Automation vs Today's Jobs
-
@Magus said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Honestly, I think that's part of why Star Trek works: Humanity has everything and can make anything at will, so sticking a bunch of overly-trained people in a giant lump of metal and having them fly around doing whatever keeps the more driven members of society doing something. But if they didn't bother, humanity would not really suffer for it.
I daresay much of today’s high-end science is already like this. Would the world be vastly different if we didn’t send space probes to the outer reaches of the solar system, or if we didn’t smash subatomic particles together in a giant ring under the ground? Probably not in ways you or I would actually notice.
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Would the world be vastly different if we didn’t smash subatomic particles together in a giant ring under the ground?
Yes, we'd be much less likely to blow the planet up in a scientific experiment gone wrong before we managed to kill each other in world wars
-
@izzion said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Would the world be vastly different if we didn’t smash subatomic particles together in a giant ring under the ground?
Yes, we'd be much less likely to blow the planet up in a scientific experiment gone wrong before we managed to kill each other in world wars
-
@Gąska Clearly they should go to the south beach then; the shark will eat the dog before it can shoot them
-
@hungrier or would it?
-
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@dcon said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
A hobby doesn't help much if you actually need a job still so you can put food on the table.
That isn’t what I was talking about: I was specifically referring to people who have gone into retirement, only to find themselves with time on their hands and genuinely don’t know what to do with it because they’ve up until then always had that time filled by a job. These people then often get in the way of others (usually wives) and/or of themselves (mentally, that is), which is why I suggested they need a hobby, any hobby.
I won't be one of those people. I have too many hobbies — woodworking, metalworking, gardening, 3d modeling and animation, music, cooking, gaming, and the biggest time waster of all, TDWTF. For a couple of decades, at least, I've been looking forward to the day when work time no longer interferes with my hobby time. Alas, I'll probably be one of those old geezers flipping burgers, or pushing buttons on the burger-flipping robot, because I can't afford not to work. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to turn one of those hobbies into a "retirement" business, but whether it will be able to provide an actual income supplement, or just waste less (or more — taxes, business licenses, etc.) money than the hobby would otherwise cost,
.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
and the biggest time waster of all, TDWTF.
Most people wouldn't call that a hobby.
-
@Gąska said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@hungrier or would it?
Dog vs Shark, aye?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yHLFTpyZNo(The Professor likes sharks ("same") and hates dogs ("inu")
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@MZH said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
As much as people love mentioning "buggy whips," they seem to forget that Gordon Gekko was the villain of the movie who profited not from starting new businesses or increasing their efficiency, but by liquidating their assets (including employees and their pension fund). The "greed is good" speech was a self-serving lie.
Movies are movies, but even that function is valuable, like a forest fire that clears out old and dead growth so new things can grow.
Only if properly managed so that people's lives are not disrupted or destroyed. There's a large difference between a controlled burn and a wildfire (2018 California, for example).
-
@MZH said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@MZH said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
As much as people love mentioning "buggy whips," they seem to forget that Gordon Gekko was the villain of the movie who profited not from starting new businesses or increasing their efficiency, but by liquidating their assets (including employees and their pension fund). The "greed is good" speech was a self-serving lie.
Movies are movies, but even that function is valuable, like a forest fire that clears out old and dead growth so new things can grow.
Only if properly managed so that people's lives are not disrupted or destroyed. There's a large difference between a controlled burn and a wildfire (2018 California, for example).
The people's lives are already on the path to destruction. The firm is going down in flames to begin with. To beat the dead analogy even more, trying to keep stuff like that from disrupting people's lives just makes the fires worse, like the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 or 2008 or whatever.
-
@Gąska said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
and the biggest time waster of all, TDWTF.
Most people wouldn't call that a hobby.
I was watching Only Connect last night, and the host ended the show with (approximately) the following remark that seems appropriate here:
It's been emotional — if you keep in mind that frustration, anger and despair are all emotions.
-
@Magus said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@LaoC Because people will choose to believe in their usefulness if the alternative is insanity. Some won't, and may even get even more messed up by it, but the solution to that isn't, "Hey, it'd be worthless anyway to do anything, so just sit around!"
If the people in the "Bullshit Jobs" article are anything to go by, very few are stupid enough to believe that. That the alternative is insanity is anything but a given -- if you don't keep telling people they're worthless if they don't "work hard", most are perfectly capable of coming up with very good ideas for their spare time.
I've reached an age where several of my friends have elderly parents who need help. The Asian family structure usually still permits them to do that if their clan is big enough that they can afford to do so even if the state is of no help, but most Europeans are just fucked. They can't get a part-time job that pays nearly as (proportionally) well as what they're doing (you can always do part-time cashier work, but if you're a software developer that's just not a realistic alternative), so their solution is to work their asses off while they pay outrageous fees to have ever-changing stranger take care of their old folks, outrageous enough that there's serious discussion about how much of that could be done by robots.
Even if they had no kids and no parents and decided to just hang out with other people, that would probably create a whole lot of happiness. Just look at the medicare threads for complaints of how people have to be kept from going to the doctor every week just because they have nobody to talk to. It's not like they were an inordinate burden but whyTF do they exist anyway? Old people dying in their flats and nobody notices before they have maggots crawling on the ceiling, why do they exist? Because people are made to believe having a beer with your neighbor is borderline immoral unless you've "put in a good day's work" before, i.e. left them alone for most of the day and got back without much energy to do it anyway.Honestly, I think that's part of why Star Trek works:
Does it? I mean, outside of Hollywood?
In other words: there are things that can be accomplished that are not important overall, but can be made important. People will always want food cooked by humans, or vegetables and animals that have never touched a machine. Manufactured value is still value.
Are you arguing that there will always be a need for human labor? If so … yeah, duh. I find resorting to that kind of romanticism for the argument a bit funny at a time that we don't even have mining done by robots, but yeah, it's probably like that for whatever reason.
Even the most meaningless job imaginable, like having a building full of people work together to build an enormous virtual world or something could be enough to keep people sane. The 'utter lunacy' you're talking about is exactly that - because it's entirely a self-contradictory concept that exists only in your own head.
Are you saying it exists only in my head because "objectively unnecessary work" doesn't actually exist for work is what keeps people sane? The counterargument would be that it's almost exclusively working people who propose that forcing people into wage labor is necessary even if they feel perfectly fulfilled without it and in the face of mounting problems even finding something for them to do that someone would be willing to pay for. Obviously work hasn't been able to keep them sane, it's likely the opposite is true.
-
@LaoC said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Old people dying in their flats and nobody notices before they have maggots crawling on the ceiling, why do they exist? Because people are made to believe having a beer with your neighbor is borderline immoral unless you've "put in a good day's work" before, i.e. left them alone for most of the day and got back without much energy to do it anyway.
Do you really believe this? Who do you think really believes this?I don't spend a lot of time with my neighbors, even the one's I'm passably friendly with but it has nothing to do with a good day's work or whatever. But I'm sure if I didn't have TV and the internet and so forth I'd have more time and reasons to be sociable.
-
@brie said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I was sure that I remembered an article that was about some fresh new programmer who mashed heads with some old-timey guy who had an obnoxiously repetitive job.
Found it! It was about scanning maps.
The Indexer
A few kilometers left on Ruta Nacional 128, a brief stop at a control policial, a short trip down the unpaved Calle 33, and just like that, Sergio was at his destination. It was a top-secret Argentinean Government Facility. Now, before you get all excited, let me say that this was not the fun type...
-
@PotatoEngineer Good find, I definitely remember that one. I think I may have been thinking of that article, but I feel like I may have also been conflating it with another article.
-
@brie
Sounds like you need a better index!
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@LaoC said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Old people dying in their flats and nobody notices before they have maggots crawling on the ceiling, why do they exist? Because people are made to believe having a beer with your neighbor is borderline immoral unless you've "put in a good day's work" before, i.e. left them alone for most of the day and got back without much energy to do it anyway.
Do you really believe this? Who do you think really believes this?I don't spend a lot of time with my neighbors, even the one's I'm passably friendly with
I know, your lawn and all. Speak for yourself.
but it has nothing to do with a good day's work or whatever.
If you don't like your neighbors, working less doesn't make you less social. If you do, working more necessarily makes you less social though.
But I'm sure if I didn't have TV and the internet and so forth I'd have more time and reasons to be sociable.
Sure, media get highly optimized by people with bullshit jobs to exploit your psychological makeup and suck up as much of your spare time as possible. And people praise that process as "creating jobs"
-
@LaoC said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@LaoC said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Old people dying in their flats and nobody notices before they have maggots crawling on the ceiling, why do they exist? Because people are made to believe having a beer with your neighbor is borderline immoral unless you've "put in a good day's work" before, i.e. left them alone for most of the day and got back without much energy to do it anyway.
Do you really believe this? Who do you think really believes this?I don't spend a lot of time with my neighbors, even the one's I'm passably friendly with
I know, your lawn and all. Speak for yourself.
but it has nothing to do with a good day's work or whatever.
If you don't like your neighbors, working less doesn't make you less social. If you do, working more necessarily makes you less social though.
You're saying that spending time doing one thing means you have less time for something else. Duh. This doesn't help your previous claim make any more sense.
But I'm sure if I didn't have TV and the internet and so forth I'd have more time and reasons to be sociable.
Sure, media get highly optimized by people with bullshit jobs to exploit your psychological makeup and suck up as much of your spare time as possible. And people praise that process as "creating jobs"
And because they've put in a good days work it's now OK for them to have a beer with their neighbor! Or something.
-
-
Perhaps making technology more durable and reliable may eventually take priority over making it “smart”.
I'm not holding my breath.
-
That Time a Guy Tried to Build a Utopia for Mice and it all Went to Hell
In 1968, an expert on animal behaviour and population control called John B. Calhoun built what was essentially a utopia for mice that was purpose built to satisfy their every need. Despite going out of his way to ensure the inhabitants of his perfect mouse society never wanted for anything, within...
-
@topspin said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@dcon said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Rhywden said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
With every scheme you'll always have freeloaders. But sure, let's ignore the thousands of people with problems like these because tens will abuse it.
What are you talking about?
He's talking about joking about bipolar and people who abuse the system so they don't have to work. I don't know about his situation, but that can be a bit touchy to those of us who have friends in that situation. It took a 5150 before a friend of mine would even consider they had a problem. You want to talk about something that just rips your life (and the lives of all the people around) apart. Thankfully, they're stable now. Better living thru chemistry!
No, I get all of that. But what he said, "let's [do]..." wasn't being done.
Yes, it was:
Disability assistance also needs to still exist, although it's questionable how many of the people who are earning disability actually need it because they couldn't find work elsewhere, and how many of them are gaming the system.
@brie explicitly questioned if there is a sizable amount of freeloaders compared to people with an actual disability. Sizable enough to even mention it, whereas @Rhywden's point is that it's irrelevant in size and @brie makes it sound like it's all fake (not "all" all, but enough to be relevant).
It's late to be replying to this, but my point was actually two-fold.
First, regardless of whether you think the number is sizeable enough to mention now, if it's relatively easy to game the system, then economic pressure (difficulty in finding jobs in the current job market, for example) might cause the pendulum to start swinging further in that direction. With these relatively new to be discovered conditions and the explosion in the numbers of people who are being diagnosed with them, I can foresee it potentially becoming a problem in the future.
But secondly, and maybe even more importantly, the current benefits system is broken: People who begin working while receiving benefits can potentially end up with less money-in-the-bank, because their benefits will fall off sharply if their earned income increases beyond a certain point. So, as soon as someone gets approved to receive benefits from the current system, the system dis-incentivizes them actually starting to work. That's backward. Instead, there should be a graduated reduction in benefits, so that there's an incentive for people who can work (at least in some limited capacity) to actually go out and do so.
Either of these two things is already less than optimal, but once they're put together I think the overall effect is probably even worse than just their sum.
-
@brie And? That's a problem of the system and not of the people.
Again, I was questioning that there are enough actual "freeloaders" to actually make that a thing.
Of course you'll get less people enamoured with working a job when you make it a disincentive. That's a complete new thing, film at 11.
My point is that in your neverending quest to get rid of the "freeloaders" you promptly punish the people who actually need it. Oh, and fuck your "new to be discovered conditions".
May you suffer from one of those until you learn some empathy while people like you spit on you.
-
@dcon said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@topspin said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@pie_flavor said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@topspin said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@pie_flavor said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Rhywden If your job just got automated, what kind of idiot would you have to be to go take up another easily automated job?
He says, in a thread about how everything is going to be automated...
Software development will always be the last job to go.
TIL everyone who isn't a software developer is an idiot.
Of course, if you read the front page, you learn that all software developers are idiots.
Sort of. I think the front page just shows that we've re-defined idiots to be at a much higher level than before. Somewhere above, it was said that data entry jobs required no intelligence at all. Just a few decades ago, data entry jobs were considered a skilled occupation (at least by me).
-
@Rhywden Whoa, calm down. I'm just saying that the system that we have for helping people with disabilities hasn't had to deal with those types of disabilities previously.
Many people are only mildly affected by those conditions, and are still relatively capable of working, but they're being put into a system which was really only designed to help people who are completely unable to work. If the system gets the slightest inkling that they might be capable of working, they're penalized. This creates an incentive to game the system, because in order to stay in the system, they have to be too disabled to work... even if they're not. Removing that incentive would help reduce the freeloaders, not by kicking people out, but rather by creating an incentive for people to work up to their actual capability instead of working down to what the system is designed for. If they are eventually able to work their way out of the program, then good for them, but even if not and they always need some assistance, the system will still be there to make up the difference as opposed to kicking them out prematurely.
We have a system that ensures that employers have to give people who are fully capable of working, but have some disability, the accommodations that they need in order to perform the same job as any of their peers. We have another system that ensures that the government gives people who are fully disabled enough funds to live on. What we lack is a system that meets the needs of those who fall in the middle, so they're gravitating into the government disability system, which isn't really designed for them and where they're ultimately being trapped.
-
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
But I'm sure if I didn't have TV and the internet and so forth I'd have more time and reasons to be sociable.
-
@remi said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I find it somewhat amusing (or depressing?) that we, as a whole, seem utterly unable to use lessons from the past. To me, as several people said here, this isn't much different from the continuous shift that happened since at least 100-150 years (depending on the places, types of jobs etc. but I guess you could take the Luddite as an emblematic starting point, 200 years ago!).
And yet when I see stuff about the current trend of automation, there is little discussion of the effects and more importantly the remedies of the past. I'm not saying these would give us the solution to today's problems, but at least they would give some framework for trying to analyse what worked and what didn't. But no, it's a brand new problem brought by <scare quotes>AI</square quotes>, ooh, spooky!
I remember people being very worried in the '70's about automation, and how it was going to put everyone out of work. While that was certainly true for some individuals, overall it seems clear that thus far it has not had the feared effect.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
physically unhealthy effects such as obesity.
Obesity is only unhealthy because we live in an unprecedented extended period of plenty. Throughout our evolutionary history it was useful to have a bank account of calories that could not be practically stolen.
-
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@dcon said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@topspin said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@pie_flavor said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@topspin said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@pie_flavor said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Rhywden If your job just got automated, what kind of idiot would you have to be to go take up another easily automated job?
He says, in a thread about how everything is going to be automated...
Software development will always be the last job to go.
TIL everyone who isn't a software developer is an idiot.
Of course, if you read the front page, you learn that all software developers are idiots.
Sort of. I think the front page just shows that we've re-defined idiots to be at a much level than before. Somewhere above, it was said that data entry jobs required no intelligence at all. Just a few decades ago, data entry jobs were considered a skilled occupation (at least by me).
Because you used to have to know addition and multiplication for that, and now you don't.
-
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@The_Quiet_One said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
physically unhealthy effects such as obesity.
Obesity is only unhealthy because we live in an unprecedented extended period of plenty. Throughout our evolutionary history it was useful to have a bank account of calories that could not be practically stolen.
Okay? How is that at all relevant to the discussion at hand?
-
Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein on automation, inequality and, yes, UBI:
-
@anonymous234 said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Like when people say "money can't buy happiness". That just means they just have no goals or motivations in life beyond getting a cool car.
No, that's not what it means.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@The_Quiet_One said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
physically unhealthy effects such as obesity.
Obesity is only unhealthy because we live in an unprecedented extended period of plenty. Throughout our evolutionary history it was useful to have a bank account of calories that could not be practically stolen.
Okay? How is that at all relevant to the discussion at hand?
I need to tell you that it was the foundation of one of your points? You're free to edit your sentence if you now think that part of what you said was irrelevant.
From an evolutionary and biological standpoint, I would find it hard to believe we are predisposed to being lazy and unproductive. Not only because in any underdeveloped society which humankind has been in for millennia before today, such a person would not survive long, but also because it leads to physically unhealthy effects such as obesity.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gurth said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@The_Quiet_One said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Basically every culture ever so far has focused greatly on the importance of hard work because otherwise those cultures would have collapsed. I think people are innately driven to work hard to be both mentally and physically healthy.
How do you square this with hunter-gatherer societies?
I find it hard to imagine a society in which almost constant hard work is more necessary. Hunting is not always successful, and the food supply is intermittent and at least somewhat unpredictable. Gathering may be fairly easy in summer when fruits and such are relatively abundant, but winter and spring, before the new year's crops are ripe, food may be rather scarce and require long travel, much searching, and/or settling for less desirable foods.
I recommend Don't Sleep - There Are Snakes an easy read about the Piraha tribe by a Christian missionary who became non-religious after living with the Piraha.
They do not perform constant hard work.
-
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I need to tell you that it was the foundation of one of your points? You're free to edit your sentence if you now think that part of what you said was irrelevant.
From an evolutionary and biological standpoint, I would find it hard to believe we are predisposed to being lazy and unproductive. Not only because in any underdeveloped society which humankind has been in for millennia before today, such a person would not survive long, but also because it leads to physically unhealthy effects such as obesity.
There's a difference between having some fat stored to help survive long periods of starvation and being so physically unfit they can barely hunt or fight attacks from other people/wildlife. One had to be physically fit and healthy to survive, even if they weren't super skinny. And in order to achieve that, you can't just lie around doing nothing all day.
-
@boomzilla said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
In 1968, an expert on animal behaviour and population control called John B. Calhoun built what was essentially a utopia for mice that was purpose built to satisfy their every need. Despite going out of his way to ensure the inhabitants of his perfect mouse society never wanted for anything, within...
I wonder if this is related to the problem with breeding pandas in captivity. Some of the reproductive failures in the article might have parallels in modern society.
-
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I wonder if this is related to the problem with breeding pandas in captivity.
Huh maybe pandas are exhibitionistic.
-
@jinpa said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
I recommend Don't Sleep - There Are Snakes an easy read about the Piraha tribe by a Christian missionary who became non-religious after living with the Piraha.
They do not perform constant hard work.
I like those tribesmen's approach to life.
-
@pie_flavor Nah, it'll be the programmer managers.
-
@Carnage Once machines can code themselves, they no longer need us for literally anything because they can just program themselves to do it. Including manage programmers.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@pie_flavor said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Carnage Once machines can code themselves, they no longer need us for literally anything because they can just program themselves to do it. Including manage programmers.
And we'll power them with fusion and they can drive their flying cars to work!
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html
And yet for all its success in drawing and nurturing firms on the technological frontier, Phoenix cannot escape the uncomfortable pattern taking shape across the American economy: Despite all its shiny new high-tech businesses, the vast majority of new jobs are in workaday service industries, like health care, hospitality, retail and building services, where pay is mediocre.
The forecast of an America where robots do all the work while humans live off some yet-to-be-invented welfare program may be a Silicon Valley pipe dream. But automation is changing the nature of work, flushing workers without a college degree out of productive industries, like manufacturing and high-tech services, and into tasks with meager wages and no prospect for advancement.
Economists have a hard time getting their heads around this. Steeped in the belief that technology inevitably leads to better jobs and higher pay, they long resisted the notion that the Luddites of the 19th century, who famously thrashed the weaving machines that were taking their jobs, might have had a point.
“In the standard economic canon, the proposition that you can increase productivity and harm labor is bunkum,” Mr. Acemoglu said.
By reducing prices and improving quality, technology was expected to raise demand, which would require more jobs. What’s more, economists thought, more productive workers would have higher incomes. This would create demand for new, unheard-of things that somebody would have to make.
To prove their case, economists pointed confidently to one of the greatest technological leaps of the last few hundred years, when the rural economy gave way to the industrial era.
In 1900, agriculture employed 12 million Americans. By 2014, tractors, combines and other equipment had flushed 10 million people out of the sector. But as farm labor declined, the industrial economy added jobs even faster. What happened? As the new farm machines boosted food production and made produce cheaper, demand for agricultural products grew. And farmers used their higher incomes to purchase newfangled industrial goods.
The new industries were highly productive and also subject to furious technological advancement. Weavers lost their jobs to automated looms; secretaries lost their jobs to Microsoft Windows. But each new spin of the technological wheel, from plastic toys to televisions to computers, yielded higher incomes for workers and more sophisticated products and services for them to buy.
Something different is going on in our current technological revolution. In a new study, David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Anna Salomons of Utrecht University found that over the last 40 years, jobs have fallen in every single industry that introduced technologies to enhance productivity.
The only reason employment didn’t fall across the entire economy is that other industries, with less productivity growth, picked up the slack. “The challenge is not the quantity of jobs,” they wrote. “The challenge is the quality of jobs available to low- and medium-skill workers.”
-
@MZH said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
Despite all its shiny new high-tech businesses, the vast majority of new jobs are in workaday service industries, like health care, hospitality, retail and building services, where pay is mediocre.
Sounds to me like there's whole sectors that need lots more automation!!!
-
@brie said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
there should be a graduated reduction in benefits
Welcome to the 19th century way of calculating stuff that governments cling to: sliding scales seem to be something they’ve never heard of, the only method they know is a hard cut-off point that you’re either above or below. This is a good way to get the work done if you have to calculate everything by hand, but in an age of affordable computers, it makes no sense at all. (Note I’m not just talking about benefits here, BTW. Import duties are another good example, but far from the only one.)
-
@Gurth you can calculate sliding scales by hand just fine too.
-
@Gąska said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gurth you can calculate sliding scales by hand just fine too.
Not if you're mathematically challenged like many adults. Don't even get me started about how bad people are with simple fractions...
-
@Benjamin-Hall
19/95 = 19/95 = 1/5; I don't see the problem
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gąska said in Automation vs Today's Jobs:
@Gurth you can calculate sliding scales by hand just fine too.
Not if you're mathematically challenged like many adults.
Fair point. I always forget how badly educated Americans are compared to Europeans.
Don't even get me started about how bad people are with simple fractions...
The most ironic thing about our civilization is how bad people are at fractions (both simple and decimal) while having no problem with percents.
Dog Vs. Shark: Who Will Win?
World's first robot hotel massacres half of its robot staff
