its actions to keeping the peace, defending against foreign aggressors, resolving disputes peacefully, provision of basic infrastructure, and enforcing the rules of fair dealing.
And which, other than that, leaves people alone to live their lives as they see fit.
Re: Re: Re: Few want name calling, swearing, complaining, and racists attacks
It's true that few want that. But I don't think much moderation effort is needed to minimize it.
What's needed is a system that filters or ranks comments and commentators by quality - so that trash talkers and those with nothing productive to add get voted into oblivion. And so commenters have an incentive to think before they type.
Stack Exchange and Slashdot are good examples - both have systems where readers votes make the best comments more visible, and the worst ones less visible.
I don't think either has got it 100% right, but further experimentation is needed.
What doesn't work is lazy "post anything you like" with neither moderation nor a reputation based ranking system.
On the post: Another Stash House Sting Criticized By The Court... But Lengthy Sentences Left Untouched
Re: The Government is the Enemy
Acton
On the post: Another Stash House Sting Criticized By The Court... But Lengthy Sentences Left Untouched
Re: judicially murdered man
The appropriate thing would have been for the judge to personally ask the Governor to pardon the innocent man.
If he didn't (and you imply so), he failed in his moral duty.
On the post: The Google Docs Lockout Fiasco & The Failed Promise Of The Cloud
Re: The day the cloud died...
It just showed the folly of relying on non-distributed storage architectures.
If every file were split, redundantly, across thousands of servers around the planet, there would be no way prevent access to them.
And there are proposals for doing just that.
On the post: The Google Docs Lockout Fiasco & The Failed Promise Of The Cloud
Things are still evolving...
As long as innovators are permitted free entry into the market, things will evolve toward a robust system that does what customers want.
Eventually. These things take time.
And if free entry is allowed - that's what we need to keep fighting for.
On the post: The Google Docs Lockout Fiasco & The Failed Promise Of The Cloud
Re: Basic systems engineering
That describes most people's PCs.
On the post: Court Has No Problem With All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers To Law Enforcement
Re: Re:
You do have backups, right?
On the post: Use A Landline To Talk About Criminal Activity? The Government Can Seize The House Around It
Re: This makes no sense
On the post: Use A Landline To Talk About Criminal Activity? The Government Can Seize The House Around It
Why do corporate-owned properties never get seized?
Suppose I coordinate a drug deal using a pay phone in the Empire State building.
So - they can seize the whole building from its owners?
Why does that never happen?
Oh, let me guess...because those owners have lawyers and political connections?
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
I completely agree with everything you've just said. I do support free markets, but I also hate monopolies - esp. those propped up by governments playing favorites - with a passion.
Free markets don't mean anarchy - they depend on firm, well-enforced rules of fair dealing. Cronyism and rigging of rules to help the politically well-connected (as is endemic in the telecom industry) is the antithesis of free markets.
And I fully agree that we need to provide better for those harmed by the changes that progress requires. Nobody should be a sacrifice for the greater good. Personally I support a Universal Basic Income, but there are other ways to do it.
But we must find ways to ensure that progress happens - because in the long run that's the only way to reduce human suffering and create prosperity for everyone.
Luddite arguments are bad arguments - even if they're arguing for a good policy (as here).
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
I mean the part that starts "I oppose the merger because"...?
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
Wendy, people have been making that argument since Ned Ludd smashed spinning jennys.
Yes, of course people need money to make the economy run.
But it matters where and how they get it. When jobs are "killed" because of efficiency improvements, that frees up employees to take new jobs making new things, that weren't being made before.
(Eventually, most of them. Not saying it isn't traumatic for many to have to switch.)
In the end both the old things and the new things get made. More stuff getting made + same number of people = more wealth in total. Progress.
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Job Losses? Think of all the buggy whip makers!
To nitpick, mergers lead to job losses only when they're successful.
Most mergers fail.
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Re: "Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
Pandering to the ignorant might win votes. But it's still pandering, and no way to argue if you care about truth.
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
"Killing" jobs is what progress is all about
If you oppose the merger, probably this report isn't something you want to emphasize.
"Killing" jobs is pretty much the definition of progress.
Doing more with less - providing the same services while freeing up resources (in this case labor) for other things - is what progress is all about.
The Industrial Revolution was "progress" because it killed farmer jobs by automating them with machinery, freeing up the farmers to take industry jobs - thus producing both food and industrial goods with the same number of workers.
And making everyone wealthier in the process.
Ya, it's no fun when it's your job that gets killed, but that transition cost (trauma, for many) is the price of progress. And always has been - this is economics 101.
I oppose the merger because it will decrease competition in the cell services business (and there isn't much to start with, thanks to FCC, state, and local rules that support monopolies).
But "jobs" isn't a good reason to oppose it.
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Wait, I thought piracy was a good thing?
Life is complicated.
On the post: Velcro's Hilarious Trademark Lesson Video Actually A Good Lesson In Just How Stupid Trademark Law Has Become
Re: Brand premium
Generic branded velcro is just "velcro".
...and I'll call it whatever I damn please. Because *I* don't care about *their* trademark.
On the post: Tesla Remotely Extended The Range Of Drivers In Florida For Free... And That's NOT A Good Thing
Re: Batteries wear proportional to depth of discharge.
But if the charge management system avoids those extremes, modern cells can last a long, long time.
There are Tesla Model S cars on the road with over 500,000 km on them - still on the original battery pack and with > 80% of the original charge capacity.
That's more miles that most cars (ICE cars, anyway) get before going to the junkyard.
(Will all-aluminium electrics last longer? Hard to say, but if they last long enough to wear out the battery pack, they'll be LONG out of warranty by then.)
I don't think Tesla is going to have a financial problem re battery wear.
On the post: Tesla Remotely Extended The Range Of Drivers In Florida For Free... And That's NOT A Good Thing
Simple workarounds
The scary thing of course is the potential for the manufacturer (or the police, or a hacker...) to brick a car remotely.
There are 2 simple workarounds to deal with that, which are routinely use in other industries:
1 - The car owner should be able to prevent/reject an over-the-air firmware update or commands.
2 - Even if the firmware is installed, the owner should always be able to force a 'factory reset' to an older, stable version of firmware. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the latest version, but the car will move.
Do those two (simple and common) things, and 99% of the problems go away.
On the post: Thanks To The DEA And Drug War, Your Prescription Records Have Zero Expectation Of Privacy
Re: Speaking of deja vu
A state that respects the rights of citizens and limits its actions to keeping the peace, defending against foreign aggressors, resolving disputes peacefully, provision of basic infrastructure, and enforcing the rules of fair dealing.
And which, other than that, leaves people alone to live their lives as they see fit.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Few want name calling, swearing, complaining, and racists attacks
What's needed is a system that filters or ranks comments and commentators by quality - so that trash talkers and those with nothing productive to add get voted into oblivion. And so commenters have an incentive to think before they type.
Stack Exchange and Slashdot are good examples - both have systems where readers votes make the best comments more visible, and the worst ones less visible.
I don't think either has got it 100% right, but further experimentation is needed.
What doesn't work is lazy "post anything you like" with neither moderation nor a reputation based ranking system.
Next >>