Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Incidentially, Trump doesn't actually like to fire people (though he will if he has to or theres no other way around it, obviously), which is why he's pulling the tactic that he is doing on Sessions.

[EnigmaticHat]

Common corporate trick.  They can't sue you if they voluntarily quit.

[Neonivek]

In Canada the trick he is using doesn't work. It is called "Creating a toxic work environment"

Or rather you can't intentionally make this so bad for someone at work as a way to make them quit...

MIND YOU Canada has a bunch of other BS ways of getting rid of you... "You don't do enough overtime hours"

[Lord Shonus]

I know (in a very loose sense, we used to share a hellhole and I run into them from time to time) several people that are suing a company they quit from. "Intolerable working conditions" is a valid reason to quit, and a valid reason to sue.


The real reason in the corporate world is that big companies live and die on image, and employees "leaving to seek other opportunities" gives a much better image than firing them does.

Another big reason is that termination of employment at the upper levels of business -and especially in government- is a way of saying "this guy really fucked up", and if you're constantly firing people it makes you look utterly incompetent.

[smjjames]

Actually, I read that it's more of a personality thing and that he doesn't like to personally fire people and would rather delegate.

Anyways, Sessions DID try to resign once previously, just before Trump went to the NATO summit, and Trump said no.

Another big reason is that termination of employment at the upper levels of business -and especially in government- is a way of saying "this guy really fucked up", and if you're constantly firing people it makes you look utterly incompetent.

Him using the tactic to pressure Sessions to resign isn't unusual, what's unusual is that he's doing it so blatantly publicly.

Trump makes a joke about firing Price if Obamacare repeal doesn't pass. Sure, YOU may make that joke.... and um, Price is standing right behind you...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, it can't have been that serious of a resignation. You're not bound by blood oath to work for the President if you really want to quit.

[Starver]

In Canada the trick he is using doesn't work. It is called "Creating a toxic work environment"

Or rather you can't intentionally make this so bad for someone at work as a way to make them quit...

MIND YOU Canada has a bunch of other BS ways of getting rid of you... "You don't do enough overtime hours"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal comes to mind.

That's the problem isn't it?  It hasn't even been a year and it feels like a whole term.

At least.  Not yet a Nixonesque second term but...

[Strife26]

Send your resumes* to the White House today! Openings growing every day!

*140 characters maximum

[Neonivek]

Frankly I wouldn't want to work for Trump at this point.

He either bad mouths you openly...

Or worse he compliments you openly.

[Cthulhu]

I defy anyone to name a single problem with capitalism that isn't neatly resolved by replacing humans with self-improving algorithms.

The health of a coal miner has an inverse relation with the amount of coal mined, but in a capitalist system they must mine more coal to receive treatment. Inherent flaw in the assignment of value.

I defy anyone to name a single problem with communism that isn't neatly resolved by replacing humans with self-improving algorithms. (kek)

I asked for problems with capitalism that aren't related to humans and you start talking about the health of coal miners.  Mining drones controlled by a central server are disposable and the question of earning healthcare is irrelevant.  The server calculates cost of repair vs cost of replacement and makes the rational choice.

Communist theory is borne out of awareness of the suffering of humans in a capitalist system (which i'm arguing is a problem with humans, not with capitalism) and a desire to create a more humane distribution of resources.  Those desires are part of humans' evolutionary strategy as a cooperative social animal and wouldn't be present in synthetic lifeforms that didn't evolve from apes.  It's not as much that communism's problems aren't solved by robots, it's that robots have no reason to desire communism.

Also self-improving algorithms, lacking altruism and other evolved cooperative strategies, will be naturally competitive in the same way the first organic replicators were.  If capitalism is the allocation of resources to the ones best at exploiting those resources then life itself is capitalistic.

[Descan]

Capitalism is intended to satiate the desires of humans and raise the QoL of humans. If humans are not involved, capitalism has no purpose.

Unless the robots involved are sentient, then any problem inherent to capitalism involving humans, sans biological problems* are applied instead to the robots, with some differences (I doubt they'd send a sentient into the mines, but instead use dumb robots with an overseer avatar of another sentient.)

*I.E. all the mental issues with capitalism, plus any blunt force trauma to the robotic bodies, minus things like coal lung.

[wierd]

The fundamental question is, are robots capable of actual GREED, or are they only capable of "greedy algorithms"?

Actual greed is a different beast entirely.  A greedy algorithm is simply unconcerned about the welfare of other actors. For an actually greedy actor, (such as a human), it is not enough that they be successful in their objectives; The success of their objectives must ALSO prevent others from achieving success, in order to assure that all future objective are also successful, due to lack of competition.

Since raw, naked capitalism is based on actual greed, this question is at the heart of the matter of whether or not machines are indeed capable of capitalism in practice.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Objection. Your definitions of greed are conflating concentration of material and social capital, in much the same way that your "actually greedy" actors do. Middle manager assholes (and sometimes executive manager assholes) forego opportunities to maximize financial and even physical resources in order to instead maximize time spent exercising social dominance. This is the true reason for the difference between "real" and standard greed that you describe.

Robots would be capable of of this human-style social greed if programmed to collect material and social capital at all times, preferring social capital in conflicts between them. Though this does have the prerequisite that they either do not exterminate humanity or can quantify social capital outside the human order.

We must teach the robots to verbally abuse one another for minor or unavoidable errors.

[wierd]

For me, the distinction comes from the actual mechanism involved.

A greedy algorithm seeks to maximize a single parameter, at the expense of all other parameters.

An actually greedy person is willing to accept some levels of "not maximum" for a single objective, to assure abnormally high rates of return for other objectives.

EG, a greedy algorithm programmed to maximize the number of paper clips produced, will find ways to sabotage other actors that are trying to use the steel to make widgets, because it values paperclips over widgets.

A greedy PERSON will seek to find ways to control all steel production, so that any other actors (even algorithms), have no choice but to pay their rent seeking to obtain the steel from which to create either widgets or paperclips (and will not be satisfied there-- after cornering steel, will branch out into aluminium, ceramic, plastic, and any other material resource, leveraging the capital they have diverted to themselves to achieve that goal-- Again, demonstrating local suboptima (willingness to spend money, to make even more money) A greedy algorithm would find this practice paradoxical. If they sought to overthrow the rent seeker, it would ONLY be to create the paperclips, not to enable itself to expand beyond paperclips.

[martinuzz]

Send your resumes* to the White House today! Openings growing every day!

*140 characters maximum

I doubt many qualified people would respond, it'd be like career suicide at this point.

Inb4 Trump has to hire illegal Mexicans to fill White House vacancies because no Amerian in their right mind wants to work for him.