This was after an extended discussion (about an hour) about why this environment sucked for programmers. Got told I was imagining things. Talking with my other technical coworkers, we decided that we would carry on with this. As of when I left, still hadn't changed.
When this tipping is reached then society may reorganize itself around concepts like basic income and so forth. It seems like a safe bet that a single, cohesive society could survive this transition without a huge amount of chaos. But what happens when you have hundreds of countries with opposing interests who all hit this wall at about the same time?
Maybe, but I suspect the change will happen so fast that we won't be able to adjust in time. We've got a few new auto plants that were either just built or are soon to be built near where I live. First off, they are almost completely automated these days. Secondly, it only takes a couple of years to get one built. Most of that is politics and negotiations. When the new plant is built, the old one is mothballed. Point is, it happens VERY quickly.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, auto manufacturing is a relatively small industry in terms of labor force. What happens when this transition happens to the logistics industry, which is one of the top employers globally? Can we adapt quickly enough if land (including farming), sea, and possibly air are all automated within a decade? I'm not sure.
The attribution is arguably to Raymond Wolfinger who actually said the opposite, "The plural of anecdote is data", supposedly at a seminar at Stanford in the 60's or 70's. It also could be attributed to Roger Brinner, who said it to congress while testifying in 2012. I'd argue that it belongs unattributed, since it makes logical sense and no one ever attributes the phrase "the sky is blue" to anyone either.
Manning was in a different position because he was military. Putting your signature on that recruiting document both increases the legal expectations on your conduct and decreases the rights you have after you break the rules.
But you may be surprised to find how little respect LEOs have for your rights if they decide to target you. Once you become a target, they have one job- to hunt you down and throw you in jail. The training, culture, and expectation is that of a predator (and you are the mouse).
This makes Julian Assange's rant about Google and Eric Schmidt all the more concerning. The two should be working together instead of against each other. It's clear where Google's morals lie. It's just hard to tell at times as they are bound by the rule of law (and business).
Is there a term for this kind of "journalism?" I've heard it described before as being journalism for journalists or that the journalists have to fill a certain amount of space, so simple articles become wordy and tedious.
I see it all the time and hate it, but don't know how to describe it.
Yes, I believe the term is "churnalism." Stories which are primarily PR barely disguised. PR reps pitch stories to journalists and get them curated access to write a story. Lazy journalists go along needing to churn out stories regularly.