Get started with App.net.

  Sign up now  
duerig
    @33mhz You have multiple credentials. One says A is allowed to do Foo. Another (signed by A) says B speaks for A. And B presents both of these credentials to the server. The server then does Foo and records both A and B for auditing purposes. @keita
    duerig
      @keita We do that at my work. We call it the 'speaks for credential'. Entity A speaks for entity B with limited time duration of Y. Mostly the idea is to let apps act on behalf of users but now we know this is going on. @33mhz
      duerig
        @jws It could be worse. In revolutionary France, they had a system whereby everybody could vote on the members of deliberative bodies which themselves were composed only of 'active' citizens which would then vote on who gets to go to the national assembly.
        duerig
          @clarkgoble @johngordon @oluseyi Most automation is about changing the environment in a creative way that lets the super-limited computer do something new. We don't have robot tellers, we have giant sensorless, dumb, money dispensers.
          duerig
            @clarkgoble @johngordon @oluseyi Which I think shows that he doesn't understand how automation works. Most automation isn't about placing a robot with new capabilities in an environment designed for humans. That is sci-fi.
            duerig
              @clarkgoble @johngodon @oluseyi He makes some good critiques. But I do think he fails to understand how automation works. Towards the end, he dismisses automated pharmacies because it would require a redesign of the entire pharmacy.
              duerig
                @clarkgoble @johngordon @oluseyi Another entry in the argument over automation. Here is one by somebody skeptical that it is happening at all: http://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/robert-gordon-interview
                duerig
                  @manton Don't worry, comrade. If you have your papers in order and are a member of the party in good standing, you have nothing to fear. Only guilty counter-revolutionary elements are being purged. @cgiffard
                  duerig
                    @johngordon I was considering that. But it is a hard sell for just one blogger. Do you read any of the other authors on it?
                    duerig
                      @minego Well played, Gav. Well played.
                      duerig
                        @oluseyi Since every job right now represents a different problem that has to be solved to automate it, the particular jobs that disappear are due to the nature of the solutions, not abstract 'skill' or 'repetetiveness' of the job. @clarkgoble @johngordon
                        duerig
                          @oluseyi In this conversation, I was just pointing out that the analysis of which fields are 'safe' and which ones are 'at risk' of automation seems to rest on flawed foundations. That is separate from aggregate labor demand. @johngordon @clarkgoble
                          duerig
                            @oluseyi It depends on the magnitudes. It could end up like agriculture (rising demand, but amount of labor goes way down b/c automation is faster) or lawn care (lawns for everyone, more lawn care labor now than ever). @johngordon @clarkgoble
                            duerig
                              @clarkgoble There's also the demand side. If you told someone in 1830 about the ways in which lawn care would be automated, they would be sure that employment in lawn care would be practically zero today. But demand for lawns has gone way up. @johngordon
                              duerig
                                @clarkgoble This isn't a robot bookkeeper that replaces all possible bookkeeping labor. But goes far enough to remove the pain that running a report is a click of a button rather than hours of labor. This reduces demand for bookkeeper demand. @johngordon
                                duerig
                                  @clarkgoble Exactly. Another great example is accounting bookkeepers. Systems like QuickBooks have become good enough that a small business owner can afford to do their accounting themselves and consult with an accountant only once a year. @johngordon
                                  duerig
                                    @johngordon (b) there is a new technique which makes the particular problems associated with automating that job more tractable. An accountant is just as much at risk as a low skilled janitor. Both jobs have survived 200 years of pink slip bloodbath.
                                    duerig
                                      @johngordon In order to figure out which tasks are most likely to be automated, we need to look beyond abstract descriptions. The tasks most likely to be automated are (a) where automation is already solved, but is still being deployed in an industry or...
                                      duerig
                                        @johngordon If there is a welding job today, for example, it exists not because nobody in the welding industry has yet thought to automate. Instead, it exists because doing this particular kind of weld in these particular circumstances is hard to automate.
                                        duerig
                                          @johngordon The thing is that every single form of human labor is a survivor of 200 years of the culling effects of automation. For every job today, there is a reason why it cannot be automated yet. This is true regardless of skill level or repetetiveness.