972 karma · joined February 16, 2013
So, governments don't have trillions in tax dollars a year to provide necessary services for citizens?
Billions more should radically change everything for the better, right? Clearly, that's just a modus ponens logic 101 right there. Yup.
Learn to read. I never argued that. I clearly attributed consolidation outcomes in the economy to collusion between Washington and Wall Street.
This is proven. Anti-competitive regulation i.e. regulatory capture is more prevalent than ever.
The most recent example of blatant anti-competitive collusion was the recent case of multiple Big Tech companies colluding against Parler. And the well-paid Wall street puppets in Washington did absolutely nothing about it and often publicly spoke up in favor of it. Pure & corrupt crony consolidation.
Your argument, like Marx, works in favor of crony capitalism because it creates a false dichotomy between "inevitable consolidation" for a top few elite OR complete radical revolution destroying everything and starting over. The purpose of a false dichotomy being of course to obscure the actual truth which is that consolidation of the economy does not occur from a free market but only occurs from corruption, bureaucracy, and anti-competitive tactics.
It's pure idiocy. Full stop.
Go read some Von Neumann and Nash and educate yourself about actually likelihoods of outcomes.
And before you scream about this being pedantic, perhaps first reconsider the original premise that you are proposing: automation taking over things and reducing job availability to nil. It's a fantastical premise to set.
Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised.
EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).
Right the tradeoff is how much value your adult personality derives out of the "collegiate" side of the town over the "students" side of the town.
> fighting irrelevance
This is a false dichotomy generated by corporate propaganda. The system is designed to make you feel this way. Trust me, I was saying these say things online in 2012, and jobs have only increased in number since then.
> When so much work can be performed by machines
Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business.
Why not? Why would you think that this is not a valid idea? Because in your premises you are assuming that all the machines are wildly expensive and well out of the reach of a small business owner.
But then that makes your premises an argument for the "inevitability" of consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few companies and not actually an argument against the number of possible jobs.
Do you see how subtle that is? Do you see how sneaky that false equivalence is?
Politicians and Wall street have been consolidating the economy into a few companies (via mergers, acquisitions, regulations, index funds, etc.) that can work at reduced losses and increased margins and f**ing over the younger generations primarily, but the middle class in general.
And the GP commenter asked a completely valid question. The answer is clearly that most families with remote working parents and most mature couples that can remote work are not likely to prioritize a college town as a place to enjoy their years or raise a family.
Young single people who remote work seem to be the target of these efforts. And that is great because there are an increasing number of them.
This could help stimulate the socialization and dating scene for young single adults as well. Instead of relying on moving where the jobs are and doing online dating with random strangers.
Time will tell.
Everyone is upset with cryptocurrencies being an overvalued asset. But, that is a purely social phenomenon that happens entirely orthogonally to the technology itself. I mean, the same phenomenon has happened in the past to shoes and children's stuffed animals.
It can happen to literally anything that you can convince get-rich-quick gamblers is worth a gamble on.
It seems like artificial metabolic pathways research needs to be an area where boundaries are pushed. It would be fairly useful because it would generalize energy research as well.
> start by reducing the number of genes
Top down is status quo synth-bio. But, I found it interesting that the new mRNA vaccines used the lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanisms. It seems to be a sort of an early success for bottom-up synth-bio.
> Central Dogma for a very good reason.
Which is why there are two approaches to "life". 1. what is for all practical purposes, further variations on existing biology 2. a much more profound and general definition of what "life" even is, and the ability to generate lifeforms (whatever that may mean) from just about anything - which may or may not require anything analogous to the central dogma.
The entire point of game theory is to align incentives. It is not to simply paint pictures of ideals and deny that humans are human.
I understand that the AMA has incentives that are not nearly as noble as simply ensuring the world has a steady stream of doctors. Nonetheless, the answer is not to simply say "the AMA has some impure incentives" as an actual dismissal of a different argument.
This is why my comment specifically addressed top positions and tenured positions i.e., a position with a specific world-renown research group. Competition for the positions that putting all that time and effort into a PhD would be for.
> employed in a research or at least R&D capacity.
Sure, jobs exist. I am not seeing where I denied this fact anywhere.
> tenured positions do not pay eye-watering salaries
Tenure is what I am specifically referring too. It's a form of intellectual and economic freedom.
So, is this, at the end of the day, that the ratio of students willing to study graduate level studies, and jobs that require graduate level studies is dramatically imbalanced?
Sometimes, we as humans like to avoid the obvious discussion because it is the most uncomfortable discussion to have.
The truth is that we need more restrictions and an even higher bar on education that artificially pipes the best of the best in corresponding numbers to estimated availability of jobs in 4-5 years.
I am pretty sure that the medical world already does this.
No, it's simple. It's called game theory. So, who benefits from the publish or perish system that drives this profoundly fraudulent behavior and outcomes in science?
You are avoiding the "who" question. Why not maybe, perhaps, identify the who and get them removed from their position?
It may or may not even be a fellow scientist.
> lack of publications
uh huh, science is not and never was a stationary process.
It's absolutely disgusting that modern academia is filled with so many cowards and buffoons that the state of modern science has reached such a low.
> Even switching to industry isn't so easy without publications
Well, this is stupid. The only thing useful to corporations is your training and not your novelty.
Any novelty is a cherry on top, cream-of-the-crop pick and has nothing to do with being "hirable". But, that is also just an unchangeable aspect of our competitive reality and is thus entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Then why not speak out publicly against it?
Obviously because you know that there are still a significant number of individuals that want the system to work this way. Your fear of those individuals is why you don't speak out against it.
So who are they? Who are you scared of?
But, if the leaked goroutine was blocking while attempting to read from an unclosed channel, then you could simply `close(channel)` and this would cause the goroutine to return. [1]
[0] https://play.golang.org/p/FDfZZfdXgMC [1] https://play.golang.org/p/cr7JzIdRDjR
EDIT: I am making this comment to emphasize that goroutines pretty much only leak because of unclosed channels. So, it might be a little difficult to justify manual (or even automated) static analysis for leaked goroutines unless you have channel spaghetti. But, channel spaghetti is a sign of faulty design.
Are they? Or are we just slowly forgetting that everything in modern software is composed of concepts invented pre-1980 (and in fact pre-1970 for the most part)?
It's called "Turing's Curse" [0]
To clarify, it's the "surprisingly" part that is not true. Certainly the software is sophisticated. What is surprising is how often we think our modern software is "sophisticated".
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVZxkFAIziA
EDIT: but, I guess we have done some modern cool stuff with GPUs, consensus algorithms including PoW, and a few cool ML model architectures and training techniques.
And, even if the "talent" takes a job at FAANG, what stops them from having a 2-year turnover rate where they make some money and then go risk starting their own company, and if that fails then just go back to making a steady paycheck?
The FAANG strategy for hiring talent seems to be something along the lines of: "Sure, not all talent will be risk-averse, but a (large) percentage of talent will be, and we can grab those risk-averse talented people with higher-salaries than smaller companies."
In other words: if you are not a founder, relatively high-equity early employee, or a FAANG employee then you are game-theoretically either second-tier talent, really hate FAANG companies, and/or you are not actually aiming high enough.
The theme of an entire thread is discussing building and selling businesses like it's just something you can choose to do easily in your free time or not ...
Oh, just build that random idea you had and sell it for 10K in a couple of months ...
This whole thread seems really fishy.
The theme of an entire thread discussing building and selling businesses like it's just something you can choose to do in your free time or not ...
The most apropos commentary in this entire thread yet.
Maybe it's time to grow up and realize that the real world is highly complex and requires sophisticated tools, mathematics, and questions in order to better live in it?
Quick question: wouldn't executing partially-ordered sets of operations in a semi-parallel or fully-parallel way already be an existing research topic in Computer Science? Obviously this project is attempting to find a solution for a singular application and not attempting to find a general algorithm, but still there must be some historical precedent.
I would imagine that companies like NVIDIA would have even already contributed to this space?
Are there any existing resources on the topic that perhaps you or the OP knows of?
Yes, this is because we have been living in a boomer-retirement-fund driven crony capitalistic market for the past 2-3 decades.
Wall Street and politicians in bed doing whatever they can to squeeze the economy of every last drop (usually through regulations + consolidations) to put in the old peoples last-wishes/bucket-list fund.
We are a society that went from having too many impoverished elderly to having too many narcissistic and lavish elderly who have no idea what too even do with their 3 homes and 7 figures. Rich hippies, basically.