In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
Don't pay too much attention to claims like that. Polls indicate the vast majority of the people voting in the Democratic primary would be satisfied with Hillary as the nominee (more so than Bernie).
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
Because it's not about left and right this election, it's about anti-establishment vs establishment.
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
Yes they are just only old enough to vote in the primaries?
Realistically most of the Bernie or bust crowed would vote Jill Stein if Bernie made a big deal about refusing to be written in or run an non-nominated campaign (if republicans tried to run someone other than Trump).
On March 10 2016 15:27 Slaughter wrote: For the education thing (I caught a bit about that). Wouldn't adding manufacturing jobs that don't require a college degree help a bit with the problem? If you supply legit jobs that do not need a degree that would decrease the number of people going to college and maybe that would lead to colleges having to compete for students (lower tuition) and also keep costs down if there is some government program to help fund college. It also would make college degrees worth more again instead of becoming glorified high school degrees.
I do think that Universities will have to reform themselves to some degree. They have become bloated in a lot of ways.
Yes, this is why free university is fucking dumb idea. So many of the jobs in America, don't need a university degree. They need vocational training for higher end manufacturing job.
Vocational schooling in America is a complete joke right now.
And yet countless other countries either have free or extremely cheap university and don't run into this problem.
The lack of value in a high school diploma has nothing to do with whether free/reduced tuition costs is a good idea. They are completely separate problems.
"Rich kids shouldn't get public college for free" is also ridiculously stupid as well. Education is and should be considered a right that is necessary for our society to function well. Not only this, but the money the public saved by not financing these rich kids would be pretty negligible (since they are such a small part of the population), not to mention the fact that they would be screwed if their parents didn't fund their education (just like they are now).
Well if you want to look at making college cheaper look at how much faster admin/non teaching roles have increased compared to the teaching roles.Cut back on the unnecessary admin and middle management and you will see improvements.
On March 10 2016 17:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well if you want to look at making college cheaper look at how much faster admin/non teaching roles have increased compared to the teaching roles.Cut back on the unnecessary admin and middle management and you will see improvements.
Or you could go the Illinois way and make it so your universities have to cut faculty, courses, funding for research, funding for graduate students, and jobs for students :[
On March 10 2016 15:27 Slaughter wrote: For the education thing (I caught a bit about that). Wouldn't adding manufacturing jobs that don't require a college degree help a bit with the problem? If you supply legit jobs that do not need a degree that would decrease the number of people going to college and maybe that would lead to colleges having to compete for students (lower tuition) and also keep costs down if there is some government program to help fund college. It also would make college degrees worth more again instead of becoming glorified high school degrees.
I do think that Universities will have to reform themselves to some degree. They have become bloated in a lot of ways.
Yes, this is why free university is fucking dumb idea. So many of the jobs in America, don't need a university degree. They need vocational training for higher end manufacturing job.
Vocational schooling in America is a complete joke right now.
And yet countless other countries either have free or extremely cheap university and don't run into this problem.
The lack of value in a high school diploma has nothing to do with whether free/reduced tuition costs is a good idea. They are completely separate problems.
"Rich kids shouldn't get public college for free" is also ridiculously stupid as well. Education is and should be considered a right that is necessary for our society to function well. Not only this, but the money the public saved by not financing these rich kids would be pretty negligible (since they are such a small part of the population), not to mention the fact that they would be screwed if their parents didn't fund their education (just like they are now).
yes, because those countries have a much higher base level of education, insanely strong vocational education programs that prepare for job readiness, and have a significantly smaller portion of their population attending college.
On March 10 2016 15:31 oBlade wrote: I am going to disagree with Kwark some (as usual probably), but I have a similar train of thought..
The reason McDonalds or supermarkets or even airports can have self-checkout kiosks is that there's almost no need for human involvement - people are buying what they want to buy. It's between the people and the product. The cashier is convenient but not contributing substantially to the relationship. You'll note there's still no automated bagging, even though the packing problem is a fundamental thing in computer science. And there won't be for a while because it's just bagging groceries. That's the point I'm trying to make about healthcare. There's no streamlining left to squeeze revenue out of automation when it comes to getting amoxicillin from your PCP.
And there's already tiers of skill, which is why there's nurses. The nurse is already the automation when they digitally weigh you and take your BP/heart rate. You can't make people less skilled in this field, because you want them working well within their comfort zone.
In terms of someone walks into a clinic, says "there's a thing on my arm," I don't see where the automation happens. It'll be a cyst, wart, parasite, tumor - in so many cases like this, is there any way for automation to introduce more efficiency? It'd be a hindrance.
Or radiology. A person tells you how to position yourself, they position the machine, and it images you. Where is the demand to invent some kind of meta-imaging machine that uses 20 cameras to construct a 3d image of you so its algorithm can control where the radio - all while the tech is sitting there providing oversight? Why doesn't the tech just take 30 seconds and do it?
There are exciting things happening technologically in medicine (as always), like the fact that people in the first world are starting to keep consistent track of their basic vitals with smartwear, which might expand further, and the fact that there's companies like medibid popping up which are great for consumers. I am all for a decrease in administration so a greater proportion of the industry is actual healthcare, but I don't think basic medicine is where the automation is going to happen in the future, because it's not where it happens now. What happens is there's some guy, who's one of a few in the world, who can perform some procedure. And he's not cheap, although he may do - I forgot if there's a special word for pro bono with doctors - he may do the procedure for people who need it. But over time, new technology and new techniques make the procedure minimally invasive, and more people are capable of performing it, it's cheaper, it has fewer complications. That's the real effect of technology. Especially eye surgery has experienced this in recent memory, if I'm not mistaken.
I think medicine is probably expanding right now (just a hunch) - I mean more than the base rate our society expands. And it should continue to for a long time. That's where I agree with the point about Excel. 1000 years ago, medicine could do fuck all (even though there were books, people had done dissections, and so forth) and people died by 40-50. Now people are living until they're 90. There's an expanded need for oncologists, thoracic surgeons, dentists because everyone's teeth fall out by then, etc. In telemarketing, it's literally a recording doing the talking. "Automation" has a real meaning in that context, or in the context of manufacturing. People get replaced for some or all of their duties. I don't think this works in a the context of healthcare. And that was my original point: careers that deal with people don't admit to significant automation, including healthcare, education, law, government, police, barber, journalism, or whatever.
There is absolutely a ton of ways to incorporate automation in all of the fields you've mentioned. The level of complexity that technology can handle today is already astounding. Self-driving cars. Computers beating grandmasters. We hold doctors in high esteem, but pit them against a computer with all currently held medical knowledge, a profile of you, your genetic history, family history, environmental factors, and so on and so forth, and you might be surprised which one gives you a more accurate diagnosis. If computers could handle that level of complexity, any profession is fair game.
Are we there yet? Not yet. But you have to think it's only a matter of time, and probably sooner than later.
Once a machine is able to handle complex professions reliably, what then? I think that's the dilemma we'll be facing either in my lifetime or the next. Assuming we haven't been wiped out by a nuclear winter or global warming first.
On March 10 2016 15:31 oBlade wrote: I am going to disagree with Kwark some (as usual probably), but I have a similar train of thought..
The reason McDonalds or supermarkets or even airports can have self-checkout kiosks is that there's almost no need for human involvement - people are buying what they want to buy. It's between the people and the product. The cashier is convenient but not contributing substantially to the relationship. You'll note there's still no automated bagging, even though the packing problem is a fundamental thing in computer science. And there won't be for a while because it's just bagging groceries. That's the point I'm trying to make about healthcare. There's no streamlining left to squeeze revenue out of automation when it comes to getting amoxicillin from your PCP.
And there's already tiers of skill, which is why there's nurses. The nurse is already the automation when they digitally weigh you and take your BP/heart rate. You can't make people less skilled in this field, because you want them working well within their comfort zone.
In terms of someone walks into a clinic, says "there's a thing on my arm," I don't see where the automation happens. It'll be a cyst, wart, parasite, tumor - in so many cases like this, is there any way for automation to introduce more efficiency? It'd be a hindrance.
Or radiology. A person tells you how to position yourself, they position the machine, and it images you. Where is the demand to invent some kind of meta-imaging machine that uses 20 cameras to construct a 3d image of you so its algorithm can control where the radio - all while the tech is sitting there providing oversight? Why doesn't the tech just take 30 seconds and do it?
There are exciting things happening technologically in medicine (as always), like the fact that people in the first world are starting to keep consistent track of their basic vitals with smartwear, which might expand further, and the fact that there's companies like medibid popping up which are great for consumers. I am all for a decrease in administration so a greater proportion of the industry is actual healthcare, but I don't think basic medicine is where the automation is going to happen in the future, because it's not where it happens now. What happens is there's some guy, who's one of a few in the world, who can perform some procedure. And he's not cheap, although he may do - I forgot if there's a special word for pro bono with doctors - he may do the procedure for people who need it. But over time, new technology and new techniques make the procedure minimally invasive, and more people are capable of performing it, it's cheaper, it has fewer complications. That's the real effect of technology. Especially eye surgery has experienced this in recent memory, if I'm not mistaken.
I think medicine is probably expanding right now (just a hunch) - I mean more than the base rate our society expands. And it should continue to for a long time. That's where I agree with the point about Excel. 1000 years ago, medicine could do fuck all (even though there were books, people had done dissections, and so forth) and people died by 40-50. Now people are living until they're 90. There's an expanded need for oncologists, thoracic surgeons, dentists because everyone's teeth fall out by then, etc. In telemarketing, it's literally a recording doing the talking. "Automation" has a real meaning in that context, or in the context of manufacturing. People get replaced for some or all of their duties. I don't think this works in a the context of healthcare. And that was my original point: careers that deal with people don't admit to significant automation, including healthcare, education, law, government, police, barber, journalism, or whatever.
Your nurse example: see thing on arm, whip out smartphone, take picture and autodiagnose on the spot. It then tells you what to do about it. 90% of the people who would have walked into the hospital with a thing on their arm now no longer need to, because a drone is delivering the cream they need to treat their thing.
While radiology is a bit tricky, due to the radiation, ultrasound will soon be available everywhere: small and cheap enough to have one in your bathroom, next to the thermometer. And computers will tell you where to aim it and interpret the images for you. Probably 90% of the things you now get x-ray'd, will be diagnosed by ultrasound instead, from the comfort of your home.
Automation won't necessarily do the same job, but it might still make most of those jobs irrelevant. However, physicians are still a long long way from being automated away.
On March 10 2016 15:31 oBlade wrote: I am going to disagree with Kwark some (as usual probably), but I have a similar train of thought..
The reason McDonalds or supermarkets or even airports can have self-checkout kiosks is that there's almost no need for human involvement - people are buying what they want to buy. It's between the people and the product. The cashier is convenient but not contributing substantially to the relationship. You'll note there's still no automated bagging, even though the packing problem is a fundamental thing in computer science. And there won't be for a while because it's just bagging groceries. That's the point I'm trying to make about healthcare. There's no streamlining left to squeeze revenue out of automation when it comes to getting amoxicillin from your PCP.
And there's already tiers of skill, which is why there's nurses. The nurse is already the automation when they digitally weigh you and take your BP/heart rate. You can't make people less skilled in this field, because you want them working well within their comfort zone.
In terms of someone walks into a clinic, says "there's a thing on my arm," I don't see where the automation happens. It'll be a cyst, wart, parasite, tumor - in so many cases like this, is there any way for automation to introduce more efficiency? It'd be a hindrance.
Or radiology. A person tells you how to position yourself, they position the machine, and it images you. Where is the demand to invent some kind of meta-imaging machine that uses 20 cameras to construct a 3d image of you so its algorithm can control where the radio - all while the tech is sitting there providing oversight? Why doesn't the tech just take 30 seconds and do it?
There are exciting things happening technologically in medicine (as always), like the fact that people in the first world are starting to keep consistent track of their basic vitals with smartwear, which might expand further, and the fact that there's companies like medibid popping up which are great for consumers. I am all for a decrease in administration so a greater proportion of the industry is actual healthcare, but I don't think basic medicine is where the automation is going to happen in the future, because it's not where it happens now. What happens is there's some guy, who's one of a few in the world, who can perform some procedure. And he's not cheap, although he may do - I forgot if there's a special word for pro bono with doctors - he may do the procedure for people who need it. But over time, new technology and new techniques make the procedure minimally invasive, and more people are capable of performing it, it's cheaper, it has fewer complications. That's the real effect of technology. Especially eye surgery has experienced this in recent memory, if I'm not mistaken.
I think medicine is probably expanding right now (just a hunch) - I mean more than the base rate our society expands. And it should continue to for a long time. That's where I agree with the point about Excel. 1000 years ago, medicine could do fuck all (even though there were books, people had done dissections, and so forth) and people died by 40-50. Now people are living until they're 90. There's an expanded need for oncologists, thoracic surgeons, dentists because everyone's teeth fall out by then, etc. In telemarketing, it's literally a recording doing the talking. "Automation" has a real meaning in that context, or in the context of manufacturing. People get replaced for some or all of their duties. I don't think this works in a the context of healthcare. And that was my original point: careers that deal with people don't admit to significant automation, including healthcare, education, law, government, police, barber, journalism, or whatever.
Your nurse example: see thing on arm, whip out smartphone, take picture and autodiagnose on the spot. It then tells you what to do about it. 90% of the people who would have walked into the hospital with a thing on their arm now no longer need to, because a drone is delivering the cream they need to treat their thing.
While radiology is a bit tricky, due to the radiation, ultrasound will soon be available everywhere: small and cheap enough to have one in your bathroom, next to the thermometer. And computers will tell you where to aim it and interpret the images for you. Probably 90% of the things you now get x-ray'd, will be diagnosed by ultrasound instead, from the comfort of your home.
Automation won't necessarily do the same job, but it might still make most of those jobs irrelevant. However, physicians are still a long long way from being automated away.
Ultrasound can't be used to image bones (along with pneumonia (diagnosis of which is a budding field for ultrasound) the most common use for x-ray). The closest you'll get is in kids <12 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_sonography
I think the good old x-ray is going to be here for a bit longer than you suspect. As a physician I feel very safe about my job security - especially considering what I read on this forum.
On March 10 2016 11:22 Ghanburighan wrote: Someone should inform the moderators that a debate requires engagement between the candidates. We could have just had interviews with the same questions.
Last time we had that everyone accused Sanders of sexism because she didn't let Clinton talk over him.
On March 10 2016 15:31 oBlade wrote: I am going to disagree with Kwark some (as usual probably), but I have a similar train of thought..
The reason McDonalds or supermarkets or even airports can have self-checkout kiosks is that there's almost no need for human involvement - people are buying what they want to buy. It's between the people and the product. The cashier is convenient but not contributing substantially to the relationship. You'll note there's still no automated bagging, even though the packing problem is a fundamental thing in computer science. And there won't be for a while because it's just bagging groceries. That's the point I'm trying to make about healthcare. There's no streamlining left to squeeze revenue out of automation when it comes to getting amoxicillin from your PCP.
And there's already tiers of skill, which is why there's nurses. The nurse is already the automation when they digitally weigh you and take your BP/heart rate. You can't make people less skilled in this field, because you want them working well within their comfort zone.
In terms of someone walks into a clinic, says "there's a thing on my arm," I don't see where the automation happens. It'll be a cyst, wart, parasite, tumor - in so many cases like this, is there any way for automation to introduce more efficiency? It'd be a hindrance.
Or radiology. A person tells you how to position yourself, they position the machine, and it images you. Where is the demand to invent some kind of meta-imaging machine that uses 20 cameras to construct a 3d image of you so its algorithm can control where the radio - all while the tech is sitting there providing oversight? Why doesn't the tech just take 30 seconds and do it?
There are exciting things happening technologically in medicine (as always), like the fact that people in the first world are starting to keep consistent track of their basic vitals with smartwear, which might expand further, and the fact that there's companies like medibid popping up which are great for consumers. I am all for a decrease in administration so a greater proportion of the industry is actual healthcare, but I don't think basic medicine is where the automation is going to happen in the future, because it's not where it happens now. What happens is there's some guy, who's one of a few in the world, who can perform some procedure. And he's not cheap, although he may do - I forgot if there's a special word for pro bono with doctors - he may do the procedure for people who need it. But over time, new technology and new techniques make the procedure minimally invasive, and more people are capable of performing it, it's cheaper, it has fewer complications. That's the real effect of technology. Especially eye surgery has experienced this in recent memory, if I'm not mistaken.
I think medicine is probably expanding right now (just a hunch) - I mean more than the base rate our society expands. And it should continue to for a long time. That's where I agree with the point about Excel. 1000 years ago, medicine could do fuck all (even though there were books, people had done dissections, and so forth) and people died by 40-50. Now people are living until they're 90. There's an expanded need for oncologists, thoracic surgeons, dentists because everyone's teeth fall out by then, etc. In telemarketing, it's literally a recording doing the talking. "Automation" has a real meaning in that context, or in the context of manufacturing. People get replaced for some or all of their duties. I don't think this works in a the context of healthcare. And that was my original point: careers that deal with people don't admit to significant automation, including healthcare, education, law, government, police, barber, journalism, or whatever.
Your nurse example: see thing on arm, whip out smartphone, take picture and autodiagnose on the spot. It then tells you what to do about it. 90% of the people who would have walked into the hospital with a thing on their arm now no longer need to, because a drone is delivering the cream they need to treat their thing.
While radiology is a bit tricky, due to the radiation, ultrasound will soon be available everywhere: small and cheap enough to have one in your bathroom, next to the thermometer. And computers will tell you where to aim it and interpret the images for you. Probably 90% of the things you now get x-ray'd, will be diagnosed by ultrasound instead, from the comfort of your home.
Automation won't necessarily do the same job, but it might still make most of those jobs irrelevant. However, physicians are still a long long way from being automated away.
Automation can also mean that existing jobs might still be kept, but at a much lower salary. The job of a diagnotician might still exist in the future, but they could be "degraded" to feeding the medical network the right kind of data to do its job. And consequently will pay closer to 50k than 250k.
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
They're kids. They are really hyped up because they believe they are a part of some kinda MLK movement and want to transform the world. They don't understand the shortcomings of Sanders' plans and basically see Clinton as their lame parents who tell them you can't eat candy for breakfast. Once Bernie loses and Bernie endorses Clinton, I think they'll be on board a month later once they can start to identify with the race against Trump rather than the race against Clinton. They just need someone to hate. I think these types get so caught up in who they are against that they kinda lose track of what is even going on.
I think the older Sanders supporters are more reasonable and don't see the situation as "GIVE ME BERNIE OR GIVE ME DEATH". We are fortunate that every GOP option is so utterly terrible that a lot of people will be terrified and vote against Trump or Cruz.
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
They're kids. They are really hyped up because they believe they are a part of some kinda MLK movement and want to transform the world. They don't understand the shortcomings of Sanders' plans and basically see Clinton as their lame parents who tell them you can't eat candy for breakfast. Once Bernie loses and Bernie endorses Clinton, I think they'll be on board a month later once they can start to identify with the race against Trump rather than the race against Clinton. They just need someone to hate.
In fairness, a lot of people don't understand a lot. But you're wrong about many Sanders supporters. While at the beginning of the campaign 9/10 Bernie supporters probably would of voted for Hillary. Since she started the most ridiculous rounds of attacks that has fallen to about 7/10, by May, who knows.
A while back that study came out that showed people's opinions had nearly 0 influence on policy. A major reason that is the case is simply because people don't vote. Bernie is running to change that. People regaining influence over policy is a movement 10's of millions of Americans can get behind. Accepting politics as usual isn't going to work.
You're right that Hillary would lose to Kasich (even though he's plenty far out there)
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
They're kids. They are really hyped up because they believe they are a part of some kinda MLK movement and want to transform the world. They don't understand the shortcomings of Sanders' plans and basically see Clinton as their lame parents who tell them you can't eat candy for breakfast. Once Bernie loses and Bernie endorses Clinton, I think they'll be on board a month later once they can start to identify with the race against Trump rather than the race against Clinton. They just need someone to hate.
Again the kids thing is tiresome, there are plenty of people over 40 voting for Sanders.
In fairness, a lot of people don't understand a lot. But you're wrong about many Sanders supporters. While at the beginning of the campaign 9/10 Bernie supporters probably would of voted for Hillary. Since she started the most ridiculous rounds of attacks that has fallen to about 7/10, by May, who knows.
A while back that study came out that showed people's opinions had nearly 0 influence on policy. A major reason that is the case is simply because people don't vote. Bernie is running to change that. People regaining influence over policy is a movement 10's of millions of Americans can get behind. Accepting politics as usual isn't going to work.
I think you're not considering how much time will go by with Bernie out of the race and how much time everyone will have to see how awful the other option is. A Cruz or Trump presidency is not something you take the opportunity to throw away your vote against. The big issue is the rally against someone. Bernie's strength largely came from framing Clinton as a lame, every day politician and people wanting to rise against it. Once that option endorses Clinton, months go by, Trump or Cruz continue to campaign, the memes start being about Cruz/Trump instead of Clinton. And once the memes stop being about Clinton, the young rowdy supporters will start to calm down and get in line.
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways.
They're kids. They are really hyped up because they believe they are a part of some kinda MLK movement and want to transform the world. They don't understand the shortcomings of Sanders' plans and basically see Clinton as their lame parents who tell them you can't eat candy for breakfast. Once Bernie loses and Bernie endorses Clinton, I think they'll be on board a month later once they can start to identify with the race against Trump rather than the race against Clinton. They just need someone to hate.
Again the kids thing is tiresome, there are plenty of people over 40 voting for Sanders.
In fairness, a lot of people don't understand a lot. But you're wrong about many Sanders supporters. While at the beginning of the campaign 9/10 Bernie supporters probably would of voted for Hillary. Since she started the most ridiculous rounds of attacks that has fallen to about 7/10, by May, who knows.
A while back that study came out that showed people's opinions had nearly 0 influence on policy. A major reason that is the case is simply because people don't vote. Bernie is running to change that. People regaining influence over policy is a movement 10's of millions of Americans can get behind. Accepting politics as usual isn't going to work.
I think you're not considering how much time will go by with Bernie out of the race and how much time everyone will have to see how awful the other option is. A Cruz or Trump presidency is not something you take the opportunity to throw away your vote against. The big issue is the rally against someone. Bernie's strength largely came from framing Clinton as a lame, every day politician and people wanting to rise against it. Once that option endorses Clinton, months go by, Trump or Cruz continue to campaign, the memes start being about Cruz/Trump instead of Clinton. And once the memes stop being about Clinton, the young rowdy supporters will start to calm down and get in line.
Not everyone, but many would look to Jill Stein as many weren't Democrats to start with. Some of the Independents and white male working class would go to Trump and many just won't vote, especially after the crap flinging fest that would be Trump V Hillary
EPT
