GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.
This still doesn't say the source, whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue.
How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will.
So here's what's odd though, I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity, why would the price per barrel matter? Anyway, doesn't matter. I'm against corporate welfare as a practice, except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology, although I think private equity is a better path. Definitely against long term subsidies.
I grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Without the oil industry, Alaska is essentially useless. I don’t think people understand how big the industry is up there. I remember growing up, so many of my friends parents worked 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the north slope.
From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000.
In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election.
Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation.
Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago.
Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so.
I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses.
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Your conclusion doesn't follow. I am advocating for saving GM because of the factory workers, the dealership, the mechanics and the supply chain. You say let it fail and that I'm being a snob about college degrees. That makes zero sense. And then you conclude that you can distinguish the biggest difference between you and me. WTF are you even talking about? Draw a conclusion that follows the argument if you think you can put me in a box like that.
The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.
This still doesn't say the source, whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue.
How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will.
So here's what's odd though, I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity, why would the price per barrel matter? Anyway, doesn't matter. I'm against corporate welfare as a practice, except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology, although I think private equity is a better path. Definitely against long term subsidies.
I grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Without the oil industry, Alaska is essentially useless. I don’t think people understand how big the industry is up there. I remember growing up, so many of my friends parents worked 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the north slope.
From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000.
In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election.
Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation.
Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago.
Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so.
I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses.
Thanks for the insight, but I still struggle to understand how it is revenue based and not tax revenue based. But you do point one absolute truism in politics, once you give someone an entitlement, you can never take it back. It's political suicide. Look how popular Obamacare is now.
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?
Funny you say that because that's why I brought up Yang the other day, and his proposal to give every American a thousand dollars a month. His declared purpose was because automation is eliminating too many jobs, therefore we need to start UBI. He didn't call it that, but that's what he's saying. And like Alaska, he didn't propose a means test.
The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.
This still doesn't say the source, whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue.
How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will.
So here's what's odd though, I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity, why would the price per barrel matter? Anyway, doesn't matter. I'm against corporate welfare as a practice, except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology, although I think private equity is a better path. Definitely against long term subsidies.
I grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Without the oil industry, Alaska is essentially useless. I don’t think people understand how big the industry is up there. I remember growing up, so many of my friends parents worked 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the north slope.
From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000.
In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election.
Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation.
Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago.
Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so.
I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses.
Thanks for the insight, but I still struggle to understand how it is revenue based and not tax revenue based. But you do point one absolute truism in politics, once you give someone an entitlement, you can never take it back. It's political suicide. Look how popular Obamacare is now.
Regardless, Alaska amended its state’s constitution and it gives the governor the authority to use it for other purposes. The reason the payout is smaller than other years is that the governor is using some of the funds to close the budget deficit due to an unusually long stretch of depressed oil prices.
Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens. People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.
Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens. People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.
Why do you selectively choose what you argue. I have said no less than 5x that if it is straight oil revenue, then more power to them. If it's tax revenue, then it's ridiculous not use tax money to target need, like the natives of the land who had it stripped, like the poor, the schools, rather than just shelling out 1k bucks to every man, woman and child regardless of their financial situation. I think the biggest difference between you and me is that I want to help the poor and you hate poor people.
Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens. People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.
Why do you selectively choose what you argue. I have said no less than 5x that if it is straight oil revenue, then more power to them. If it's tax revenue, then it's ridiculous not use tax money to target need, like the natives of the land who had it stripped, like the poor, the schools, rather than just shelling out 1k bucks to every man, woman and child regardless of their financial situation. I think the biggest difference between you and me is that I want to help the poor and you hate poor people.
But we do have a problem when a significant share of jobs are eliminated to automation?
Hopefully this is a problem the future left can solve with the future right?
Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens. People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.
Why do you selectively choose what you argue. I have said no less than 5x that if it is straight oil revenue, then more power to them. If it's tax revenue, then it's ridiculous not use tax money to target need, like the natives of the land who had it stripped, like the poor, the schools, rather than just shelling out 1k bucks to every man, woman and child regardless of their financial situation. I think the biggest difference between you and me is that I want to help the poor and you hate poor people.
But we do have a problem when a significant share of jobs are eliminated to automation?
Hopefully this is a problem the future left can solve with the future right?
I think you're right. I have said for a few years that the only way the manufacturing jobs are coming back to the US is in the form of engineers managing/overseeing the robots. It's definitely going to be a problem, but I don't know the scale of how large. I mean we absorbed the elimination of many factory jobs with the assembly line, the loss of dock workers with cranes, etc. The gov't absolutely has a role in training relevant skills for the future. I'm a fan of NAFTA, but it's biggest failure was that of politicians failing to prepare for the loss.
Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens. People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.
Why do you selectively choose what you argue. I have said no less than 5x that if it is straight oil revenue, then more power to them. If it's tax revenue, then it's ridiculous not use tax money to target need, like the natives of the land who had it stripped, like the poor, the schools, rather than just shelling out 1k bucks to every man, woman and child regardless of their financial situation. I think the biggest difference between you and me is that I want to help the poor and you hate poor people.
Because I do not care where the money comes from. That's Alaska business. I bet the corporation you work for were about to go tits up and was offered bailout money, you'd be doing cartwheels...but a government who helps her citizens out by sharing in the bounty is not OK. You sound very petty. As long as it fair for all, I'm fine. Have a nice. You really need to consider becoming a Republican. Only a die-hard Republican would have a problem with Alaska sharing the bounty, especially considering it their money.
Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens. People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.
Why do you selectively choose what you argue. I have said no less than 5x that if it is straight oil revenue, then more power to them. If it's tax revenue, then it's ridiculous not use tax money to target need, like the natives of the land who had it stripped, like the poor, the schools, rather than just shelling out 1k bucks to every man, woman and child regardless of their financial situation. I think the biggest difference between you and me is that I want to help the poor and you hate poor people.
Because I do not care where the money comes from. That's Alaska business. I bet the corporation you work for were about to go tits up and was offered bailout money, you'd be doing cartwheels...but a government who helps her citizens out by sharing in the bounty is not OK. You sound very petty. As long as it fair for all, I'm fine. Have a nice. You really need to consider becoming a Republican. Only a die-hard Republican would have a problem with Alaska sharing the bounty, especially considering it their money.
Reading is fundamental. You don't read for precision.. You don't have to live up to your name. I already said I supported TARP and GM so your bet is pretty much a slam dunk, good job ace.
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
FWIW, the CPP alone doesn't even come close to supporting someone after 65, so Kevin O'Leary, as usual, had a shitty, inhumane idea there. The average amount of CPP take home is just over $600/month. Nobody can live on that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?
AI and robots aren't here for your jobs. They are your SMARTPHONE.
UBI is awesome if you need it. If you don't? Well then, you're all set.
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?
AI and robots aren't here for your jobs. They are your SMARTPHONE.
UBI is awesome if you need it. If you don't? Well then, you're all set.
I don't want it, but "Robots could take over 52 percent of the current workload in less than a decade"
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't apply one statement from one retired golfer, to 40% of the country... I'm a Democrat and not a snowflake. Are you either of those?
GM is doing an exit from Canada. I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada. I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.
You see, that's the type of leader I want. Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO. Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, before I g
So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs, over 130 billion in annual revenue, a market cap in the billions, an EPS of 6 and change, just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time, have them pay back the money, and allow them to prosper which they did. You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%. I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.
Business fails all the time. Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another. So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going? They are going nowhere. Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees. The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole. But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care. Could not be any funnier...
Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?
AI and robots aren't here for your jobs. They are your SMARTPHONE.
UBI is awesome if you need it. If you don't? Well then, you're all set.
I don't want it, but "Robots could take over 52 percent of the current workload in less than a decade"
First, current workload only refers to tasks which exist today, and doesn't consider jobs and tasks which will exist tomorrow.
Second, current workload doesn't imply that 52% of people are out of work - it implies that anyone currently participating in those tasks, will see transformation in their future.
Finally, many of these doom and gloom articles about how AI is the beginning of the end have been misrepresenting the source data (linked below from the World Economic Forum). The source report explicitly states that the net number of available jobs will actually substantially increase.
This is a great example of why we shouldn't attempt to distil complex notions to a sentence or two. Too much context is lost.
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't apply one statement from one retired golfer, to 40% of the country... I'm a Democrat and not a snowflake. Are you either of those?
It's not the golfer...
He has 36,000 followers...a lot but not tons. Calls himself a journalist. Calls himself a liberal and clearly believes Hillary getting the nomination was a great moment in history to the point that bringing up the terrible results is wrong. The question is, are the replies that agree with him symptomatic of the left; or at least the most steadfast Hillary-supporting left? I guess I don't know but I did not like seeing that. There were a lot of people there that I assume don't like Trump that basically said "I won't vote for him" for something that I think would be a stretch to even call a minor gaffe. Sometimes it seems like we take the "high road" by tearing our own down just so we don't look like the GOP letting Trump get away with everything. Again, the people who happened to respond? Certainly not a cross-section. I still feel it's concerning. I never really thought Buttigieg was going to win the nomination anyway. But he's persona non grata with some pro-Hillary folks. Gillibrand is with much of the left for what she did to Franken. Warren is with the middle for her ethnicity kerfuffle. Meanwhile Trump just keeps on being worse than all of 'em combined and nobody cares.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't forget - snowflakes come in all shapes and sizes, on both sides of the aisle. I don't know who could argue that "I'm With Her" was a citizen-focused (as opposed to candidate-focused) slogan. Easy way to do a sexism check: replace "Her" with "Him". If you're morally consistent, your opinion should remain the same. "I'm With Him" would be an equally candidate-focused slogan, and I like it just as little because of the narcissism and incorrectly placed focus.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't apply one statement from one retired golfer, to 40% of the country... I'm a Democrat and not a snowflake. Are you either of those?
It's not the golfer...
He has 36,000 followers...a lot but not tons. Calls himself a journalist. Calls himself a liberal and clearly believes Hillary getting the nomination was a great moment in history to the point that bringing up the terrible results is wrong. The question is, are the replies that agree with him symptomatic of the left; or at least the most steadfast Hillary-supporting left? I guess I don't know but I did not like seeing that. There were a lot of people there that I assume don't like Trump that basically said "I won't vote for him" for something that I think would be a stretch to even call a minor gaffe. Sometimes it seems like we take the "high road" by tearing our own down just so we don't look like the GOP letting Trump get away with everything. Again, the people who happened to respond? Certainly not a cross-section. I still feel it's concerning. I never really thought Buttigieg was going to win the nomination anyway. But he's persona non grata with some pro-Hillary folks. Gillibrand is with much of the left for what she did to Franken. Warren is with the middle for her ethnicity kerfuffle. Meanwhile Trump just keeps on being worse than all of 'em combined and nobody cares.
Also bear in mind the misinformation campaigns we should come to expect at this point. I would bet money that at least some of the top ranked responses to that tweet are paid trolls, though unfortunately, none of us will ever know.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't apply one statement from one retired golfer, to 40% of the country... I'm a Democrat and not a snowflake. Are you either of those?
It's not the golfer...
He has 36,000 followers...a lot but not tons. Calls himself a journalist. Calls himself a liberal and clearly believes Hillary getting the nomination was a great moment in history to the point that bringing up the terrible results is wrong. The question is, are the replies that agree with him symptomatic of the left; or at least the most steadfast Hillary-supporting left? I guess I don't know but I did not like seeing that. There were a lot of people there that I assume don't like Trump that basically said "I won't vote for him" for something that I think would be a stretch to even call a minor gaffe. Sometimes it seems like we take the "high road" by tearing our own down just so we don't look like the GOP letting Trump get away with everything. Again, the people who happened to respond? Certainly not a cross-section. I still feel it's concerning. I never really thought Buttigieg was going to win the nomination anyway. But he's persona non grata with some pro-Hillary folks. Gillibrand is with much of the left for what she did to Franken. Warren is with the middle for her ethnicity kerfuffle. Meanwhile Trump just keeps on being worse than all of 'em combined and nobody cares.
Also bear in mind the misinformation campaigns we should come to expect at this point. I would bet money that at least some of the top ranked responses to that tweet are paid trolls, though unfortunately, none of us will ever know.
If folks haven’t yet, they really need to listen to the pod cast mickeyrat posted regarding troll farms.
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't apply one statement from one retired golfer, to 40% of the country... I'm a Democrat and not a snowflake. Are you either of those?
It's not the golfer...
He has 36,000 followers...a lot but not tons. Calls himself a journalist. Calls himself a liberal and clearly believes Hillary getting the nomination was a great moment in history to the point that bringing up the terrible results is wrong. The question is, are the replies that agree with him symptomatic of the left; or at least the most steadfast Hillary-supporting left? I guess I don't know but I did not like seeing that. There were a lot of people there that I assume don't like Trump that basically said "I won't vote for him" for something that I think would be a stretch to even call a minor gaffe. Sometimes it seems like we take the "high road" by tearing our own down just so we don't look like the GOP letting Trump get away with everything. Again, the people who happened to respond? Certainly not a cross-section. I still feel it's concerning. I never really thought Buttigieg was going to win the nomination anyway. But he's persona non grata with some pro-Hillary folks. Gillibrand is with much of the left for what she did to Franken. Warren is with the middle for her ethnicity kerfuffle. Meanwhile Trump just keeps on being worse than all of 'em combined and nobody cares.
Also bear in mind the misinformation campaigns we should come to expect at this point. I would bet money that at least some of the top ranked responses to that tweet are paid trolls, though unfortunately, none of us will ever know.
If folks haven’t yet, they really need to listen to the pod cast mickeyrat posted regarding troll farms.
There've been a few Democracy Now and Intercepted podcast episodes about this too and they're quite fascinating - I can try to find the episodes I listened to if you're interested in hearing them.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't know who the non-golfer Tom Watson is either. And maybe he has a special brand of snowflake followers, but it's disheartening to see a bunch of people come on and call Buttigieg a sexist for critiquing a slogan. I take back everything I've said about the double-standards; the left really are the snowflakes.
Don't apply one statement from one retired golfer, to 40% of the country... I'm a Democrat and not a snowflake. Are you either of those?
It's not the golfer...
He has 36,000 followers...a lot but not tons. Calls himself a journalist. Calls himself a liberal and clearly believes Hillary getting the nomination was a great moment in history to the point that bringing up the terrible results is wrong. The question is, are the replies that agree with him symptomatic of the left; or at least the most steadfast Hillary-supporting left? I guess I don't know but I did not like seeing that. There were a lot of people there that I assume don't like Trump that basically said "I won't vote for him" for something that I think would be a stretch to even call a minor gaffe. Sometimes it seems like we take the "high road" by tearing our own down just so we don't look like the GOP letting Trump get away with everything. Again, the people who happened to respond? Certainly not a cross-section. I still feel it's concerning. I never really thought Buttigieg was going to win the nomination anyway. But he's persona non grata with some pro-Hillary folks. Gillibrand is with much of the left for what she did to Franken. Warren is with the middle for her ethnicity kerfuffle. Meanwhile Trump just keeps on being worse than all of 'em combined and nobody cares.
Ha, yes I know he's not the golfer. But I was a Hillary supporter over Bernie, and this guy isn't persona-non-grata to me. I don't think what he said is a big deal at all. And of the 46 million HRC voters, my guess is a fraction took note of this comment and a much smaller fraction follow this guy and believe it. There's 20 candidates. Honestly the only one that I think has done anything remotely fatal to this point is Warren. Everything else is just fucking noise generated by the self important twitter crowd. Who the fuck cares.
Comments
From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000.
In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election.
Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation.
Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago.
Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so.
I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses.
The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.
What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
UBI is awesome if you need it. If you don't? Well then, you're all set.
I don't want it, but "Robots could take over 52 percent of the current workload in less than a decade"
https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1108394610785701888
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Second, current workload doesn't imply that 52% of people are out of work - it implies that anyone currently participating in those tasks, will see transformation in their future.
Finally, many of these doom and gloom articles about how AI is the beginning of the end have been misrepresenting the source data (linked below from the World Economic Forum). The source report explicitly states that the net number of available jobs will actually substantially increase.
This is a great example of why we shouldn't attempt to distil complex notions to a sentence or two. Too much context is lost.
https://www.weforum.org/press/2018/09/machines-will-do-more-tasks-than-humans-by-2025-but-robot-revolution-will-still-create-58-million-net-new-jobs-in-next-five-years/
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
He has 36,000 followers...a lot but not tons. Calls himself a journalist. Calls himself a liberal and clearly believes Hillary getting the nomination was a great moment in history to the point that bringing up the terrible results is wrong. The question is, are the replies that agree with him symptomatic of the left; or at least the most steadfast Hillary-supporting left? I guess I don't know but I did not like seeing that. There were a lot of people there that I assume don't like Trump that basically said "I won't vote for him" for something that I think would be a stretch to even call a minor gaffe. Sometimes it seems like we take the "high road" by tearing our own down just so we don't look like the GOP letting Trump get away with everything. Again, the people who happened to respond? Certainly not a cross-section. I still feel it's concerning. I never really thought Buttigieg was going to win the nomination anyway. But he's persona non grata with some pro-Hillary folks. Gillibrand is with much of the left for what she did to Franken. Warren is with the middle for her ethnicity kerfuffle. Meanwhile Trump just keeps on being worse than all of 'em combined and nobody cares.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/7/2/1/7212ba1bf4fd1741/p1263.mp3?c_id=36713816&cs_id=36713816&expiration=1553218380&hwt=27ed40b7e644011efb11825c96466ae3
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1