11–20 of 113 posts
What's wrong with that? This is called "progress".
For instance this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency
Oh well, please let us not connect softwaredevelopment and management too much with non-routine work. On a daily basis I see so many people who work on less than 50% of their capabilities because they haven't created routines in their work, thinking that their work is 90% non-routine. Think about the last time you heard how a developer tells you that you don't need to learn the ten finger system to program well, or t…
I touch type ("ten finger system") but I can see a point to the argument that it's not necessary to program well. Typing is only a small part of programming, and touch typing isn't a huge benefit even for that part, considering all the numbers and symbols used, auto-complete for identifiers and keywords, and macros for common idioms. And it painfully overworks the right pinky.
I disagree. Being able to think through my fingers has helped a lot. It's hard to explain so let's use a driving analogy. Think back to how good your driving was when shifting wasn't muscle memory, when you had to think about the clutch every time, or when you had to think about just how much brake to apply and how much throttle in various situations. Or even when you had to think about how much to turn the wheel.
When all those basic tasks required higher-level brain function involvement. How much did you actually focus on the road? How much could you think about choosing the most optimal lane? Etc.
Even something as simple as keeping appropriate safety distance for the speed you're driving. When it becomes intuitive, you're free to think about other stuff.
Same for typing. When I think "string template" and `foo ${bar}` flies out on its own. That helps. It means I can think about more important things.
If you don't like my driving analogy. Pick up a skateboard. Or rollerblades. Or a hoverboard. And try to hold a conversation while you learn how to ride.
Oh well, please let us not connect softwaredevelopment and management too much with non-routine work. On a daily basis I see so many people who work on less than 50% of their capabilities because they haven't created routines in their work, thinking that their work is 90% non-routine. Think about the last time you heard how a developer tells you that you don't need to learn the ten finger system to program well, or t…
I touch type ("ten finger system") but I can see a point to the argument that it's not necessary to program well. Typing is only a small part of programming, and touch typing isn't a huge benefit even for that part, considering all the numbers and symbols used, auto-complete for identifiers and keywords, and macros for common idioms. And it painfully overworks the right pinky.
Let me give you another example that maybe drives the point home better: Have you seen the videos of how Minecraft was made? A very short amount of time was spent on getting the I/O to the filesystem to work, of setting up a window and filling it with colors, of creating the basic 3D world. I believe that is a huge part why not everybody can write a successful game as Minecraft. Because I don't have trained the routines, I need to spend a considerable amount of time getting all these basic things done before I can start with an actual 3D game. Thus an experienced game developer is already done with his first demo in the time I am done with the basics. And at this point he has a demo to show for, I have nothing. So he even gains more motivation in the same time to continue, and he may even gain some first user feedback. This will make him code longer (huge benefit, I give up at this point) and he will also develop more in the direction that is fun for players (huge benefit two).
It is hard to connect directly the geometrical transformation math to making a game that is more for the players. It is in fact not directly connected. But if you don't sit down to learn the "boring math" you can't get there. That's what typing faster is for. It's not yielding benefits directly. But if you learn that, learn your text editor, learn your language, learn some design concepts, you will reach a level of competence that is not reachable without. Of course you could also do other things to get the ideas from your head into the computer faster, like voice input, or flow programming with touchpads. But then you need to get into these very well to get them out of your way as well.
All of this points to the fact that work is a consumer good. We need to manufacture work just like we manufacture products. You buy work with time, and in return you get money; after all time is money. It should be work that we actually want to do, in an environment which we find to be psychologically positive. We need to just call it a day for capitalism and all the other garbage that goes with it. Let's throw away…
All of this points to the fact that work is a consumer good. We need to manufacture work just like we manufacture products. You buy work with time, and in return you get money; after all time is money. It should be work that we actually want to do, in an environment which we find to be psychologically positive. We need to just call it a day for capitalism and all the other garbage that goes with it. Let's throw away…
Not everyone's time is worth the same. Some people have more experience, intelligence, or can simply brute-force the task with determination. Productive societies reward people as such, and for good reason. You're talking about obliterating incentives as we know them. Perhaps you can test your hypotheses in a voluntary society before advocating for a coercive state to enact such policies.
As for "productive societies", I don't know what that will actually mean in the near future. Automation is 100% productive. It needs no people for that. These terms have meaning for industrial society where people are treated like robots. It has little meaning for society where robots produce more of the goods. And everything else is about simply organizing society so that people feel some sense of meaning and contentment.
At the end of the day in motivated people with money, and engineering society in that direction, we actually get a lot of ills like burnout, alcoholism, workaholics, etc. Yes people can be coerced by money, but often it's not for their own good. It for the good of the owners of money so they can make more profit. But at the same time, this sort of thing ruins the experience of life for the worker.
I'm interested by the classification here. Many backend jobs involve routine work from people who could be doing non-routine work if the CRUD routine job was automated. Within an industry or a profession it seems like there could be a mix of routine and non-routine work. Similarly, how many people's jobs have changed from being routine jobs to non-routine jobs through either retraining or automation allowing them to…
Interesting, could you please expand ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone's time is worth the same. Some people have more experience, intelligence, or can simply brute-force the task with determination. Productive societies reward people as such, and for good reason. You're talking about obliterating incentives as we know them. Perhaps you can test your hypotheses in a voluntary society before advocating for a coercive state to enact such policies.
It's easy to account for this in terms of education. Number of years of education should be added into the calculation for that. For instance for every year of schooling you get a a certain percentage more currency in terms of hours worked than someone with less schooling. And I am for all sorts of pilot programs to explore how else we can organize society. As for "productive societies", I don't know what that will a…
> Automation is 100% productive
Because perfect (i.e. 100%) productivity is technically unobtainable because there will always be efficiencies to be made. Yes, machines are 'always on' and will complete a task in the most efficient way we tell them to, or that they learn to do themselves, but I think that humans will always play a role in raising productivity of even fully-automated systems by making efficiency improvements.
That is for the foreseeable future anyway, until AI starts making its own exponentially big efficiency improvements ;)