Jump to content
ROMAD1

The National Emergency Over the Wall

Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

12 minutes ago, pfife said:

Be the automator.

That’s the goal. That or do something that can’t be automated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, pfife said:

I don't go around doing that either.  I do that here. To you and that other racist POS.  Surprise you two don't pay my salary and I don't work for you.

Pretty straight forward champs.  Learn.

I'm a racist and a dumbass in the same night? You're such a peach. 

You are absolutely right. You don't work for me. That's the way I prefer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I'm a racist and a dumbass in the same night? You're such a peach. 

You are absolutely right. You don't work for me. That's the way I prefer it.

Learn to read peach, lotsa plural words have you befuddled apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

That’s the goal. That or do something that can’t be automated. 

There are long range economists who project that something like 25% of all current jobs will be automated by the early 2030s. That is literally tens of millions of people. The lesson of that is that young people need to prepare themselves for analytical careers that are in no danger of being automated, and ideally be the drivers of automation with their skills. Because the benefit of automation is going to go to those who are the drivers of it and of course also to the people who finance it. Because there are only so many people who will be capable of doing those two things, the dollars flowing to them will continue to increase. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pfife said:

Be the automator.

 

7 hours ago, Euphdude said:

That’s the goal. That or do something that can’t be automated. 

I've been trying to automate myself out of a job for 20 years. there's always more to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stanpapi said:

There are long range economists who project that something like 25% of all current jobs will be automated by the early 2030s. That is literally tens of millions of people. The lesson of that is that young people need to prepare themselves for analytical careers that are in no danger of being automated, and ideally be the drivers of automation with their skills. Because the benefit of automation is going to go to those who are the drivers of it and of course also to the people who finance it. Because there are only so many people who will be capable of doing those two things, the dollars flowing to them will continue to increase. 

They're tryna automate analytics too.  A lot of it isn't particularly sophisticated at this point, like you drop in a dataset and it automagically runs correlation matrix across all of the fields and report out that something may be related and call it AI.   They really need to figure out a way to put business rules-based guard rails on it, which is the true AI.     But they're trying and will probably get there at some point, just hope it's after I'm long retired.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pfife said:

They're tryna automate analytics too.  A lot of it isn't particularly sophisticated at this point, like you drop in a dataset and it automagically runs correlation matrix across all of the fields and report out that something may be related and call it AI.   They really need to figure out a way to put business rules-based guard rails on it, which is the true AI.     But they're trying and will probably get there at some point, just hope it's after I'm long retired.   

 

The good thing is that nobody understands what analysts do.  So, you can just tell the boss that the automation isn't working right or it's too simplistic.  This will work great when the automation is not giving the answers that the boss wants  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

The good thing is that nobody understands what analysts do.  So, you can just tell the boss that the automation isn't working right or it's too simplistic.  This will work great when the automation is not giving the answers that the boss wants  

Automation is like cloud computing.  Management wants it but doesn't really know what it is or how to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, pfife said:

They're tryna automate analytics too.  A lot of it isn't particularly sophisticated at this point, like you drop in a dataset and it automagically runs correlation matrix across all of the fields and report out that something may be related and call it AI.   They really need to figure out a way to put business rules-based guard rails on it, which is the true AI.     But they're trying and will probably get there at some point, just hope it's after I'm long retired.   

 

We're trying it and being the dinosaur I am I think it's a failure... too many exceptions.  You can get it 70% but there's a reason we have 20+ people looking at this stuff all day as part of their jobs... "If those damn engineers would do their job...."  But that's the crux.  They're doing their job for production.... but service is a different animal.  

I'm right in the middle of something where they want to take data from one source, put it through a sausage grinder to fit into another and we have to be the bad guys and tell them you can't.... someone has to look at it and fill in those gaps.  It's not how the source data is configured.  It serves a different purpose.  "Yeah, well GM can do it..."  GM has 20 people doing it manually.  People will spend $300K on proposals that don't work and if they'd just hired 5 people to work 6 months it could have been done.... but that's not a sexy item on someone's performance objectives.  Not enough acronyms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Oblong said:

We're trying it and being the dinosaur I am I think it's a failure... too many exceptions.  You can get it 70% but there's a reason we have 20+ people looking at this stuff all day as part of their jobs... "If those damn engineers would do their job...."  But that's the crux.  They're doing their job for production.... but service is a different animal.  

I'm right in the middle of something where they want to take data from one source, put it through a sausage grinder to fit into another and we have to be the bad guys and tell them you can't.... someone has to look at it and fill in those gaps.  It's not how the source data is configured.  It serves a different purpose.  "Yeah, well GM can do it..."  GM has 20 people doing it manually.  People will spend $300K on proposals that don't work and if they'd just hired 5 people to work 6 months it could have been done.... but that's not a sexy item on someone's performance objectives.  Not enough acronyms.

 

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

I've done exactly that before, it wasn't in the automotive field but have done it - I spent many hours basically mapping one data source to the next and doing the conversion specs for someone else to code it.   It was the absolute worst.    I absolutely love programming, but I think I would hate this kind of data integration programming too. I did that job for a year then bounced.  

Our company makes a ton of money doing this sort of work, they've got it down, for their data model anyways.   I would much prefer to get the data after that stuff is already done though!

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, these were all the same arguments that arose when farming became mechanized, and at the dawn of the industrial age. the US industrial economy absorbed probably 100 million agricultural workers that left farm employment in the 19th and 20th century. Logically speaking, I don't see that automation has any more potential to reduce human employment than the invention of the fuel powered engines and electricity did. A single modern diesel excavator replaces the labor of maybe a hundred men, and yet somehow we still have full employment in a world where there are a dozen such machines on every job site. Just be because we don't see what employment in a more automated future looks like doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. The capitalist model says that all automation does is reduce the relative cost of capital deployed for each worker which gives each worker more productive capacity to work with. That makes each worker more productive, it doesn't put him out of a job. It's not the technology per se that displaces people, it the pace of change running faster than the generational training cycle, and that can be addressed by the political system, if the will is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pfife said:

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

I've done exactly that before, it wasn't in the automotive field but have done it - I spent many hours basically mapping one data source to the next and doing the conversion specs for someone else to code it.   It was the absolute worst.    I absolutely love programming, but I think I would hate this kind of data integration programming too. I did that job for a year then bounced.  

Our company makes a ton of money doing this sort of work, they've got it down, for their data model anyways.   I would much prefer to get the data after that stuff is already done though!

 

 

 

In our case it's the marketing people.  We get new ones every 18 months and they get the same genius idea the last guy had.  Then we have to go through the exercise of explaining it.   I'm not a programmer, I'm on the business, side and mess around some with it,  but I know the system inside and out, every table, every field, what it means, how it gets populated, where it goes, etc.  These people just think "Well just send them the file...."

We have to explain that we pay a supplier close to a million a year in just ongoing production costs (not including the millions spent developing the systems in the first place) to produce the output of all this data that our existing vendors use, to a carefully designed spec.

It's not just a spreadsheet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Lastly, claiming or suggesting Congress has been intransigent makes no sense absent Trump making an compelling argument for them to be intransigent about.  No well run business just gives into the whims of anyone, including the CEO, just because s/he make demands of the board and makes a bunch of disjointed speeches filled with a bunch of objective falsehoods.  The board expects to be convinced why something is the best project to pursue before they will agree to fund it.  The same applies here.

In terms of Congress, I would just add that, in terms of how this is going to go the next couple of weeks, there is a Conference Committee made up of House/Senate Rs and Ds that are going to be hashing out a compromise package. I'm sure whatever they agree to will involve witnesses and experts providing reasons for what is needed and how much needs to be spent. Assuming that a compromise bill is reached and passed out of the House and the Senate, Trump will have to decide whether to sign it. Wall money or no wall money.

At the end of the day, both sides want border security, they just disagree with how to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Oblong said:

In our case it's the marketing people.  We get new ones every 18 months and they get the same genius idea the last guy had.  Then we have to go through the exercise of explaining it.   I'm not a programmer, I'm on the business, side and mess around some with it,  but I know the system inside and out, every table, every field, what it means, how it gets populated, where it goes, etc.  These people just think "Well just send them the file...."

We have to explain that we pay a supplier close to a million a year in just ongoing production costs (not including the millions spent developing the systems in the first place) to produce the output of all this data that our existing vendors use, to a carefully designed spec.

It's not just a spreadsheet.

 

You guys are speaking of analytics in a sense that is at a much lower level than I was referencing. I'm talking about people with analytical skills in very senior management positions that drive strategic decisions at a very high level. No disrespect intended, but much of what you guys are talking about will in fact be automated at some point. What we could be left with are the people with significant capital who are actually funding the automation, along with a small subset of high level decision makers that actually have jobs.

The difference between this occurrence and what happened earlier last century is that at that point in time, there were still many so called 'unskilled' (or lower skilled) jobs to be had; automation in the early 1900s took some jobs out of the equation, but certainly not all. This time around, so much of life could become automated that there will be vast numbers of unskilled people with no jobs to fit them into. That's a much different issue than the "dawn" of industrialization 100+ years ago. If what is coming is so advanced that it takes virtually every possible "manual" job out of the mix, there is no need for lesser skilled workers at all. That's a very big deal.

Having said all this, for a while, there will be alot of work for people who help ramp up the automation and, for a time, that will sustain more workers. But at some point, you are either going to want to be the guy with the capital or the senior leadership helping him (or her). What we think of as "lower skilled" or even "middle skilled/analytical" today may not exist at all. It's a bit of a scary thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Oblong said:

We're trying it and being the dinosaur I am I think it's a failure... too many exceptions.  You can get it 70% but there's a reason we have 20+ people looking at this stuff all day as part of their jobs... "If those damn engineers would do their job...."  But that's the crux.  They're doing their job for production.... but service is a different animal.  

I'm right in the middle of something where they want to take data from one source, put it through a sausage grinder to fit into another and we have to be the bad guys and tell them you can't.... someone has to look at it and fill in those gaps.  It's not how the source data is configured.  It serves a different purpose.  "Yeah, well GM can do it..."  GM has 20 people doing it manually.  People will spend $300K on proposals that don't work and if they'd just hired 5 people to work 6 months it could have been done.... but that's not a sexy item on someone's performance objectives.  Not enough acronyms.

 

Heh, glad (sad) to see other folks in large companies deal with the same thing.  I wish they'd send me the training info on the latest acronyms.  That said, it's always fun when someone throws one out.  A phrase i've been loving lately is 'What is the ask?'.  i hear that daily now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's time I bow out on the wall talk. I feel like the goal posts keep moving and ultimately, i'm not changing anyones mind.  But a few points as I go.

- Seems like initially anyone in this thread that supported a wall was an idiot and should be laughed at.  Point to some reasons why it should be considered, continue laughing.  Point out border patrol supports it - either claim that no one thinks 'more' wall is bad or get told that who cares what border patrol things, you don't give employees everything they want.  Simultaneously, if democrats talk to the folks that work a specific issue, they are referred to as experts and dems are smart as they listen to experts.  Republicans, if they are listening to the 'experts' are just racists.

- How often has Krugman been cited here.  Is spending on infrastructure work which creates jobs no longer a good thing, or only when a republican requests it?

- I'm fairly confident that if Trump never mentions the wall, enough for 'more' wall is in place already.  Prior to Trump making it political, both sides had agreed to address border patrol concerns and add more wall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I think it's time I bow out on the wall talk. I feel like the goal posts keep moving and ultimately, i'm not changing anyones mind.  But a few points as I go.

- Seems like initially anyone in this thread that supported a wall was an idiot and should be laughed at.  Point to some reasons why it should be considered, continue laughing.  Point out border patrol supports it - either claim that no one thinks 'more' wall is bad or get told that who cares what border patrol things, you don't give employees everything they want.  Simultaneously, if democrats talk to the folks that work a specific issue, they are referred to as experts and dems are smart as they listen to experts.  Republicans, if they are listening to the 'experts' are just racists.

- How often has Krugman been cited here.  Is spending on infrastructure work which creates jobs no longer a good thing, or only when a republican requests it?

- I'm fairly confident that if Trump never mentions the wall, enough for 'more' wall is in place already.  Prior to Trump making it political, both sides had agreed to address border patrol concerns and add more wall.

 

Here is what I believe the bottom line is politically: If tomorrow Trump agreed to turn technical decisions on border enforcement spending to one of Congress' common  bipartisan commissions, I'd wager the Dems would pony up the 5.7 billion in about 10 seconds flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stanpapi said:

You guys are speaking of analytics in a sense that is at a much lower level than I was referencing. I'm talking about people with analytical skills in very senior management positions that drive strategic decisions at a very high level. No disrespect intended, but much of what you guys are talking about will in fact be automated at some point. What we could be left with are the people with significant capital who are actually funding the automation, along with a small subset of high level decision makers that actually have jobs.

The difference between this occurrence and what happened earlier last century is that at that point in time, there were still many so called 'unskilled' (or lower skilled) jobs to be had; automation in the early 1900s took some jobs out of the equation, but certainly not all. This time around, so much of life could become automated that there will be vast numbers of unskilled people with no jobs to fit them into. That's a much different issue than the "dawn" of industrialization 100+ years ago. If what is coming is so advanced that it takes virtually every possible "manual" job out of the mix, there is no need for lesser skilled workers at all. That's a very big deal.

Having said all this, for a while, there will be alot of work for people who help ramp up the automation and, for a time, that will sustain more workers. But at some point, you are either going to want to be the guy with the capital or the senior leadership helping him (or her). What we think of as "lower skilled" or even "middle skilled/analytical" today may not exist at all. It's a bit of a scary thought. 

Good thing Stan is here to teach us about analytical skills. 

Don't worry about your management job Stan.  Bull ****ting will always have a place in corporate America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ewsieg said:

- I'm fairly confident that if Trump never mentions the wall, enough for 'more' wall is in place already.  Prior to Trump making it political, both sides had agreed to address border patrol concerns and add more wall.

 

I really think you are downplaying or even outright ignoring the importance of this. The fact is that this was made political the moment he rolled down that escalator 3.5 years ago. And when he campaigned continually on a border wall that stretches from sea to shining sea. 30' tall, made of concrete, etc.

Fast forward to today: in our discussions, you seem to indicate that it's not a continuous border wall. He does. Other politicians define the wall as they see fit. Basically, the wall is defined as whatever anyone wants it to be at any given time. No wonder the American public isn't on board.

In regards to your other points, I dont read Paul Krugman and I feel like ample reasons have been given as to why I have my position. That dont involved Trump or "the wall is racist", which you implied was the reason people are opposing the wall in the first place. Of course, when that was pointed out to you,, you came back with "but you're relying on Democratic talking points."

So who is moving the goal posts exactly? Following your logic, I gather that being in favor of Democratic proposals means that you're "relying on Democratic talking points" while being in favor of the wall is different. I reject that completely.

My goal posts have not moved on this. There are more cost effective ways to do border security. And I've written countless posts over the past couple of years about how much money would be wasted on this wall versus the return we would get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

So who is moving the goal posts exactly? Following your logic, I gather that being in favor of Democratic proposals means that you're "relying on Democratic talking points" while being in favor of the wall is different. I reject that completely.

I second this rejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...