Damage Control: “Selfie At A Funeral” Photographer Explains What Really Happened

Following yesterday's "selfie-gate" furore at Nelson Mandela's memorial service, it is perhaps unsurprising that the AFP photographer responsible for the series of incriminating photos come out with a wordy (and picturey) response to explain what we all saw. Roberto Schmidt notes, "it was interesting to see politicians in a human light because usually when we see them it is in such a controlled environment. Maybe this would not be such an issue if we, as the press, would have more access to dignitaries and be able to show they are human as the rest of us." Indeed, especially for a president whose only focus is to be seen as "one of the people" and not actually doing, you know, work to help the people.

 

Via Roberto Schmidt of AFP blog,

So here’s the photo, my photo, which quickly lit up the world’s social networks and news websites. The “selfie” of three world leaders who, during South Africa’s farewell to Nelson Mandela, were messing about like kids instead of behaving with the mournful gravitas one might expect.

In general on this blog, photojournalists tell the story behind a picture they’ve taken. I’ve done this for images from Pakistan, and India, where I am based. And here I am again, but this time the picture comes from a stadium in Soweto, and shows people taking a photo of themselves. I guess it’s a sign of our times that somehow this image seemed to get more attention than the event itself. Go figure.

selfie-combo_m.jpg

Anyway, I arrived in South Africa with several other AFP journalists to cover the farewell and funeral ceremonies for Nelson Mandela. We were in the Soccer City stadium in Soweto, under a driving rain. I’d been there since the crack of dawn and when I took this picture, the memorial ceremony had already been going on for more than two hours.

From the podium, Obama had just qualified Mandela as a “giant of history who moved a nation towards justice." After his stirring eulogy, America’s first black president sat about 150 metres across from where I was set up. He was surrounded by other foreign dignitaries and I decided to follow his movements with the help of my 600 mm x 2 telephoto lens.

So Obama took his place amid these leaders who’d gathered from all corners of the globe. Among them was British Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as a woman who I wasn’t able to immediately identify. I later learned it was the Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt. I’m a German-Colombian based in India, so I don’t feel too bad I didn’t recognize her! At the time, I thought it must have been one of Obama’s many staffers.

Anyway, suddenly this woman pulled out her mobile phone and took a photo of herself smiling with Cameron and the US president. I captured the scene reflexively. All around me in the stadium, South Africans were dancing, singing and laughing to honour their departed leader. It was more like a carnival atmosphere, not at all morbid. The ceremony had already gone on for two hours and would last another two. The atmosphere was totally relaxed – I didn’t see anything shocking in my viewfinder, president of the US or not. We are in Africa.

(AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

(AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

I later read on social media that Michelle Obama seemed to be rather peeved on seeing the Danish prime minister take the picture. But photos can lie. In reality, just a few seconds earlier the first lady was herself joking with those around her, Cameron and Schmidt included. Her stern look was captured by chance.

I took these photos totally spontaneously, without thinking about what impact they might have. At the time, I thought the world leaders were simply acting like human beings, like me and you. I doubt anyone could have remained totally stony faced for the duration of the ceremony, while tens of thousands of people were celebrating in the stadium. For me, the behaviour of these leaders in snapping a selfie seems perfectly natural. I see nothing to complain about, and probably would have done the same in their place. The AFP team worked hard to display the reaction that South African people had for the passing of someone they consider as a father. We moved about 500 pictures, trying to portray their true feelings, and this seemingly trivial image seems to have eclipsed much of this collective work.

(AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

It was interesting to see politicians in a human light because usually when we see them it is in such a controlled environment. Maybe this would not be such an issue if we, as the press, would have more access to dignitaries and be able to show they are human as the rest of us.

I confess too that it makes me a little sad we are so obsessed with day-to-day trivialities, instead of things of true importance.

During Mandela's memorial service in Johannesburg. (AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

During Mandela's memorial service in Johannesburg. (AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/mUJRsh5tRes/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Damage Control: "Selfie At A Funeral" Photographer Explains What Really Happened

Following yesterday's "selfie-gate" furore at Nelson Mandela's memorial service, it is perhaps unsurprising that the AFP photographer responsible for the series of incriminating photos come out with a wordy (and picturey) response to explain what we all saw. Roberto Schmidt notes, "it was interesting to see politicians in a human light because usually when we see them it is in such a controlled environment. Maybe this would not be such an issue if we, as the press, would have more access to dignitaries and be able to show they are human as the rest of us." Indeed, especially for a president whose only focus is to be seen as "one of the people" and not actually doing, you know, work to help the people.

 

Via Roberto Schmidt of AFP blog,

So here’s the photo, my photo, which quickly lit up the world’s social networks and news websites. The “selfie” of three world leaders who, during South Africa’s farewell to Nelson Mandela, were messing about like kids instead of behaving with the mournful gravitas one might expect.

In general on this blog, photojournalists tell the story behind a picture they’ve taken. I’ve done this for images from Pakistan, and India, where I am based. And here I am again, but this time the picture comes from a stadium in Soweto, and shows people taking a photo of themselves. I guess it’s a sign of our times that somehow this image seemed to get more attention than the event itself. Go figure.

selfie-combo_m.jpg

Anyway, I arrived in South Africa with several other AFP journalists to cover the farewell and funeral ceremonies for Nelson Mandela. We were in the Soccer City stadium in Soweto, under a driving rain. I’d been there since the crack of dawn and when I took this picture, the memorial ceremony had already been going on for more than two hours.

From the podium, Obama had just qualified Mandela as a “giant of history who moved a nation towards justice." After his stirring eulogy, America’s first black president sat about 150 metres across from where I was set up. He was surrounded by other foreign dignitaries and I decided to follow his movements with the help of my 600 mm x 2 telephoto lens.

So Obama took his place amid these leaders who’d gathered from all corners of the globe. Among them was British Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as a woman who I wasn’t able to immediately identify. I later learned it was the Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt. I’m a German-Colombian based in India, so I don’t feel too bad I didn’t recognize her! At the time, I thought it must have been one of Obama’s many staffers.

Anyway, suddenly this woman pulled out her mobile phone and took a photo of herself smiling with Cameron and the US president. I captured the scene reflexively. All around me in the stadium, South Africans were dancing, singing and laughing to honour their departed leader. It was more like a carnival atmosphere, not at all morbid. The ceremony had already gone on for two hours and would last another two. The atmosphere was totally relaxed – I didn’t see anything shocking in my viewfinder, president of the US or not. We are in Africa.

(AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

(AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

I later read on social media that Michelle Obama seemed to be rather peeved on seeing the Danish prime minister take the picture. But photos can lie. In reality, just a few seconds earlier the first lady was herself joking with those around her, Cameron and Schmidt included. Her stern look was captured by chance.

I took these photos totally spontaneously, without thinking about what impact they might have. At the time, I thought the world leaders were simply acting like human beings, like me and you. I doubt anyone could have remained totally stony faced for the duration of the ceremony, while tens of thousands of people were celebrating in the stadium. For me, the behaviour of these leaders in snapping a selfie seems perfectly natural. I see nothing to complain about, and probably would have done the same in their place. The AFP team worked hard to display the reaction that South African people had for the passing of someone they consider as a father. We moved about 500 pictures, trying to portray their true feelings, and this seemingly trivial image seems to have eclipsed much of this collective work.

(AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

It was interesting to see politicians in a human light because usually when we see them it is in such a controlled environment. Maybe this would not be such an issue if we, as the press, would have more access to dignitaries and be able to show they are human as the rest of us.

I confess too that it makes me a little sad we are so obsessed with day-to-day trivialities, instead of things of true importance.

During Mandela's memorial service in Johannesburg. (AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)

During Mandela's memorial service in Johannesburg. (AFP Photo / Roberto Schmidt)


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/mUJRsh5tRes/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Tanking Stocks Are Catching Down To Credit’s Reality

JPY carry trades are not helping and stocks just keep testing lows and finding no new BTFATH-ers for now. This will come as a little surprise to those who have watched the saturated and less exuberant credit markets unable to join the party for the last 2 months.

 

Credit never bought it…

 

and all those NFP taper-is-good gains are gone…

 

as JPY carry is being unwopund (for now)…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/TtoMS6JCU7U/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Tanking Stocks Are Catching Down To Credit's Reality

JPY carry trades are not helping and stocks just keep testing lows and finding no new BTFATH-ers for now. This will come as a little surprise to those who have watched the saturated and less exuberant credit markets unable to join the party for the last 2 months.

 

Credit never bought it…

 

and all those NFP taper-is-good gains are gone…

 

as JPY carry is being unwopund (for now)…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/TtoMS6JCU7U/story01.htm Tyler Durden

On Health Care, Obama Says “We’re Not Going Back” But 55% of Americans Prefer Old System

While President Obama recently
said, “We’re not going back” on health care reform, given the
choice, a majority of Americans say they would prefer to go back to
the pre-2010 health care system.

The December
Reason-Rupe poll
 finds that 55 percent of Americans would
choose the health care system that was in place before the
Affordable Care Act was passed, while 34 percent prefer the new
health care system designed by the 2010 federal health care
law.

Predictably, a hefty majority of Republicans, 78 percent, favor
the old health care system, while 53 percent of Democrats prefer
the Affordable Care Act. A third of Democrats, 33 percent, would
actually prefer the pre-2010 health care system. Independents side
with Republicans with 59 percent who favor the prior health care
system, while 31 percent the new system.

Support for the new health care system increases with education:
only 28 percent of those with high school degrees or less favor the
new health care system compared to 42 percent of those with
post-graduate degrees. Although educational attainments is
correlated with preference for the new system, income is not.

Even majorities of some of the cohorts the Affordable Care Act
was designed to help would prefer to go back to the old health care
system. Among those who do not have any form of health insurance,
54 percent prefer the pre-2010 health care system.  Slim
majorities of lower income Americans also favor the prior system.
Fifty-one percent prefer the old system among those making less
than $45,000 a year and 37% favor the new system. 

While younger Americans are evenly divided, attitudes diverge
between older and younger millennials. A majority (55 percent) of
older millennials (25-34 year olds) prefer the previous health care
system, 39 percent prefer the new system. In contrast, young
millennials 18-24 are evenly divided 44 to 45 percent.

Hispanics are divided with slightly more (49%) who say they
prefer the prior health care system over the ACA system (40
percent). Similarly, African-Americans are also divided but
slightly more (49%) prefer the new system over the previous one (40
percent). Only 28 percent of white Americans favor the new system,
while 62 percent favor the previous system.

Among the 34 percent who favor the Affordable Care Act system,
majorities oppose some of the key components of the law that has
defined the system: a little more than half of these respondents
oppose requiring younger people pay more for health insurance to
expand coverage to the uninsured and subsidize the costs of older
less healthy people and those with preexisting conditions. 
Americans who favor the new system are evenly divided over whether
asking younger people pay more for health care is justified if it
expands coverage for everyone, for instance to include mental
health care and maternity care. A slim majority (52 percent) also
feels low-cost, low-coverage health insurance policies should be
allowed, while 43 percent say they should be prohibited.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed
1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a
margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates
International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns
may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results,
detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign
up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe
poll here.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/11/on-health-care-obama-says-were-not-going
via IFTTT

Obamacare Launch Eroding Faith in Government as Problem Solver: Reason-Rupe Poll December 2013

“One word that kept coming up over and over again was the word
‘disaster,'” says Reason-Rupe polling director Emily Ekins when
referring to responses to the question, “What one word would you
use to describe the implementation of the federal health care law
so far?” Pollsters rated an overwhelming 65 percent of responses to
that question as negative.

Ekins sat down with Reason TV’s Zach Weissmueller to discuss the
portion of the results from the December Reason-Rupe poll focused
on the implementation of Obamacare in the wake of a disastrous
website rollout and the broken pledge that, “If you like your plan,
you can keep it.”

The poll found President Obama’s job approval rating at 47
percent, with only 38 percent of respondents approving of how he’s
handled the health care issue. But the problems seem to go even
deeper than that, with 47 percent of respondents answering that the
implementation of the health care law has decreased their overall
confidence in the government’s ability to solve problems. Even
worse for the president, 52 percent disagree with what they
perceive to be his view about the proper size and power of
government, and these numbers hold up among Obama’s key
constituency of 25-34 year olds. 

Watch the video above to hear Ekins delve deeper into these
results and more.

For full poll results, check out reason.com/poll.

Approximately 5 minutes long.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Sharif Matar and Tracy
Oppenheimer.

Click the link below for downloadable versions of this
video.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/11/obamacare-launch-eroding-faith-in-gov
via IFTTT

Barack Obama Approval Rating Hits Another New Low

will it get to 24?Barack Obama’s not doing well in polling, and
while he’s spent the last year trying to raise as much money for
Democrats in 2014 as he can, his unpopularity is dragging down,
with 41 percent of respondents in a new poll saying they’d vote for
a Republican over a Democrat for Congress in 2014, the first time
the generic Republican’s come up on top for that question in
polling this year.


From the Quinnipiac Polling Institute:

President Barack Obama’s job approval among American
voters drops to a new low, a negative 38 – 57 percent, as the
outlook for Democrats running for Congress and the U.S. Senate
fades also, according to a national poll released today. He even
gets a negative 41 – 49 percent among voters 18 to 29 years old and
a lackluster 50 – 43 percent approval among Hispanic
voters. 

The president’s job approval compares to a negative 39 – 54 percent
score in a November 12 survey by the independent Quinnipiac
University. 

Rest of the polling results
here
. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, seems to be
having fun
not being president.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/11/barack-obama-approval-rating-hits-anothe
via IFTTT

Obamacare Unites Americans—In Dismay at Government Suckage

Smug ObamaWe liked health care better the
old way, a majority of Americans say when
asked by Reason-Rupe pollsters
about Obamacare. Across the
board, Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of health
care issues, have little faith in politicians’ ability to manage
the provision of medicine, and don’t think healthy, younger
Americans should be treated as milking cows to subsidize coverage
for older and sicker people. In fact, Americans generally agree
that the chief executive and Congress alike have amply demonstrated
that government is something of a deadweight hanging from the
country’s neck.

Americans still seem divided on what they wish
government could do for them. When asked whether they believed “the
less government the better” or “there are more things government
should be doing,” exactly 48 percent of respondents pick each one.
But when pushed to say whether “government is primarily a source of
good” or “is generally a burdensome part of society that impedes
the ability of people to improve their lives,” 54 percent said
government is a big friggin’ hurdle that bangs your shins every
time.

GoatThat’s the difference between hoping for a
unicorn, but admitting that you’re only ever going to get a
goat.

And what a goat. The launch of the Affordable Care Act has done
wonders to firm up the public’s opinion of government
(in)competence. Fifty-three percent of respondents have an
unfavorable opinion of the law after its jaw-droppingly flawed
debut, with a 47 percent plurality saying it has decreased their
confidence in government’s ability to solve problems.

Overall, 55 percent say they prefer the system that was in place
prior to passage of the 2010 federal health care law over
Obamacare—you know, the system that everybody used to hate before
they discovered it could get worse.

And it’s not just the general outline; the details of the health
care law turn people off, too. Majorities oppose prohibiting health
insurance companies from denying coverage or charging some
customers higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions, oppose
requiring younger, healthier people to pay more for health
insurance to subsidize care for others, and think low-cost,
bare-bones policies of the sort prohibited by the ACA should be
allowed.

Not surprisingly, after their interesting performances in recent
years, Congress and the president both get lousy marks for their
handling of health issues.

If the president liked high marks for transparency, maybe he
could have kept them by not snowing the public with phony
assurances about his signature policy achievement. As it is, a
majority of Americans think he was pulling their legs when he
claimed to preside over the “most transparent administration in
history.”

Well, if you want to see how something performs, there’s nothing
like a laboratory experiment. Too bad the whole damned country is a
laboratory for government suckage.

If only somebody had some ideas for reforming health care

without treating people like milking cows or idiot
children
.

More poll results here
(PDF).

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/11/obamacare-unites-americansin-dismay-at-g
via IFTTT

Are We Already At The “End Of Work”?

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The Python That Ate Your Job

We are already well into the "end of work."

The more accurate title would be "The Python (Script) That Ate Your Job." Python is a computer language whose core philosophy is summarized by "PEP 20 (The Zen of Python)", which includes aphorisms such as:

  • Beautiful is better than ugly.
  • Explicit is better than implicit.
  • Simple is better than complex.
  • Complex is better than complicated.
  • Readability counts.

(source: Wikipedia)

As I understand it (from a non-programmer POV), Python enables rapid development of scripts that may not be optimized by some metrics but which work perfectly well in terms of solving a problem in a cost-effective manner.

(Programmers can be highly partisan, i.e. emotionally attached to their preferred language, so I am trying to be as non-partisan and careful as possible here to avoid arousing the ire of either Pythoneers or Python detractors. I am just an ignorant bystander; please don't shoot the piano player, etc.)

A senior manager at a small tech company recently related a story that illustrates 1) the power of Python (and other scripting languages) and 2) the changing nature of work:

The company had some time-consuming data analysis that needed to get done on a regular basis, and the manager was considering recruiting a (paid) intern to do the work. Instead, he spent four hours writing a Python script which did the work in a few minutes. He named the program "Intern."

This story is repeated thousands of times a day across millions of tasks. Virtually all of my self-employed friends use technology to enable one person to produce output that would have taken three people in the 1980s.

As management guru Peter Drucker noted, enterprises don't have profits, they only have expenses. If you are self-employed or own/manage a business, you will immediately grasp the profound truth of this insight.

If you can replace an expensive worker (and every employee is expensive nowadays, due to the high cost of labor and general overhead) with a Python script that can be crafted in a few hours, financial fact compels you to do so: your business has no profit, it only has expenses.

This dynamic is scale-invariant, meaning it is true of all organizations, from one-person businesses up to global corporations and entire nations. A non-profit group only has expenses, and so do churches, cities and nations. Once expenses exceed income, the organization goes bust.

Could I be replaced with a Python script? In some ways, yes: a script could be written that mined the thousands of entries and essays I've written for repeating words, phrases and themes, and the script would rehash the material into "new" entries.

But since the script isn't logging "experience" in the same way as a human does, the script would not be able to replicate dynamics such as changing one's mind or taking a new direction, although it could randomly generate such behaviors to mimic human development.

Would the script be "good enough" to attract readers? Perhaps; but attracting and keeping readers is not necessarily a problem-state that can be solved with data-mining and pattern matching, as readers seek not just novelty and expressive writing but insight. Any script that rehashed existing material would not be generating new insight; it would simply be repackaging previous insights.

For highly partisan blogs, this might well be "good enough," since partisan readers actually want to read the same rehashed material again and again: in effect, a script that repackaged "it's the Demopublican's fault" with new headlines and slightly different content would closely match the human content generator's output.

I have no doubt some clever programmers have already played around with generating rehashed content and posting it as a blog written by a human being, an artifice masked by an avatar ("Hi, my name is J.Q. Public and I write about politics."). It would almost amount to sport to generate a phony history and cobbled-together quirks to fill out the illusion of personhood.

(Some readers have even wondered if "Charles Hugh Smith" is such an avatar. The answer is no, because the history and quirks of "Charles Hugh Smith" are simply too implausible to be believable. Also, the cost of maintaining such a complicated avatar isn't worth the paltry income generated by the blog. What machine intelligence would be dumb enough to maintain this idiotically complicated enterprise for such a paltry return? Only a human would be compelled to do so.)

Could a robot and standardized scripts replace everything I can do with a Skil 77 wormdrive power saw? It could certainly do a great many repetitive tasks at a work bench, but it would not be able to do non-standardized, on-the-jobsite tasks such as cutting out the rotten sections of a wood window frame. The robot might be able to execute the cuts (presuming it was light enough and mobile enough to stand securely on a scaffold or slope), but it would need a human partner to program the cuts in the real world and in real time.

In other words, "work" is increasingly a partnership of humans and technology. If one's skills and experience (i.e. labor) can be replaced with a Python script, it will be replaced by a Python script. Organizations that fail to replace costly paid human labor with a script will have much higher costs than those organizations that replace paid labor with scripts.

The paid human labor that can't be replaced by a script will increasingly require the knowledge and skills needed to collaborate with technology as an essential work partner.

We are already well into the "end of work." Digital pythons have been eating jobs for some time now, and because organizations only have expenses, they will continue to do so indefinitely until the only paid jobs left are those that cannot be fully replaced by a script or a robot operating on standardized scripts.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/5lhrj3ol6yc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Are We Already At The "End Of Work"?

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The Python That Ate Your Job

We are already well into the "end of work."

The more accurate title would be "The Python (Script) That Ate Your Job." Python is a computer language whose core philosophy is summarized by "PEP 20 (The Zen of Python)", which includes aphorisms such as:

  • Beautiful is better than ugly.
  • Explicit is better than implicit.
  • Simple is better than complex.
  • Complex is better than complicated.
  • Readability counts.

(source: Wikipedia)

As I understand it (from a non-programmer POV), Python enables rapid development of scripts that may not be optimized by some metrics but which work perfectly well in terms of solving a problem in a cost-effective manner.

(Programmers can be highly partisan, i.e. emotionally attached to their preferred language, so I am trying to be as non-partisan and careful as possible here to avoid arousing the ire of either Pythoneers or Python detractors. I am just an ignorant bystander; please don't shoot the piano player, etc.)

A senior manager at a small tech company recently related a story that illustrates 1) the power of Python (and other scripting languages) and 2) the changing nature of work:

The company had some time-consuming data analysis that needed to get done on a regular basis, and the manager was considering recruiting a (paid) intern to do the work. Instead, he spent four hours writing a Python script which did the work in a few minutes. He named the program "Intern."

This story is repeated thousands of times a day across millions of tasks. Virtually all of my self-employed friends use technology to enable one person to produce output that would have taken three people in the 1980s.

As management guru Peter Drucker noted, enterprises don't have profits, they only have expenses. If you are self-employed or own/manage a business, you will immediately grasp the profound truth of this insight.

If you can replace an expensive worker (and every employee is expensive nowadays, due to the high cost of labor and general overhead) with a Python script that can be crafted in a few hours, financial fact compels you to do so: your business has no profit, it only has expenses.

This dynamic is scale-invariant, meaning it is true of all organizations, from one-person businesses up to global corporations and entire nations. A non-profit group only has expenses, and so do churches, cities and nations. Once expenses exceed income, the organization goes bust.

Could I be replaced with a Python script? In some ways, yes: a script could be written that mined the thousands of entries and essays I've written for repeating words, phrases and themes, and the script would rehash the material into "new" entries.

But since the script isn't logging "experience" in the same way as a human does, the script would not be able to replicate dynamics such as changing one's mind or taking a new direction, although it could randomly generate such behaviors to mimic human development.

Would the script be "good enough" to attract readers? Perhaps; but attracting and keeping readers is not necessarily a problem-state that can be solved with data-mining and pattern matching, as readers seek not just novelty and expressive writing but insight. Any script that rehashed existing material would not be generating new insight; it would simply be repackaging previous insights.

For highly partisan blogs, this might well be "good enough," since partisan readers actually want to read the same rehashed material again and again: in effect, a script that repackaged "it's the Demopublican's fault" with new headlines and slightly different content would closely match the human content generator's output.

I have no doubt some clever programmers have already played around with generating rehashed content and posting it as a blog written by a human being, an artifice masked by an avatar ("Hi, my name is J.Q. Public and I write about politics."). It would almost amount to sport to generate a phony history and cobbled-together quirks to fill out the illusion of personhood.

(Some readers have even wondered if "Charles Hugh Smith" is such an avatar. The answer is no, because the history and quirks of "Charles Hugh Smith" are simply too implausible to be believable. Also, the cost of maintaining such a complicated avatar isn't worth the paltry income generated by the blog. What machine intelligence would be dumb enough to maintain this idiotically complicated enterprise for such a paltry return? Only a human would be compelled to do so.)

Could a robot and standardized scripts replace everything I can do with a Skil 77 wormdrive power saw? It could certainly do a great many repetitive tasks at a work bench, but it would not be able to do non-standardized, on-the-jobsite tasks such as cutting out the rotten sections of a wood window frame. The robot might be able to execute the cuts (presuming it was light enough and mobile enough to stand securely on a scaffold or slope), but it would need a human partner to program the cuts in the real world and in real time.

In other words, "work" is increasingly a partnership of humans and technology. If one's skills and experience (i.e. labor) can be replaced with a Python script, it will be replaced by a Python script. Organizations that fail to replace costly paid human labor with a script will have much higher costs than those organizations that replace paid labor with scripts.

The paid human labor that can't be replaced by a script will increasingly require the knowledge and skills needed to collaborate with technology as an essential work partner.

We are already well into the "end of work." Digital pythons have been eating jobs for some time now, and because organizations only have expenses, they will continue to do so indefinitely until the only paid jobs left are those that cannot be fully replaced by a script or a robot operating on standardized scripts.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/5lhrj3ol6yc/story01.htm Tyler Durden