The 150 CCC proposals

[GuyGadebois]

Why don't you do your BRF with the mop? It is technically entirely possible!

Why don't you pay fools to write your posts?

[Ahmed]

If everything was simple, maybe this would be my reflection?
When I speak of sophisticated tools, I am not referring to the existing, but to what is happening (robotics + AI) and which is therefore likely to induce profound changes.

PS: doubled by Guy!

[sicetaitsimple]

When I speak of sophisticated tools, I am not referring to the existing, but to what is happening (robotics + AI) and which is therefore likely to induce profound changes.

So there would be a "brutal" break in the evolution of "mechanization" or "robotization" from which it would have become or would become unacceptable?
When will it be?

[ABC2019]

When I speak of sophisticated tools, I am not referring to the existing, but to what is happening (robotics + AI) and which is therefore likely to induce profound changes.

So there would be a "brutal" break in the evolution of "mechanization" or "robotization" from which it would have become or would become unacceptable?
When will it be?

in fact, the answer is clear enough for me: it only happens when we start to realize that we will no longer have enough resources to maintain it and keep it growing.

At that moment, we have the reflex of the fox and the grapes: "They are too green, and good for goujats!" . It allows us to say to ourselves that if we stop, it's because we wanted to, and not because Nature is responsible for putting a limit on our hubris.

[Ahmed]

Sicetaitsimple, I did not talk about a sudden break, but (reread my previous post) what exists has already changed society and it is what appears that will continue to turn it upside down.
You write:

When will it be?

(I would rather write: When do you place it? )
However, if we are to speak of a rupture, it should be situated when the productivity gains in a sector do not find a new sector in which the destroyed jobs can be massively transferred. Obviously, this is a social breakdown, since it denies the possibility of holding a job without the obligation to do so being removed ...

PS: I cannot explain to myself the persistence of the causticity of your words "with low contributory value"?

[Ahmed]

ABC, we are not there yet and the discussion remains open on this subject. I think that any explanation by hubris should be avoided: I used it in the past and I gave it up because it is a misleading shortcut.
The trend towards automation takes place in an economic context and, what is interesting, is that this process tends to undermine the foundations of economism. Critics generally stop at this observation, but there is a possibility, if we consider things from the angle of successive phases each operating according to its own rules *, that economism gives way to a purely technological stage in which the human species, having fulfilled its role of provisional vector **, will suffer the same fate as all the species that have become evolutionarily useless.

* And not by committing the error of extending the rules from one phase to the next.
** In this case, she will have masterfully proven her real stupidity.

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple, I did not talk about a sudden break, but (reread my previous post) what exists has already changed society and it is what appears that will continue to turn it upside down.
You write:

When will it be?

(I would rather write: When do you place it? )
However, if we are to speak of a rupture, it should be situated when the productivity gains in a sector do not find a new sector in which the destroyed jobs can be massively transferred. Obviously, this is a social breakdown, since it denies the possibility of holding a job without the obligation to do so being removed ...

PS: I cannot explain to myself the persistence of the causticity of your words "with low contributory value"?

it should be situated when the productivity gains in a sector do not find a new sector in which the destroyed jobs can be massively transferred. Obviously, this is a social breakdown, since it denies the possibility of holding a job without the obligation to do so being removed ...
That's a high contributory value! Now we know everything, everyone understands .....
The "low contributory value" of my words is only your personal appreciation, it is not necessarily for you alone to judge. You are not going to force me to publish once more a drawing of Gotlib "Rhââ lovely" concerning yours?

PS: on spelling, syntax or grammar, you should be able to publish 5000 posts per month on this forum If that's your thing, thank you for your special treatment.

[Ahmed]

When I speak of "low contributory value", it is obviously not to qualify all of your messages, but only those which are limited to ironic and restrictive assessments, not conducive to a serene dialogue ...

As far as writing was concerned, it was for the twinkling of an eye, because I have long since given up picking up on all the linguistic improprieties and faults, unless I consider them amusing or incomprehensible ...

[sicetaitsimple]

When I speak of "low contributory value", it is obviously not to qualify all of your messages,

Of which act ... But in this case, do not forget to qualify many others, rather than dubbing them.

[GuyGadebois]

Of which act ... But in this case, do not forget to qualify many others, rather than dubbing them.

He does what he wants and doesn't need your nut coaching.