In most cases, the short answer is yes, isn’t it? That seems pretty intuitive. But certainly there are some jobs, like being Bruce Springsteen, that will always require a human touch. At the same time, governments must invest in job training and explore basic income solutions.
In most cases, the short answer is “yes,” isn’t it? That seems pretty intuitive. But certainly there are some jobs, like being Bruce Springsteen, that will always require a human touch.
This interactive exercise, though perhaps already outdated, shows how likely it is that your job will be automated according to researchers Quoctrung Bui and Christopher Groskopf.
Don’t let this upset you. If your job is high on the probability list, you have time to start looking. And who knows? Maybe automation will necessitate basic universal income. Some countries are already piloting BUI programs in anticipation. Some of those nations are also investing heavily in training people for new roles. Sweden’s minister for employment and integration, Ylva Johansson, recently said this: “The jobs disappear, and then we train people for new jobs. We won’t protect jobs. But we will protect workers.” What a novel idea.
In a few days, I’ll re-post my homemade DIY Valentines for the special people in your pop-culture-loving life.
In the meantime, if you’re in one of those relationships where this kind of thing matters, you’d better get moving.
An interesting data point from Google shows that in current Valentine-related searches, “Valentine gift for boyfriend” is being searched more than “Valentine gift for boyfriend.”
I have a feeling this is not because the fellas in heterosexual relationships have wrapped this whole thing up already.
It’s on February 14, gentlemen. The “one free back-rub” coupon is only cute once.
We’re tired of social, but we still love search and shopping.
We noted last week that Facebook might be in some trouble.
Yesterday, some numbers came out that help fill in the picture.
Facebook’s earnings outpaced predictions, but shares fell yesterday anyway as investors worry that less time spent on the platform will continue to drive value down. 2017’s fourth quarter was Facebook’s worst ever in terms of new users.
Alphabet, the parent of Google, saw its stocks slip yesterday on missed earnings numbers, though its revenue is fine thanks to the continued strength of ad sales.
It was nothing but good news for Amazon, though, which just posted its largest profits ever. The news about productivity-tracking wrist bands on workers in its warehouses don’t seem to bother investors, nor does the application of sorting-line management models to Whole Foods.
People are getting tired of Facebook. It’s just a fact. I don’t know how much of that has to do with fake news (its leadership thinks that’s a big part of it), but my hunch is that we’re tired of the stupid fights on one hand and the echo-chamber dynamic on the other. For all of the good it certain can do for drawing attention to marginalized concerns, social media has also made us sick of each other.
We may give up on social. We may cede less of our wealth and time to Google. But we’ll never stop buying actual things, and Amazon will never stop selling them to us. They will quantify every quantifiable thing in their pursuit of profit, including the people keep their company going.
One hundred and twelve years ago, Upton Sinclair called the newly industrialized world “the jungle.” Soon, we may simply call it “Amazon.”
Less trust, fewer engagements, missed earnings, falling price:
Maybe Facebook is fallible after all. In the wake of controversy stemming from Russian government-funded provocateurs using its platform to spread fake election ads, Facebook has been making all kinds of noise aimed at assuring nervous regulators that it won’t be used to muck with this fall’s U.S. elections or to be a vector for … Continue reading “Facebook stock drops after huge earnings miss and reduced engagement”
Source: Facebook stock drops after huge earnings miss and reduced engagement
I’m not going to lie. I clicked the headline from BBC News because I absolutely thought it was about a self-driving GM and a self-driving Tesla crashing into each other.
I want real-life Transformers as much as the next Jason Mendoza, but I don’t know. You ever think maybe self-driving cars aren’t a great idea after all? That maybe they’re all self-crashing cars in disguise?
Also, the GM (maybe it was the Tesla) hit a fire truck. You’d think the machine learning for “avoid big red metal life-saver-mobile” would be fairly easy to master. This abject failure doesn’t mean the robot apocalypse isn’t coming. It just isn’t coming yet.
Zachary Lukasiewicz shared this tweet from Jeff Atwood, and supplied the Moore’s Law addendum.