Compare this to the current setup.

If you want to predict something, the weather, political events, financial trends, you would call together a body of experts and gather the best available data in order to make a best guess as to what will happen and what to do about it. We know that we're relying on the imperfect judgement of people and the incomplete data that we have available. The experts may be right, or they may be wrong. But it's the best judgement we can offer and the best data available. Anything else would be even less likely to be right. It's the best option available, so we go with it.

Now consider an algorithm that is on average at least as good, or possibly better, than the best experts we have at a given subject. It has all the data the experts themselves can digest and more. Would it be wrong to think that the algorithm might have valuable input with considering? Like any independent expert, you'd want to check with the larger community of experts to e what they think about the algorithm's projections, but in principle, I don't see why it should be discounted just because it came from an AI. Hell, they're are already programs that can diagnose illnesses better than human doctors .

To your point, it would indeed be problematic if any single source of information became the unquestioned authority on any given topic, but the same is true of human pundits and professors alike.

You can rest assured that absolutely none of those tangential benefits will translate directly into lessened work load, fewer working hours for the same pay, better working conditions, better benefits, or really anything else that would make working life less miserable for most people.

It might save you a couple of clicks when ordering a pizza, though. So we've got that going for us. Which is nice.

The industrial revolution did not provide workers with fewer hours, better pay, or better working conditions. Labor unions, worker's rights organizations, and progressive activists did that, and all in the face of stiff and violent opposition from the capitalists who absolutely would have kept kids in coal mines for 12 hours a day if they could've gotten away with it (for longer than they already had).

Make no mistake, technology is nothing but a tool. The real problem is the slave drivers with their whips at our backs to keep us using those new and better tools for as long and as cheaply as they can possibly get away with, no matter how much more value we produce for them in the same time.

If we workers were truly going to benefit from the advancements in technology, our paid time off would be increased in proportion to the rise in the company's value each year. If the company stock goes up 10%, I should get 10% more PTO than I already had. Not even more money, just more time to live my life, because I was able to do more work in less time, and therefore deserve to reap the benefits of the advanced technology that let me finish that work faster.

Of course, you can see why this would never survive as a business model when competing with other businesses who don't reward workers in proportion with their productivity. There's a perverse incentive for employers to pay as little as possible and demand as much work as possible. Business interests are not human interests. Technology, in and of itself, benefits the owners, not the workers, and rising tides do not necessarily lift all boats equally.

The same forces that have always been in play will ensure that any and all innovation will benefit the top 1%, not alleviate the burdens of the laborers. Neither the steam engine, nor electricity, nor the internet have actually allowed us to revolutionize the economy in a way that truly benefits the welfare of the working class. This will be no different.

Edit: naysayers, please please prove me wrong.

The same Gordon Moore of Moore's Law? I'll be damned, it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Any time a federal agency starts to receive an avalanche of funding, my first thought is that it's starting to get tied into "defense" spending (ie, militarized). The very first point they make is about information technology being 'critical', which I take to mean that the NSF is becoming the R&D department in the cyber war with China, Russia, etc.

Someone please help a jaded elder millennial to see this as anything other than a cynical ploy to leverage resources in an ongoing political/economic/technological conflict.

It took me a long time to learn to think of the actual day of the holiday as the last day of that particular season of festivities. Deep down, I always felt it was like the center, with a couple weeks before and after still covered in decorations.

What do you think about people's natural sleep rhythms that don't coincide with the modern 9-5 workday? Do you think the health effects will ever warrant medically necessary legal protection for people who require alternative schedules to function healthily?

This is the single most depressing item ever marketed. It's the magic of nostalgia for the innocence of childhood, mixed with the cheap booze needed to numb the pain of your 3rd failed marriage, crushing debt, and shitty 60hr/week job. The kid who first tipped the sharp plastic edge of the bottle to their anticipating lips is now the broken mid-lifer grimly drinking alone from a dented can in the Walmart parking lot.

True, should've counted pretax. I wonder what the other cheater companies are doing that Capital can't afford to do? Seems like they should be able to take advantage of as many scummy loopholes as the next 800lb gorilla. I don't believe for a moment that they pay one red cent more than they can get away with, or do it out of the goodness of their greedy little hearts.

Is this evidence of stronger corporate tax laws than we are generally given to believe? Or, more likely, is there other financial monkey business that can be done after this calculation that effectively reduces the total tax:profit ratio?

Paying a little over 25% in taxes on net income, seems better than many giant faceless corporations?

Color scheme seems like it should be flipped.

Oof, the bastard love child of Reddit and Twitter feels like the media equivalent of a Doritos taco at Taco Bell. Either one of those ingredients could already drag me into a nauseous shame spiral on their own, but with their powers combined, I'll only have the courage to try it once or twice before I'll feel like I need to go on a serious cleanse, lol.

Your thoughts on how stupid airport letter codes and runway digits are?

Bought a tree cutting permit for $5, only to realize that all the good wild trees have been burned up in the forest fires of recent years.

Ended up going to a mom-and-pop u-cut place for $40.

Still better than $78.87.

Do you have a breakdown for hourly earnings? Not even gonna bring up other expenses like gas and maintenence.

Positive regards this annual festive period, fellow sentient.

"Refused to accept surrender"

Me: oh shit, it's gonna get dark

"... because they respected each other too much."

Me: wheeew...

And why exactly are our modern lives so overwhelmingly hectic? It's the artificial demands of our industrialized society. Yes yes, benefits and trade offs, but at least most of our ancestors had enough time to go for a walk and take a nap each day if they wanted to. It sucks that most of us just don't seem to have any breathing room in our own lives anymore.

I dunno, sunshine and naps are free and easy, and pretty damn worthwhile. Things like that only become expensive or difficult because we live in a dystopian hellscape that makes basic functions of life difficult and expensive.

If they could make a miracle pill that would do the same thing as a good night's sleep and a trip to the gym, you couldn't make them fast enough, and someone would become a trillionaire. I'm glad that sleep and exercise are inherently free, though I understand why they're not easy for everyone.