THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1848, 1849, 1850 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:17 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
How Every Senator Voted
Republicans
Rand Paul Ky.
N
Democrats
Doug Jones Ala.
Y
Joe Manchin III W.Va.
Y
Kyrsten Sinema Ariz.
Y

The vote for Bill Barr confirmation''''

People voted Yes to a man who had already written plenty of literature showing he was unfit to be Trump's AG

Was Rand Paul's no vote just for optics?

He made America far worse off and empowered Trump and all the (bleep) that comes with him.

Twice now he has been an imposter. Defrauding America's citizenry and the whole world with his lies and cover-ups

Now he.seems.to be loonier than Trump himself

These people must be removed at any cost

would it be better to vote for a diff democrat senate candidates for those districts or let them play politics?


I googled "Remove Joe Manchin now"
All the relevant sites filled with petitions

It is nice to see.only 3 voted yes.
It's just that his appointment felt like a conspiracy to me. Known illegal fixer gets reappointed to AG
To fix again

Like if aliens were ever found youd need an AG like Barr or Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
OR IF RUSSIANS HACKED our 2016 Election you'd need a fixer cover-up guy

He was also able to kill Epstein to help Trump and bigger families.

Yes, any Dem who voted Yes for Barr was too lazy to read up on his duties and is therefore unqualified to hold public office.


That’s how I felt regarding Al Franken, we had to take the moral high ground over politics... I don’t know, not sure if it did anything having him removed, nothing’s changed, maybe I was wrong and should look the other way when Dems play politics (even at GOP level)


Setting aside the fact that Franken was turfed out as part of a GOP op that a couple wanna be presidential candidates jumped on, there’s a huge difference between a strong Democrat in a bluish state vs a Democrat in a deep red state.

It’s a tough question. But personally, while they drive me nuts, I’d rather have a guy who at least calls himself a Democrat and votes with you on some key issues but fails you on others, than a guy who opposes you on everything.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:21 am    Post subject:

Fwiw, Barr had the numbers to pass, and leadership allowed those three senators to vote yes so they wouldn’t have to defend a no vote in their states. It’s a common practice that even someone like Bernie Sanders has used, throwing in a vote against the Dems when he knows the measure is going to pass or fail anyway.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:42 am    Post subject:

Social Justice in the EU and OECD Index Report 2019

One huge difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans like to help further enrichen the very wealthy, the plutocrats who have inordinate power, and Democrats who attempt to provide a more equal playing ground for everyone and provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks. And guess who is winning?

According to this report, out of 41 nations, the US is 36th overall in social justice.

Common Dreams article regarding

The Report
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:44 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
How Every Senator Voted
Republicans
Rand Paul Ky.
N
Democrats
Doug Jones Ala.
Y
Joe Manchin III W.Va.
Y
Kyrsten Sinema Ariz.
Y

The vote for Bill Barr confirmation''''

People voted Yes to a man who had already written plenty of literature showing he was unfit to be Trump's AG

Was Rand Paul's no vote just for optics?

He made America far worse off and empowered Trump and all the (bleep) that comes with him.

Twice now he has been an imposter. Defrauding America's citizenry and the whole world with his lies and cover-ups

Now he.seems.to be loonier than Trump himself

These people must be removed at any cost

would it be better to vote for a diff democrat senate candidates for those districts or let them play politics?


I googled "Remove Joe Manchin now"
All the relevant sites filled with petitions

It is nice to see.only 3 voted yes.
It's just that his appointment felt like a conspiracy to me. Known illegal fixer gets reappointed to AG
To fix again

Like if aliens were ever found youd need an AG like Barr or Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
OR IF RUSSIANS HACKED our 2016 Election you'd need a fixer cover-up guy

He was also able to kill Epstein to help Trump and bigger families.

Yes, any Dem who voted Yes for Barr was too lazy to read up on his duties and is therefore unqualified to hold public office.


That’s how I felt regarding Al Franken, we had to take the moral high ground over politics... I don’t know, not sure if it did anything having him removed, nothing’s changed, maybe I was wrong and should look the other way when Dems play politics (even at GOP level)


Setting aside the fact that Franken was turfed out as part of a GOP op that a couple wanna be presidential candidates jumped on, there’s a huge difference between a strong Democrat in a bluish state vs a Democrat in a deep red state.

It’s a tough question. But personally, while they drive me nuts, I’d rather have a guy who at least calls himself a Democrat and votes with you on some key issues but fails you on others, than a guy who opposes you on everything.


Yeah, this is the new normal politics I guess, the GOP playbook, don’t like it but like you said, better than a guy who opposes you on everything
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:56 am    Post subject:

eddiejonze wrote:
Just wait until what Yang is predicting, which WILL happen, and automation will render about half of our jobs obsolete in the next 30 years....


I haven't looked into this claim in detail, but it strikes me as a bad claim for several reasons.

1. Looking backward, there always has been an evolution of the job market. We can't say the job market is the same now as it was 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc., and the farther back we look, the more different it was.

I can't demonstrate this right now, but I suspect that this is true for pretty much any point in the past, since at least the industrial revolution. In other words, at any point in the past I could make the same case -- that the job market had changed from 20 years before that point, 40 years before that point, etc.

So really we should be looking at a background rate of change, and asking if it's any different now than it was before. What best explains the rate of change? Is it linear or exponential? And the more relevant question to Yang's claim -- what's the half-life of the job market? In other words, historically, how long does it take for half the job market to change on its own anyway? I don't know if it has been established that the current situation is even an outlier.

2. Looking forward, humans are incredibly bad at predicting the future. We have currency bias (just extrapolating from the current situation), we underestimate and/or overestimate future rates of change, and the real killer is that we don't know what we don't know. Forty years ago, we had no idea about the game-changing things that would be invented, and for which entire industries would develop. The paradigm shifts, as Thomas Kuhn would describe them.

So a lot of what I hear Yang saying is applying parameters of the current market to the future market. In addition to the huge error bars that already exist around projecting the future, we can't know about the paradigm shifts.

3. I think to a certain extent we are ignoring cause & effect, or even reversing the arrow of causality. There's a pithy analogy to describe what I mean: "The puddle marvels at how it the pothole was so perfectly shaped for it." Or in other words, the workforce will adapt to the job market. Will the necessary skillsets be different in the future? Sure. Will our current education & training be sufficient for the future job market? No -- but we can ALWAYS make that claim, per everything I said above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:18 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Looking forward, humans are incredibly bad at predicting the future.


I'm still waiting for those flying cars and jet-packs they promised us were coming 50 years ago.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Heartburn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 04 Oct 2001
Posts: 6346
Location: The Titanic that is the USA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:38 am    Post subject:

Not sure if this has been posted but I enjoyed this Howard Stern interview of Hillary Clinton and thought I'd share. It's separated into 5 parts because Howard has the comfort of the long-form interview.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:43 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
Looking forward, humans are incredibly bad at predicting the future.


I'm still waiting for those flying cars and jet-packs they promised us were coming 50 years ago.


I'm not.

When I was a kid, sure, but now? I don't even trust the illiterate idiots who use those stupid electric scooters. The only way I want to see them airborne is if I'm in a transparent kevlar bubble where I can watch them crash without risking any personal harm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:00 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
eddiejonze wrote:
Just wait until what Yang is predicting, which WILL happen, and automation will render about half of our jobs obsolete in the next 30 years....


I haven't looked into this claim in detail, but it strikes me as a bad claim for several reasons.

1. Looking backward, there always has been an evolution of the job market. We can't say the job market is the same now as it was 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc., and the farther back we look, the more different it was.

I can't demonstrate this right now, but I suspect that this is true for pretty much any point in the past, since at least the industrial revolution. In other words, at any point in the past I could make the same case -- that the job market had changed from 20 years before that point, 40 years before that point, etc.

So really we should be looking at a background rate of change, and asking if it's any different now than it was before. What best explains the rate of change? Is it linear or exponential? And the more relevant question to Yang's claim -- what's the half-life of the job market? In other words, historically, how long does it take for half the job market to change on its own anyway? I don't know if it has been established that the current situation is even an outlier.

2. Looking forward, humans are incredibly bad at predicting the future. We have currency bias (just extrapolating from the current situation), we underestimate and/or overestimate future rates of change, and the real killer is that we don't know what we don't know. Forty years ago, we had no idea about the game-changing things that would be invented, and for which entire industries would develop. The paradigm shifts, as Thomas Kuhn would describe them.

So a lot of what I hear Yang saying is applying parameters of the current market to the future market. In addition to the huge error bars that already exist around projecting the future, we can't know about the paradigm shifts.

3. I think to a certain extent we are ignoring cause & effect, or even reversing the arrow of causality. There's a pithy analogy to describe what I mean: "The puddle marvels at how it the pothole was so perfectly shaped for it." Or in other words, the workforce will adapt to the job market. Will the necessary skillsets be different in the future? Sure. Will our current education & training be sufficient for the future job market? No -- but we can ALWAYS make that claim, per everything I said above.


I don't think you can fairly judge the claim without analyzing the underlying technology. Historical models of 100 years might be insufficient in their own right, but it ignores the possibility that something comes along that's so disruptive that it breaks the model. What does AI/ML have in common with an internal combustion engine? I have no idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:38 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
eddiejonze wrote:
Just wait until what Yang is predicting, which WILL happen, and automation will render about half of our jobs obsolete in the next 30 years....


I haven't looked into this claim in detail, but it strikes me as a bad claim for several reasons.

1. Looking backward, there always has been an evolution of the job market. We can't say the job market is the same now as it was 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc., and the farther back we look, the more different it was.

I can't demonstrate this right now, but I suspect that this is true for pretty much any point in the past, since at least the industrial revolution. In other words, at any point in the past I could make the same case -- that the job market had changed from 20 years before that point, 40 years before that point, etc.

So really we should be looking at a background rate of change, and asking if it's any different now than it was before. What best explains the rate of change? Is it linear or exponential? And the more relevant question to Yang's claim -- what's the half-life of the job market? In other words, historically, how long does it take for half the job market to change on its own anyway? I don't know if it has been established that the current situation is even an outlier.

2. Looking forward, humans are incredibly bad at predicting the future. We have currency bias (just extrapolating from the current situation), we underestimate and/or overestimate future rates of change, and the real killer is that we don't know what we don't know. Forty years ago, we had no idea about the game-changing things that would be invented, and for which entire industries would develop. The paradigm shifts, as Thomas Kuhn would describe them.

So a lot of what I hear Yang saying is applying parameters of the current market to the future market. In addition to the huge error bars that already exist around projecting the future, we can't know about the paradigm shifts.

3. I think to a certain extent we are ignoring cause & effect, or even reversing the arrow of causality. There's a pithy analogy to describe what I mean: "The puddle marvels at how it the pothole was so perfectly shaped for it." Or in other words, the workforce will adapt to the job market. Will the necessary skillsets be different in the future? Sure. Will our current education & training be sufficient for the future job market? No -- but we can ALWAYS make that claim, per everything I said above.


I don't think you can fairly judge the claim without analyzing the underlying technology. Historical models of 100 years might be insufficient in their own right, but it ignores the possibility that something comes along that's so disruptive that it breaks the model. What does AI/ML have in common with an internal combustion engine? I have no idea.


I'm sure there's some article comparing them to the assembly line or the automation that was supposed to already put everyone out of work by now. Both of them were considered disruptive at the time of their inception.

Now, is AI more disruptive? We have no idea. Same as with the previous disruptive advancements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:55 am    Post subject:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-21/universal-basic-income-backers-harm-their-case-with-bad-arguments


Quote:
The problem is, there’s no indication that automation is going to make human workers redundant anytime soon. Technologists probably tend to believe in automation-induced job loss because they’re familiar with the inventions that are constantly forcing people to change what they do for a living. But even as these new technologies have been rolled out, the fraction of Americans with jobs has remained about the same over time. Meanwhile, evidence that automation causes job losses throughout the economy is slim.

In other words, automation so far shows no sign of having the kinds of effects Yang claims are imminent. The dire-sounding number Yang cites from McKinsey should be given little credence. Studies like this simply ask engineers how many existing jobs could be done by machines; even if the engineers’ guesses are right, they fail to say how many new jobs will be created in the process, so they don’t give any picture of technology’s overall impact on the labor market.

Thus, when UBI proponents make the dubious claim that basic income is necessary to save people from the rise of the robots, they undermine their case. They also send the message that they think a huge percent of American workers are simply too useless to be gainfully employed in the future -- hardly an appealing message.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:19 am    Post subject:

It’s worth noting that the US manufactures twice as much stuff as it did thirty years ago with 1/3 the people. Basically, automation has decreased human production by a factor of six. Those other five people had to go out and get other, usually less paying jobs. So while people say the job market has t changed, it has. It has moved an ever larger number of people into ever more menial, low paying jobs that it is still cheaper to underpay a human to do. This is one of the hidden causes of income inequality. A stratification of those who do valuable jobs and an ever larger share of those who do not.

The next leap in automation (2 leaps really) are machines that can go out and do in the field human stuff (like construction), and thinking and skilled AI that can start to crack higher level white collar jobs (think legal research and surgery and engineering).

There has always been the broadening if demand and new sectors and technology that has maintained an employment base, but it has been eroding for a long time, and the next leaps render obsolete new sectors, because the robots will now be making sector leaps. That’s a new paradigm. When robots begin to compete intellectually and with mobility.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:59 am    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
eddiejonze wrote:
Just wait until what Yang is predicting, which WILL happen, and automation will render about half of our jobs obsolete in the next 30 years....


I haven't looked into this claim in detail, but it strikes me as a bad claim for several reasons.

1. Looking backward, there always has been an evolution of the job market. We can't say the job market is the same now as it was 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc., and the farther back we look, the more different it was.

I can't demonstrate this right now, but I suspect that this is true for pretty much any point in the past, since at least the industrial revolution. In other words, at any point in the past I could make the same case -- that the job market had changed from 20 years before that point, 40 years before that point, etc.

So really we should be looking at a background rate of change, and asking if it's any different now than it was before. What best explains the rate of change? Is it linear or exponential? And the more relevant question to Yang's claim -- what's the half-life of the job market? In other words, historically, how long does it take for half the job market to change on its own anyway? I don't know if it has been established that the current situation is even an outlier.

2. Looking forward, humans are incredibly bad at predicting the future. We have currency bias (just extrapolating from the current situation), we underestimate and/or overestimate future rates of change, and the real killer is that we don't know what we don't know. Forty years ago, we had no idea about the game-changing things that would be invented, and for which entire industries would develop. The paradigm shifts, as Thomas Kuhn would describe them.

So a lot of what I hear Yang saying is applying parameters of the current market to the future market. In addition to the huge error bars that already exist around projecting the future, we can't know about the paradigm shifts.

3. I think to a certain extent we are ignoring cause & effect, or even reversing the arrow of causality. There's a pithy analogy to describe what I mean: "The puddle marvels at how it the pothole was so perfectly shaped for it." Or in other words, the workforce will adapt to the job market. Will the necessary skillsets be different in the future? Sure. Will our current education & training be sufficient for the future job market? No -- but we can ALWAYS make that claim, per everything I said above.


I don't think you can fairly judge the claim without analyzing the underlying technology. Historical models of 100 years might be insufficient in their own right, but it ignores the possibility that something comes along that's so disruptive that it breaks the model. What does AI/ML have in common with an internal combustion engine? I have no idea.


I'm sure there's some article comparing them to the assembly line or the automation that was supposed to already put everyone out of work by now. Both of them were considered disruptive at the time of their inception.

Now, is AI more disruptive? We have no idea. Same as with the previous disruptive advancements.


I'm not sure that's true. With the internal combustion engine obviously it required a work force to assemble the automobiles (it was an apocaylpse for horses). With many of these near term advancements all that's basically required is maintaining the software, which is hardly a 1 to 1 trade off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:01 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
governator wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
How Every Senator Voted
Republicans
Rand Paul Ky.
N
Democrats
Doug Jones Ala.
Y
Joe Manchin III W.Va.
Y
Kyrsten Sinema Ariz.
Y

The vote for Bill Barr confirmation''''

People voted Yes to a man who had already written plenty of literature showing he was unfit to be Trump's AG

Was Rand Paul's no vote just for optics?

He made America far worse off and empowered Trump and all the (bleep) that comes with him.

Twice now he has been an imposter. Defrauding America's citizenry and the whole world with his lies and cover-ups

Now he.seems.to be loonier than Trump himself

These people must be removed at any cost

would it be better to vote for a diff democrat senate candidates for those districts or let them play politics?


I googled "Remove Joe Manchin now"
All the relevant sites filled with petitions

It is nice to see.only 3 voted yes.
It's just that his appointment felt like a conspiracy to me. Known illegal fixer gets reappointed to AG
To fix again

Like if aliens were ever found youd need an AG like Barr or Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
OR IF RUSSIANS HACKED our 2016 Election you'd need a fixer cover-up guy

He was also able to kill Epstein to help Trump and bigger families.

Yes, any Dem who voted Yes for Barr was too lazy to read up on his duties and is therefore unqualified to hold public office.


That’s how I felt regarding Al Franken, we had to take the moral high ground over politics... I don’t know, not sure if it did anything having him removed, nothing’s changed, maybe I was wrong and should look the other way when Dems play politics (even at GOP level)


Setting aside the fact that Franken was turfed out as part of a GOP op that a couple wanna be presidential candidates jumped on, there’s a huge difference between a strong Democrat in a bluish state vs a Democrat in a deep red state.

It’s a tough question. But personally, while they drive me nuts, I’d rather have a guy who at least calls himself a Democrat and votes with you on some key issues but fails you on others, than a guy who opposes you on everything.


Yeah, this is the new normal politics I guess, the GOP playbook, don’t like it but like you said, better than a guy who opposes you on everything


It’s actually an old playbook. Moderate Republicans in Democratic states and Vice versa used to be pretty common, as is the practice of releasing a senator or congressperson to vote against something that is unpopular at home, when the outcome isn’t affected. Like I said, Bernie Sanders has been a common practitioner of the meaningless protest vote when the Dems have enough votes, which is a version of that tactic. The change is that there are no GOP senators or congresspeople who tend to do this anymore.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:11 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:


It’s actually an old playbook. Moderate Republicans in Democratic states and Vice versa used to be pretty common, as is the practice of releasing a senator or congressperson to vote against something that is unpopular at home, when the outcome isn’t affected. Like I said, Bernie Sanders has been a common practitioner of the meaningless protest vote when the Dems have enough votes, which is a version of that tactic. The change is that there are no GOP senators or congresspeople who tend to do this anymore.


I suspect, and this is only a guess as this doesn't happen often, that since the Dems have some 35 extra votes, that maybe 5 to 15 Dems could vote against the impeachment for the reasons you've been expressing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:28 pm    Post subject:

What we're doing to children at the border is an impeachable offense on it's own IMO.

You can say how this time will be remembered in the distant future for not combating/adapting to automation.

But I think this time will be remembered for the child separation and sexual assault that went unchecked.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8288
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:28 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
slavavov wrote:
Steve Schmidt said on MSNBC tonight that in a recent poll, 43% of Republicans would like to see our whole checks and balances system and three branches of govt done away with so that the president would essentially become an autocrat.

Really scary what modern day conservatives really believe in, despite what some of them say about "freedom" and "liberty."

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30105492/republicans-give-president-trump-more-power-pew-poll/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/07/gop-has-caught-autocratic-fever/


They only "believe" in that as long as the president is a Republican and they think the autocrat daddy will protect them while hurting others. If Obama were still president, or when the next Democrat wins, they will revert -- because they have no core principles other than racism, misogyny, bigotry, white supremacy, patriarchy, selfishness, fear and greed.

So true, and the fact that they only believe this only if a Republican is president further exposes their autocratic beliefs.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:43 pm    Post subject:

Today the House passed an updated version of the Voting Rights Act that repairs the broken system that allows states to deprive voters of their rights through various nefarious schemes. All the Republicans but one voted AGAINST it. Because the Republican party is not a party that believes in Democracy. They believe the wealthy, white patriarchy should permanently rule everyone else.

Example 2,056,073 of why the Democratic and Republican parties ARE NOT THE SAME.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:51 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Today the House passed an updated version of the Voting Rights Act that repairs the broken system that allows states to deprive voters of their rights through various nefarious schemes. All the Republicans but one voted AGAINST it. Because the Republican party is not a party that believes in Democracy. They believe the wealthy, white patriarchy should permanently rule everyone else.

Example 2,056,073 of why the Democratic and Republican parties ARE NOT THE SAME.


. . . and how the Republicans are blatently lying when they say that the Democrats are so focused on impeaching the criminal in the White House that they aren't doing anything else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6648

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm    Post subject:

Automation != AI + Computer Vision + Robotics

Something like ~35% of the GDP is related to housing development. New homes, remodeling, etc. Everything around it. There are still a LOT of contractors and people who build homes and buildings.

Imagine what happens when robots can take over _most_ of the work that humans do now.

Take for example our current warehouses. For quite some time, it's either manual, or automated with machinery, where less than 5% of the original workforce is needed to have a running warehouse that does fulfillment.

With the new robots for warehouses, that brings it down to 1-2% of the original.

This will be what happens to manufacturing as well as any labor intensive work that doesn't involve humans. One of them is construction, and once robots get their hands on it (there are automated brick layers, as well as wall layers now.), and can make it generalized, it would bring the number of people in construction down by 90%+. That is a going to a huge number of people who are displaced.

Now, it's about repairing and maintaining machines, which again, will be a small job market (but could be quite valuable).

So either way, _one_ of these days, the jobs that we are looking for in terms of services will become obsoleted. Even software developer jobs _could_ be automated in the future for mundane things.

His timing could be wrong, but it will happen, once our information age becomes more of a robot age.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:15 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
to anyone who is right of center: what are our nation's top 5 problems?


Can you define the Center?


Sure, it's slightly to the left of "affordable healthcare and fair elections are less important than jingoism and the ability of corporations to shelter from taxes"
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:34 pm    Post subject:

Truck driving alone is the most common job in 29 states with 3.5 million drivers – 94 percent of them male – and an additional 12 million workers supporting them in truck stops and motels across the country. What happens when the trucks start to drive themselves?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:55 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Truck driving alone is the most common job in 29 states with 3.5 million drivers – 94 percent of them male – and an additional 12 million workers supporting them in truck stops and motels across the country. What happens when the trucks start to drive themselves?


Interesting addition that is irrelevant to the point. So what's your point? Should we be more concerned because the industry is male oriented?

Trucking/Transportation is one of the most unionized jobs out there. Expect a battle there. And from a liability standpoint, millions of trucks "self-driving" completely autonomously, especially in dense population areas is highly unlikely. I totally understand why people point to automation as an "inevitability". But this total doom and gloom aspect to it is more scare tactics than practical thinking.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:40 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Truck driving alone is the most common job in 29 states with 3.5 million drivers – 94 percent of them male – and an additional 12 million workers supporting them in truck stops and motels across the country. What happens when the trucks start to drive themselves?


Interesting addition that is irrelevant to the point. So what's your point? Should we be more concerned because the industry is male oriented?

Trucking/Transportation is one of the most unionized jobs out there. Expect a battle there. And from a liability standpoint, millions of trucks "self-driving" completely autonomously, especially in dense population areas is highly unlikely. I totally understand why people point to automation as an "inevitability". But this total doom and gloom aspect to it is more scare tactics than practical thinking.


Three people have actually been killed in self driving trials, yet incredibly it registered barely as a blip on the news. Perhaps Telsa paid out handsomely to make the story go away, but this hurdle, which many expected to be the psychological death knell of the technology, doesn't appear to be anything.

The potential profit, also, likely dwarfs the liability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:13 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Truck driving alone is the most common job in 29 states with 3.5 million drivers – 94 percent of them male – and an additional 12 million workers supporting them in truck stops and motels across the country. What happens when the trucks start to drive themselves?


Interesting addition that is irrelevant to the point. So what's your point? Should we be more concerned because the industry is male oriented?

Trucking/Transportation is one of the most unionized jobs out there. Expect a battle there. And from a liability standpoint, millions of trucks "self-driving" completely autonomously, especially in dense population areas is highly unlikely. I totally understand why people point to automation as an "inevitability". But this total doom and gloom aspect to it is more scare tactics than practical thinking.


Three people have actually been killed in self driving trials, yet incredibly it registered barely as a blip on the news. Perhaps Telsa paid out handsomely to make the story go away, but this hurdle, which many expected to be the psychological death knell of the technology, doesn't appear to be anything.

The potential profit, also, likely dwarfs the liability.


In fairness, hundreds of people die every day from crashes with human drivers. The threshold for robot drivers shouldn't be zero.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1848, 1849, 1850 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
Page 1849 of 3663
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB