coolaliasbro

Your statement about "detailed firsthand knowledge" hit home and reminded me of a topic related to job/task automation--single points of knowledge.

There is a big push at my employer to eliminate single points of knowledge and this push typically takes the form of voluminous amounts of documentation that is 1) never proofed, validated, maintained, or updated, and which 2) no one ever reads. Makes more sense to have a solid continuity plan and create a work environment that doesn't cause employees to pull a Jerry McGuire. Probably also worth recognizing the value of observing the practice in action vs reading someone's opinions on it.

Humans aren't fungible.

I come away from from this article with two thoughts.

1) Regarding the example of qualitative data via drunk students attending eye-licking parties. The author doesn't explain how this is qualitative. To my mind it's a gap in the model. The modelers could have included parameters to account for students behaving impulsively or irrationally, but they didn't.

2) Considering the nebulous nature of terms like consciousness and comprehension and the ensuing challenges of measurement, can it be proven that the structures that can potentially underpin behavior, etc., that would generally be recognized as conscious or comprehending do not exist as an emergent but undetected property of the Internet? Is it reasonable to suppose that if such a structure existed and if it possessed or embodied consciousness or comprehension that it might work toward remaining unknown?

In my experience, reasons like "spontaneity" and "dynamism" are used to cast lack of vision, poor planning and management, and amateurish execution in a positive light. YMMV.

Agreed. When my wife was looking to replace her 2013ish Air and comparing M1 Air vs Pro, I told her I'd pay $300 not to have the touch bar.

> Nothing else allows the non-tech user to feel empowered like spreadsheets do.

I'd say it allows the same for technical users as well since it helps bridge communication/knowledge gaps and move things along. It's typically not the solution but often plays a critical supporting role.

I'm not familiar enough with the technology to understand the privacy implications--are operators able to identify/snoop on specific users? I'm wondering how easily a building owner or landlord could collect and leverage their residents' data for any number of nefarious reasons.

I often wonder whether the solution is setting the expectation with companies that if they act in bad faith, their leadership will be om nom nommed? Apologies for the metaphor, it's the best I could come up with on short notice.

I dream about one day opening a non-profit/co-op grocery chain called "Tarable Grocery". The capital outlay would be considerable of course, but ultimately and optimally, the chain would lease containers to members who would fill them with bulk products, returning to refill them or return them as appropriate. My vision here would be to make available quantities of essentially any bulk food option that would be consumed by the local market before spoiling. The stocking system would be a hoot and there would definitely have to be some sort of central purchasing apparatus, but I think it's doable.

I was about to say the same thing. I put $33k down and financed $208k at around 3.5% (in the Upper Midwest). Three years on my payments are about $1280, after increased taxes YOY.

Just want to take a moment to go give a tip of the hat to all down voters and those assuming I haven't spent any time researching/thinking about/discussing this topic. Alternatively, thanks for letting me know how I'd probably have a different opinion if I only read xyz...

It is extremely unlikely in this case that the employee was also the proprietor, so there is no "their". It was an individual decision, not a business decision.

Output should never be stable in theory as people will not always need the same amounts of the same things. Optimally, output of consumer goods would dwindle if they were made to last as long as possible and convincing people to buy shit they don't need or really even want wasn't a key component of the economy. Also, the notion of "ways to use people" seaks directly to the alienation of labor central to capitalist systems.

These considerations are requisite only in a capitalist system. In other economic models it is not a given that ”[i]nvestors...need to decide which businesses are viable... Workers need to consider career changes." In fact, the division between investors on the one hand and workers in the other is a large part of this problem. If we socialized gains and privatized losses (in the sense of never bailing out those agents that got themselves into bad situations), these cycles would at worst be much less severe and frequent.

It's not mean to express boundaries. Strangers offering unsolicited advice, regardless of intent, crosses a boundary for many people. And since the employee making the comment would never be personally liable in the case of a lawsuit, such advice boils down to misplaced concern or simple nosiness/bossiness. People should mind their own business unless their is a clear and present danger to thselves or the public. A kid horsing around on a hauling cart does not match that description IMO.

Pretty sure the cure is moving away from the capitalist mode of production.