“Most of us want to believe that automation frees us to spend our time on higher pursuits but doesn’t otherwise alter the way we behave or think. That view is a fallacy—an expression of what scholars of automation call the “substitution myth.” A labor-saving device doesn’t just provide a substitute for some isolated component of a job or other activity. It alters the character of the entire task, including the roles, attitudes, and skills of the people taking part. As Parasuraman and a colleague explained in a 2010 journal article, “Automation does not simply supplant human activity but rather changes it, often in ways unintended and unanticipated by the designers of automation.”

and

Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. “The project is datafication. Like those other infrastructural advances, it will bring about fundamental changes to society.”

Some of the changes are well known, and already upon us. Algorithms that predict stock-price movements have transformed Wall Street. Algorithms that chomp through our Web histories have transformed marketing. Until quite recently, however, few people seemed to believe this data-driven approach might apply broadly to the labor market.

But it now does. According to John Hausknecht, a professor at Cornell’s school of industrial and labor relations, in recent years the economy has witnessed a “huge surge in demand for workforce-analytics roles.” Hausknecht’s own program is rapidly revising its curriculum to keep pace. You can now find dedicated analytics teams in the human-resources departments of not only huge corporations such as Google, HP, Intel, General Motors, and Procter & Gamble, to name just a few, but also companies like McKee Foods, the Tennessee-based maker of Little Debbie snack cakes. Even Billy Beane is getting into the game. Last year he appeared at a large conference for corporate HR executives in Austin, Texas, where he reportedly stole the show with a talk titled “The Moneyball Approach to Talent Management.” Ever since, that headline, with minor modifications, has been plastered all over the HR trade press.

Google says it has a diameter 12 756.2 kilometers but this is not what I have in mind.

Size is always relative. You can either comprehend it – and then it matters to you – or not. And this is why you ignore it.

When we were monkeys – at least my forefathers were – ‘size’ didn’t have much meaning for us. We ate when hungry, soiled the earth when we felt like it – specially when we lived up in the trees – and when a specific place became too dirty, devoid of food or both we moved forward.

Then something happened. As we morphed from monkeys into apes our bodies grew so we could afford a bigger brain which enabled us to process an increased quantity of information – a big competitive advantage, until now at least. But it also meant we could not venture anymore on the topmost branches of the trees because they couldn’t support our increased weight. Suddenly our survival became linked with our ability to gauge the thickness of branches. Evaluating distances  – between trees before a jump for instance – was important since the day we first climbed into a tree but at those times we did it ‘instinctively’; now, being helped by our now bigger brain, we started to become aware of the whole process.
Something else happened at about the same time. Because our body frame had become bigger we started to spend more and more time on the flat surface of the Earth – it was more efficient energy-wise and we could afford it because our increased mass meant better defenses.  This way we started to perceive the world in a completely different way than we did when hanging from a limb.
Let me suggest you a small experiment. Climb into a swing and look around. As long as you remain still there is no difference but as soon as you start moving , in a way that comprises vertical and horizontal displacement, things look completely different. Before, when you stood still or moved horizontally, it was like the world stood still and it was you that moved inside it. You sense the motion with your internal ear but you evaluate the movements mostly by visually checking on ‘landmarks’, the things that surround you. When being caught up in more complex movements, like in a swing, the inner ear takes precedence over your eyes and you feel the movement more with ‘the seats of your pants’ than with your brain. (Btw, this is why sea sickness appears, your eyes tell you that you are standing still – if you are reading or something like that – while your inner ear tells you you are moving. Get on the deck and look at the horizon or at the waves, this way your eyes will confirm to your brain that ‘yes, we are moving’.)
And all this has immense consequences. When we were moving from a branch to another we sort of lived in a bubble we carried around with us while when moving on a surface we feel ‘naked’ and, as a consequence, we pay a lot more attention to what is happening around us. That includes becoming aware of the dimensions of the things that surround us. This way we found out that falling from the top of a tree is completely different than jumping from the lowest branch and that if we cross that creek in search of ripe figs our chances to encounter that rival troop of baboons increase dramatically. So we became aware not only of dimensions but also of boundaries and consequences.

We were one step away from becoming conscious. That happened when we felt, instinctively at first, that being sheltered from the elements is better than weathering them. So we came back to the shelter, night after night. Until the place became unusable because we had soiled it ourselves with our excrements. And this is how we had the first inkling about being responsible for the consequences of our own actions.

Unfortunately our understanding of this is still incomplete. First of all because our cognitive capacity is inherently limited, secondly because most of the time we rationalize instead of behaving rationally and thirdly because, until now at least, we could get away with it. The world was big enough.

At first we moved from place to place, as hunter-gatherers and later as nomadic pastoralists.
When we invented agriculture there were enough forests to burn down if we needed more land.
When things became ‘hot’ in Europe we started to conquer the other continents. Even now the misfits, the adventurous and the malcontents move around the face of the Earth even if confronted with great personal risks.

But how long will we be able to continue like this? Pollution,  scattering of natural resources, soil erosion due to agribusiness, deforestation, overfishing… will be considered jokes by the next generations if we continue on the current track.

In fact our main problem is the way we treat our ‘neighbor’. Not only that we haven’t fully understood yet that by throwing ‘garbage’ indiscriminately around us we are polluting our very front yard and the stench is already creeping into our bedrooms but we also hadn’t understood yet that by constantly alienating the ‘guy next door’ we’ll end up living in a world too close  to a SF/dystopian prison-planet for our comfort.

I’m speaking here about corruption in it’s many forms: political, economical, moral…

An excellent definition of populism:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nicolas-maduro-and-the-essence-of-populism-by-jan-werner-mueller

So what do we have here?

Image

135 000, and growing, people gathered to convince a government to take action against an individual who isn’t breaking any law!

Does this seem right to you?
To me it doesn’t!

Let me explain myself. First of all I don’t think that hunting for sport makes any sense. One could stalk wild animals armed with a camera instead of a gun. But this is my opinion and just as I don’t like others to impose their opinions on me I don’t try to impose my opinions on others. So as long as the hunted animals do not belong to any of the endangered species and the hunt is organised legally…
And if my argument seems lame to you what if I start a petition against eating flesh? Or against vegan-ism? Why? Just because I have this notion that eating flesh (or not eating any) is bad for you….and that I have a responsibility to bring you back on the right track!

Ultimele cateva zile au fost destul de nasoale.
Eu criza de lumbago, fi-miu a facut o entorsa la incheietura mainii stangi…
Planuiam un post despre “Tatuca la Romani” dar nu am apucat sa-l scriu.
Acum cinci minute am deschis mailul. Iata ce am gasit:

“Ce potrivire cu situatia actuala a Romaniei !!!


Ţara de pripas
de Alexandru VLAHUȚĂ
(1858-1919)

Un vechi tolbaş de vorbe late,
Om norocos din cale-afară,
S-a pomenit pe neaşteptate
Stăpân peste întreaga ţară.

Din ea-şi făcu o prăvălie,
Şi ca un negustor de treabă,
Pentru ca-n lume să se ştie,
Prinse-a striga de la tarabă

Poftiţi aici! Oricine are
Obrazul fără de ruşine
Ş-o conştiinţă de vânzare…
Poftiţi să faceţi târg cu mine!

Prostie, lene, linguşire,
Eu cumpăr tot. Veniţi aici!
Şi cei mai nărăviţi din fire
Mi-or fi tovarăşi şi amici.

Eu dau tot felul de noroace,
Căci sunt atoateţiitorul,
Măriri, averi… Să vie-ncoace
Toţi trântorii ce le duc dorul!…

Aşa, sunt zece ani de când
Pe norocosul negustor
Îl auzim mereu strigând,
Şi muşteriii vin de zor.

În zece ani ce de-a lingăi
Nu se văzură-n slujbe mari,
Câţi oameni fără căpătâi
N-ajunseră milionari!
Veniţi şi voi, străini calici,

Şi strângeţi tot ce-a mai rămas!…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ce să mai faci? Ce să mai zici?

Sărmană ţară de pripas!

Vlahuta…..cel mai tare vizionar….nu?”

Am raspuns instantaneu:

“Nu este vorba de vizionarism aici ci de defetism.
Alde ‘Vlahuta’ s-au resemnat inainte de a incepe lupta…
Asta este si motivul pentru care Eminescu a innebunit, Caragiale a plecat la Berlin si ne-a lasat in mizeria noastra, Arghezi a capitulat pana la urma, Constantin Tanase, Pastorel Teodoreanu si Lucretiu Patrascanu au fost omorati fara ca aceste lucruri sa starneasca vreo reactie din partea oamenilor…

Iar defetismul asta este si motivul pentru care alde Carol II, Ceausescu, Iliescu si Basescu si-au putut face mendrele…”

Dupa care m-am gandit sa verific daca nu cumva poezia o fi apocrifa. Cica nu, chiar Vlahuta a scris-o.

Acum am alta problema.
E clar ca interesul starnit de aceasta poezie regasita (dati o data un click pe link-ul asta) inseamna ceva. Macar pentru cei de-acum.
L-am acuzat degeaba pe Vlahuta? El vroia sa isi traga contemporanii de maneca iar ei au ales sa doarma in continuare?

PS. “Straini calici” poate parea, cel putin la o analiza superficiala, un indemn la xenofobie.
Nu cred ca la asta se referea Vlahuta dupa cum nici aparentul dispret la adresa ‘bulgaroilor cu ceafa groasa’ nu este o dovada convingatoare ca Eminescu ar fi fost sovin.

In situatia asta ‘Strain’ inseamna mai degraba persoana aflata in afara circuitului economic firesc, individ care incearca sa profite de o anumita situatie fara ca el sa contribuie cu ceva. Adica vrea sa ia parte la ‘imparteala’ fara ca inainte sa fi pus osul la treaba!

Femeile mai sunt batute si din vina lor

Cu asta sunt si eu de acord.
Da, cei care isi bat partenerii de viata – sunt si barbati batuti sau batjocoriti de femeile cu care traiesc – nu au nici un fel de scuza pentru comportamentul lor.
Dar asta nu inseamna ca cei ‘batuti’ nu au si ei partea lor de vina!

De ce ‘stau’? De ce accepta sa fie tratati in halul acesta?

Si mai ales de ce accepta sa transmita copiiilor lor mesajul subliminal ca e acceptabil ca unul dintre membrii unei familii sa fie terorizat de celalalt?

Cititi articolul din Adevarul.ro.
Cati ani o fi rabdat femeia aia? Cati copii si nepoti or fi crescut crezand ca asa ceva e daca nu normal atunci macar acceptabil?

Trăind în România.

Pavel Stratan filozofind despre autonomia individului:

Eu beu!

Eu beu puţin câte puţin
Pân’ capu’ meu,
Pe umeri nu mai pot să-l ţin
i am să beu
Atâta pân’ când am să aflu cine
Poate să-mi spuie
Cât să beau să-mi fie numai bine.
Atâta pân’ când am să aflu cine
Poate să-mi spuie
Cât să beau să-mi fie numai bine.

Când dau încet să mă îndrept,
Genunchii cad pe lângă piept.
Eu n-am ştiut că dacă eşti beat
Te faci deodată acrobat.
Să şadă toţi cum eu am şăz’t,
Să vadă toţi şi eu am văz’t,
Să-şi ungă toţi cum eu mi-am uns
Cu grijă gâtu’ îndeajuns.
Mă ţin de tot ce stă în bar,
Da’ cel mai tare de pahar.
Eu încă nimeresc să torn,
Cu toate că aproape dorm;
Da’ dacă nu dorm înseamnă
Că îs treaz şi-afară încă-i azi.
Eu pot să mă ţin şi-ntr-un picior
Cu-o mână, dacă-s pe ulcior.

Da’ eu mai beu,
Beu puţin câte puţin
Pân’ capu’ meu,
Pe umeri nu mai pot să-l ţin
i am să beu
Atâta pân’ când am să aflu cine,
Poate să-mi spuie
Cât să beau să-mi fie numai bine.

Ce interesant se uită toţi
La mine cum eu mă învaţ
Cu mâna dreaptă să mă-ndrept
Spre buzunaru’ de la piept.
Îi drept că dacă beu,
Mai des mă trage să fumez,
Fumez şi iară, după ce fumez,
Încep să beau mai des.
Eu nu ştiu unde mai încape
Atâta votcă şi lichior
Şi nu ştiu toţi de ce se uită
De parc-aş be’ de banii lor?
Da’ eu mă fac că nu fac ‘nica
Şi nici nu ştiu că ei mă ştiu,
Da’ eu când am să fiu ca dânşii
Eu tot ca dânşii am să fiu.

Da’ amu’ mai beu…
Beu beu puţin câte puţin
Pân’ capu’ meu,
Pe umeri nu mai pot să-l ţin
i am să beu
Atâta pân’ când am să aflu cine
Poate să-mi spuie
Cât să beau să-mi fie numai bine.

Eu nu ştiu bine pentru alţii
Ce înseamnă, da’ eu ştiu,
Când beau ce vreau, mănânc ce vreau,
Mă culc cu cine vreau şi-s viu.
Şi dacă îmi spune cineva,
Cum ar putea să-mi fie mai bine
Mă las de toate, mă duc acolo,
Mă-ntorc înapoi, mă iau şi pe mine.
Da’ eu mai stau, acolo
Unde unde-mi chică ca sa săd,
Unde mă uit i nu văd ni’că,
Da’ pe mine toţi mă văd,
Cum beau puţin, da’ des şi mai ales
Di ‘cela care-am vrut.
Şi dacă am uitat să mă uit
Ce beau încep de la-nceput.

Da’ eu maï beu…

Versuri de la: http://www.versuri.ro/ 

Mai ramane de stabilit de ce avem nevoie de alcool pentru a scapa de inhibitiile care ne trag inapoi in turma dar asta e deja alta problema.

 

 

“In Slate today, Matt Yglesias argues that anti-Wall Street populism is counterproductive, because it will cut Wall Street’s profits, leaving less tax revenue for the populist government, thereby hurting the populist cause. It’s worth pointing out briefly that this is incorrect.”
The quote above is from Gawker, I didn’t ‘linked’ it because I wanted to preserve the link to Slate.

 

I must confess I’m rather confused at this point. In Europe, where I live, ‘populism’ is a fake. Those who earn this moniker pretend to be working for the people while in reality catering for a vast host of special interests. So what does it mean ‘anti-Wall Street populism’? I went to Slate for enlightenment: “Suppose that President Warren rides to town with a raft of new legislation and tough regulators and a set of U.S. attorneys firmly dedicated to prosecuting financial wrongdoing with the utmost rigor. Well if it works, the pretax income of Wall Street types is going to plummet.”
But ‘prosecuting financial wrongdoing with the utmost rigor’ would be a good thing for almost everybody, no? And how come ‘the pretax income of Wall Street types is going to plummet.’? Wall Street profits are based on ‘financial wrongdoing’?!?

Reading a little further only added to my confusion: “By contrast the Tim Geithner philosophy—regulate Wall Street but don’t seek to transform it or displace the sector from its leading role in America’s political economy—is a great match for the politics of progressive taxation to finance public-sector social democracy.” So what is in reality ‘the Tim Geithner philosophy’ if its ‘contrast’ is ‘financial rigor’? Let them steal so they’ll generate more profit for us to tax? Who would be catering for the special interests in this case?

 

Now let’s see the ‘remedies’ proposed by Mr. Nolan in “No, the Populism Will Not Bankrupt Itself”.

 

1. “Perhaps the biggest reason of all to seek to cut down on Wall Street’s profits is the fact that those profits themselves are often little more than a tax on other people’s money, funneled into Wall Street’s pockets.”
What? Why should anybody try to “cut down” on anybody’s “profits”? What world are we living in? Any administration’s business is to maintain the rule of law and to preserve the ‘financial rigor’, not to ‘cut down on profits’! To confuse between these two is unpardonable!
And the fact that “these profits themselves are often little more than a tax on other people’s money” is something that has to be dealt with by dismantling the ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions in existence today and thus freeing the market, not by trying (how, by taxing them?!?) to curb the profits of the current financial behemoths…

2. “In a theoretical world in which a president actually enacted meaningful reform which reduced the financial sector’s share of earnings, the resulting business climate would be far more fair and far more accommodating to entrepreneurs and small business. In such a theoretical world, bumping taxes on the upper middle classes would not be such a terrifying thought.”
Again, why should a president be concerned about ‘the financial sector’s share of earnings’ instead of concentrating his/her efforts on insuring the real freedom of the market? OK, that freedom would include the dismantling of the current stranglehold that some of the people involved with the financial industry have over the rest of the economy but it would also imply a lot of other things. Including a fairer and more accommodating business environment and a fairer tax burden for everybody.

3. The last one beats them all: “Progressive taxation should be viewed as a tool to achieve a more economically just and fair and equal economy and society. Trying to preserve a less fair economy in order to better maintain progressive taxation is ass backwards.”
I agree with the last part but the first phrase really frightens me. Who can take it upon himself the responsibility to determine the fairness and the equality of the economy or those of the society? What are the standards for judging that? Who is so wise as to point to the rest of us where we should all go?

 

How about trying to open our eyes and to look further than our ideological noses? How about understanding that all we need is an economy that sustainably provides the people with what they need and a society that is able to maintain that economy in working order?

In other words a free economy and a responsible society.

In this conditions fairness will come along by itself while equality makes sense only when we speak about the opportunities to express one’s potential! And for good reason: ‘fair’ always works better than ‘crooked’ while creating effective opportunities for as many people as possible to develop their true potential is beneficial for the entire society, not only for each of  the individuals.

Cand eram mic am citit povestea asta sub o alta forma.
Astazi am gasit-o in mail.
Sa fie oare o coincidenta cu ce se intampla acum?

“De aici s-au inspirat românii !

Targovetul cu mere.

Într-o dimineaţă, stăpânitorul unei cetăţi fu trezit de nişte strigăte care se auzeau din piaţă:

“Hai la mere! Mere dulci cum n-aţi mai gustat!”.

Ridicându-se indispus din pat şi privind pe fereastră văzu un târgoveţ ce vindea într-adevăr mere, înconjurat de o mulţime de muşterii.

“Trebuie să fie tare bune merele alea” , îşi spuse mai-marele cetăţii şi, făcându-i-se poftă, îl chemă pe primul său sfetnic şi îi porunci:

“Ia cinci galbeni şi mergi în piaţă să cumperi mere de la târgoveţul acela”.

Primul sfetnic îl chemă pe paharnic şi îi spuse:

“Uite patru galbeni , du-te şi cumpără mere”.

Paharnicul se adresă , la rândul său , stolnicului:

“Poftim trei galbeni , de care să cumperi mere de la târgoveţul acela”.

Stolnicul îl chemă pe primul străjer îi dădu doi galbeni şi îl trimise în piaţă.

Acesta dădu un galben unui străjer din subordine, iar acela se duse la târgoveţ şi îi luă la rost:

“Hei, ce tot strigi aşa? Ai tulburat somnul mai-marelui cetăţii, iar drept pedeapsă mi-a poruncit să-ţi confisc căruţa asta cu mere”.

Zis şi făcut.

Întors la şeful său , străjerul se lăudă:

“Am făcut un târg nemaipomenit. Cu un galben am cumpărat o jumătate din căruţa cu mere a tărgoveţului”.

Primul străjer merse la stolnic:

“M-am târguit şi , cu cei doi galbeni pe care mi i-ai dat am reuşit să cumpăr un sac cu mere!”.

Stolnicul – repede la paharnic:

“Cu trei galbeni am luat o tolbă întreagă cu mere”.

Paharnicul dosi jumătate din cantitate şi apoi merse la primul sfetnic:

“Iată , cei patru galbeni mi-au ajuns doar pentru o jumătate de tolbă cu mere”.

Iar primul sfetnic se înfăţişă dinaintea stăpînitorului cetăţii şi glăsui:

“Măria ta , iată , am îndeplinit porunca. Numai că de acei cinci galbeni n-am reuşit să târguiesc decât cinci mere”.

Mai-marele cetăţii , muşcă dintr-un măr şi cugetă:

“Hmmm. Cinci mere pentru cinci galbeni. scump, foarte scump!

Şi, cu toate acestea, târgoveţul acela avea o mulţime de cumpărători.

Înseamnă că lumea o duce bine, are bani.

Ia să măresc eu birurile!”