Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
sl4shd0rk writes:
"Bill Gates says everyone needs to prepare to be out of work in 20 years due to Robots/software taking over most jobs. In preparation for this, Gates recommends people 'should basically get on their knees and beg businesses to keep employing humans' and reduce operating overhead for businesses by 'eliminating payroll and corporate income taxes while also not raising the minimum wage'. Bill Gates, you may recall, is the former CEO of Microsoft whose business acumen has brought the technology sector such things as Metro, Windows Phone and Xbox One.
BusinessInsider took a similar theme earlier this year."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bill Gates: Prepare to be Assimilated
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1000 moderator points
| 96 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm not a robot like you. I don't like having disks crammed into me... unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth.
-- Fry
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:56AM
Yet another data point that indicates Soylent News is going to have the same dedication to accuracy and lack of bias as any other Western journalistic endeavor -- that is, none whatsoever.
I think I'm done with this place. Tootles!
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 18 2014, @09:04AM
I plan to give the editors a chance to respond and apologies for this travesty of an article.
I don't expect to get one or even an acknowledgement that this article is a complete sham... but I figure I will give them a chance.
But yeah, I think I am done here as well. The article has the rhetoritc machine cranked up higher than ./ has in ten years.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Tuesday March 18 2014, @10:38AM
I provided links to both the original article and the article that was supposedly based upon it. The second certainly does exhibit a 'spin' on the first, including inaccurate quotations which are rather sensationalist. However, both articles raise valid points to my view and are looking to a uncertain future. It is not the editor's job to show bias, nor should I change what one article said simply because it does not support a particular point of view. Both articles were content that was submitted in good faith, they raised genuine concerns and have generated quite a bit of comment. If you only wish to see a list of scientifically-proven achievements and peer-reviewed papers then I apologise, for this article was certainly not for you. However, many scientific reports also contain hypotheses and best-guesses which are not proven - would you have me leave all those out as well?
Some of the community find value and interest in the comments that articles provoke, regardless of the starting point of the debate. Even removing the critical comments from this topic leaves a healthy number which have considered what the various authors, rightly or wrongly, were trying to say. I'm am sorry that this article didn't meet your particular standards or interests. I'm new at this, as you undoubtedly know, but I will continue to strive to find the right balance that suits the majority of the community although I recognise that it will be impossible to keep everybody happy all of the time. On this occasion I was off-target.
It's always my fault...