Okay, I'm not a scholar on European history, so you're probably right. It was just an example. Still there have been automations in the past. We're all still here.
149 karma · joined December 27, 2017
Automation right now can eliminate most farm laborers. So why are there still so many farm laborers in the world? Because
a) human wages in most of the world are cheaper than expensive machinery
b) There isn't a profit motive to automate away jobs that pay so little
c) structure of society is such that many technologies take decades upon decades to trickle out to most people in the world (talking the whole world here, not just Euromerica).
In addition, the service economy won't be automated away for a long time because human contact is valued by lots of people in that field. Service economy scales with the purchasing power of communities and AI is going to create a consolidation of purchasing power wherever it is introduced.
I think the shift will probably be towards internet-based jobs. Content creation / software development / content curation (think social media managers) / customer service, the things that it's hard for AI to get right.
It will probably take longer and definitely leave some malcontents but, so did the stocking frame.
Maybe I'm quaint and silly but this kind of overhyped byline makes me doubt that there will be any kind of insight here which thousands of years of recorded human thought hasn't already captured.
>I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children.
If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).
I don't think this is ever going to change in human society. If a job is fun to a large group of people, then it will pay poorly because many people will want to do it. And poor pay decreases the satisfaction one gets from such a job.
The only people who win here are those who find a job fun / satisfying that most other people cannot handle.
There's a reason professions like doctory, investment banking, and consulting pay so much, they involve lots of sacrifice and/or job unhappiness that you have to pay people a lot to get them to commit to the job.
Is this true? The stocking frame (and the reactionary group of Luddites that it incited) didn't really increase productivity. It just did work humans were doing for less money than a human salary.
I guess I also just don't see much difference. All that will happen will be again a shift away from many kinds of jobs (the easily automatible ones) to different kinds.
I mean, there are all kinds of jobs now that didn't exist 50 years ago (software engineer, social media manager, influencer, etc. etc.)
But when some sites use it and others doesn't, it makes security complicated and hacks are able to slip through easier.
Also, the more users get used to sites mining on their browsers, the less likely they will be perturbed by and reporting CPU usage spikes (which are used to determine which sites have been hacked by cryptojackers) because they are used to seeing legitimate such spikes from sites they frequent.
Why not just halt all payouts to the old software and only pay out to versions which are using the Authedmine.com version?
Why not do KYC on people who have a very high likelihood of using your software to violate the law?
Salon is the kind of magazine which will call (justly) for corporate responsibility in all sorts of industries, but when it comes to software makers just totally not doing the basic, easy things when it comes to respecting web security, they'll pay them.
Yeah, also a haven for hackers and malicious actors...
EDIT: I guess you weren't aware. CoinHive doesn't track the users who sign up for the service. It doesn't collect any information except email address. So malicious actors can easily sign up for the service and deliver the javascript through an XSS vulnerability for example. I thought that's what you meant by "no incentive for tracking".
The more legit websites do this, the more cryptojacking will wreak havoc on the web.
And for those who say they ask for consent so it's okay, why do the CoinHive people still pay out for versions of the software that don't ask for consent?
>The team don’t specifically track domains, so if a user’s email address is not, for example, “contact@website.com,” Coinhive often don’t know where or how the service is being used, though.
So they don't keep track of who uses the software (perfect for malicious users), and yes they offer an AuthedMiner but why are they still offering payouts to people who use the version which runs without user consent?
It's like me selling illegal firearms in the back of my store and people saying "Hey, he is really concerned about the negative effects of illegal arms dealing, that's why he sells legal firearms in the front of the store!"
Cryptojacking will become more common the more legit websites use it as a source of revenue. And this specific company / team of developers have been doing very little to stop the malicious use of their javascript. Why support them?
EDIT: By "why support them" I obviously mean, why should a publisher support a team with such wanton disregard for security of the net that they depend on to publish their stuff. I won't read the articles. But their decision to use such a thing isn't a good one and I can criticize it.
If legit sites start doing this, users will get used to it and hackers will bring in more cash.
CoinHive didn't fix this, as far as I understand. They simply published an alternative miner. As recently as a week ago, many UK and US gov sites were cryptojacked using the CoinHive software: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bj5m4v/cryptocurr...
They don't even seem to be trying to root out malicious users:
>The team don’t specifically track domains, so if a user’s email address is not, for example, “contact@website.com,” Coinhive often don’t know where or how the service is being used, though.
But in practice, we know that CoinHive is being used largely as malware, being injected in third-party sites to enrich hackers. And it's not a nice move to support that ecosystem and the company which clearly doesn't give two damns that their software is enabling so much hacking.
I get that they are using the version which asks for consent, but why even take the risk of associating yourself with such a shady piece of software? If you make money of ads, you'd think you wouldn't want to do things that might scare away your users.
I think the company needs to shut down shop and provide their explicit consent miner under a different name because as long as anyone looking up your company's name can only ever find articles about your company providing malware, you won't be very successful.
How will you do this and how will you measure the results of the attempts to do this without measuring the outcomes of your attempts to do this?
Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.?
And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism?
I get that maybe there are similarities but there are so many more differences between the two groups that it's ridiculous that people resonate with this comment. One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas, the other is trying to root out people who are of a different race / nationality without even ever hearing any words from them at all.
Clearly one is better than the other, even if both have some similar flaws.
Stealing evidence doesn't allow you to provide it in court. Because the very fact that you stole it will call into question the veracity of everything else you say and do.