Most security cameras aren't monitored 24/7. It's just not practical. I'm sure they would have gone back and checked the tapes eventually, but as it happens they caught him before reaching that point.
They don’t need to be monitored by a person 24/7. All you need is a decent video analytics; most are even built-in IP cameras these days. A simple one that’s effective just detects motion within a zone during certain hours
This is starting to sound more fiddly than is reasonable for inside security on a corporate office. The real failure here is just that someone left the door propped open. That's easily addressable, and as it turned out, they caught the attacker anyway.
What frustrates me is the tendency to use technology to replace humans beings. Then you don't know how to solve the shortcut in jobs. Couldn't we just slow down tech a little bit and let people do some good old hard work to keep getting their cut? Frustrating.
> The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don’t they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it’s jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.”
~ The Economist, Vol. 383, p.42
1. Why would it frustrate you? I do the job in the field everyday. I am frustrated that my back and knees hurt. That I have to work in the sun and can’t find enough markets.
2. There is already a lot of technology in what you eat. Mechanization in factory style farms, cold supply chain, blockchain for lettuce at Walmart..the stock system..the inventory..everything. Not to mention that your food chain is owned by agri fertilizers and pesticide companies..and gmo seed. Bayer owns Monsanto now. The company that used slave labor in nazi concentration camps bought out the company that made agent orange. And that’s who is making your food and medicine.
3. I am also frustrated that farming methods aka hard work meant to feed a lot less people is now expected to feed close to 10 billion by 2050. On less land.
Who would have thought, it's actually real: https://www.ibm.com/blockchain/solutions/food-trust. It seems to be based on Hyperledger Fabric, which apparently does not require proof-of-work. That's amazing, and thanks for mentioning it. This is the first non-disastrous blockchain project in active use that I've ever heard of.
Blockchain is very exciting. I can see how it can help with traceability and food safety. It can record when pallets were loaded or the date when it was sowed, harvested etc, but it’s also possible to generate this after ..hypothetically..I buy strawberries from Costco and pass off on my own. Of course, won’t work when Costco is more expensive than wholesale. But I am just saying that blockchain is not entirely about ensuring trust/transparency here. Involvement of IBM also likely means that it’s not decentralized. Produce is a physical good and not a digital transaction.
It’s overkill for lettuce sold to Walmart, but I can see why Walmart wants to try it. I am curious to see how we can implement and use blockchain appropriately in the supply and value chain of food. Walmart mandating lettuce blockchain and patterning with IBM is a good start, but honestly at this level, it can also be done with just well managed database systems. But I am all for it! I am excited to see where this will lead.
I also can...intuitively only because I can’t articulate it or prove it.. see this as ‘laying down of the road’ before the town is built. Exciting.
> Couldn't we just slow down tech a little bit and let people do some good old hard work to keep getting their cut? Frustrating.
I'd much rather we eliminate the need for jobs so people don't need to work anymore. Working sucks. I think I work at a great place. I still wouldn't do it if I didn't get paid.
I work even if I don't have to. It's about using one's potential, if nothing else. In the grand scheme of things, I'm grateful for all the progress other people worked on to achieve before me and which I'm benefiting from, and I wish to do my part and leave the world a bit better for others too.
How much more should the wealthy be taxed? Who decides who is wealthy? For example, you are probably massively wealthier than many hundreds of millions of people in the world. How much should you be giving? How much would that contribute to your lofty goals?
> What frustrates me is the tendency to use technology to replace humans beings.
It's a huge cost center, and the amount of labor required to operate a farm is considerably less than what it has been in the past. It seems like the major bottleneck is harvesting, packaging and shipping the majority of your product to market, it's a natural place to look for gains.
The moneymakers are the landholders anyways.
> Then you don't know how to solve the shortcut in jobs.
Most harvesting work is done on a "piece work" system. These aren't jobs that have any future in them because there are absolutely no skills required and no reason for an employer to develop them and they're highly seasonal.
> Couldn't we just slow down tech a little bit and let people do some good old hard work to keep getting their cut?
There may be cases where this is true, but when the labor is literally "just pulling food out of the ground and putting it in a box" I don't think the use of technology is an inherent problem.
We did, and we keep having it, because the problem still remains - people need to work to earn a living. We'll stop having this conversation when we'll solve that problem.
Relates a lot with my entrepreneur experience. My last venture sunk like 5 years of my life and money. Guess most risked things are hard. The hardest part is to actually get experience. Experience is different from success.
In my case marriage was the great motivator for leaving frendiship and not having new friends. My old friends who are single now, still have good friendship, even after 30. I guess my best friend is my wife now.
From casual observation it appears that spouses who aren't introduced by mutual friends rarely like their spouse's friends. Friendships take time, are valued because of shared past experiences, and require a certain personality alignment to be sustained.
Also when spouses go and spend time with the other spouse's friends, its challenging to simultaneously catch-up with their old friends while also trying to include their new spouse in the conversation.
Some married couples work through this but others just privately and repeatedly criticize each other's friends so eventually they are left with only one friend -- their spouse.
It's for exactly this reason that I find being friends with married couples to be draining unless I knew them both before they got together.
You can't just be friends with one of them. You can't just go and hang out with one person without their spouse coming along. If you tell them their spouse isn't invited, they'll get offended. If you don't tell them, you can expect the spouse to tag along... and if their spouse gets tired and wants to leave early, they're both just going to cut out right then and there (I had one friend who would just up and leave the bar with his wife whenever she got tired without even giving me a chance to finish my drink and tab out so we could leave together... every time, it felt like a slap in the face).
Sometimes, even if I like their spouse, I just want to hang out with a friend one-on-one. And then there are people who I like but whose spouses I can't stand.
Seriously though, marriage doesn’t mean you can’t have friends, keep friends or make new ones. It’s a twisted sort of relationship that requires you to give up your friends or only spend time with your wife.
My wife is my best friend but my 2 out my 3 kayak buddies are women, I spend that day with friends helping them build motors, I go on road trips with friends, I go off for mountain biking weekend and ski trips with my friends, etc.
I will say, my friends who have kids do tend to drop off the radar but you can’t blame that on marriage.
I'm not an engineer, but i can relate a lot with that:
19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up
Actually your comment makes me sad. The article is pretty good and realistic. Life is hard and real. But when you savor it with the right things (God, family and friends for me) it's amazing! Short, but amazing
* This is not, by itself, evidence of evolution at work. In evolutionary terms, having a long life isn’t as important as having a reproductively fruitful one, with many children who survive into adulthood and birth their own offspring. So harmful mutations that exert their effects after reproductive age could be expected to be ‘neutral’ in the eyes of evolution, and not selected against.
This.
We want to live more (and more). But that's not the main point of life, as science (and most religions) say.
We are in our best form when we reproduce and give our best to our children (and family). So they can do the same in the future.
Today's society tries to sell the idea of small families (or no family at all ) and long lives as the best option. But maybe it's not the case.
