I'm a industrial engineer and have worked at 4 factories and am familiar with far more. I don't know of a single company where production employees are paid salary.
I talked with a production employee about it when starting my current job. They said "man I could never work a salaried job. I'd get so frustrated with it".
There are pros and cons to the typical US salary structure.
* If the company gets too aggressive in the expectation of hours worked, people just leave since they're not getting overtime pay.
* I also have flexibility to start/end my day when I want within reason
* I never have to take time off for doctors visits
* I don't have a micro manager for a boss, so if I work 35 hours one week and 45 the next, nobody cares.
In the US, hourly employees get at least 1.5x pay for working beyond 40 hours. It's often cheaper to pay for overtime than expand the workforce, so some companies hand out OT like candy at a parade. An employee can double their pay by working 66 hours compared to just 40.
There are often also shift differentials. They might be a couple extra dollars/hour for nights and a couple extra for weekends.
Most salaried employees are "salary exempt" and are typically not paid overtime.
I believe there's no way in California for the kind of worker on Tesla's factory floor to be considered exempt, so he would almost certainly be getting overtime even if salaried. You could easily meet the 2x minimum wage annualized pay exemption, but the "administrative/executive" exemption would be an absurd stretch. A few people might meet professional exemption but probably not most of the workers, and the ones that do are likely already salaried. (I'm not a lawyer, particularly not an employment lawyer in California, though.)
> I don't see how any of that is relevant to whether one has salary or not?
I suppose it's not specific to salary, more to the type of work. In the US with production workers, a salary would be quite unusual. I have friends working at many companies and have never heard of the production employees being salaried.
> * I also have flexibility to start/end my day when I want within reason
Generally production employees work specific shifts with specified start and end times. Showing up 15 minutes late yields a verbal warning, 1 point on a discipline tree, etc. This can happen with salary positions as well, but I can't say I've ever seen it. It's more a "get your work done" attitude than anything.
> * I never have to take time off for doctors visits
I should have said "If I get sick, my paycheck isn't any smaller because I had to go to the doctor or take 3 days off."
>I suspect that metaphors are the tools of cargo cults while analogies are the tools used by those that actually understand a system in order to convey it to those that do not.
Are the metaphors actual tools, or more like metaphorical tools?
> NHTSA strongly encourages States not to codify this Voluntary
Guidance (that is, incorporate it into State statutes) as a legal
requirement for any phases of development, testing, or
deployment of ADSs. Allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the
safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will
help avoid conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations
that could impede deployment.
Can someone clarify that this please? To me it appears that this body is saying that, "States, Please don't make laws requiring minimal standards for SDVs for things, including deployment on public roads, because that would impede deployment. Allow us to handle all that"
But they didn't do it, right? SDV's were on roads even before the "safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology" was regulated, right?
>not to codify this Voluntary Guidance ... as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment
I don't think it's meant to impede anything. It's just saying "don't use this as a go-ahead to base your state's SDV laws and guidances since this document will change".
How is your concern different than what they are calling political security (~1/3 of the paper)?
>Political security. The use of AI to automate tasks involved in
surveillance (e.g. analysing mass-collected data), persuasion
(e.g. creating targeted propaganda), and deception (e.g.
manipulating videos) may expand threats associated with
privacy invasion and social manipulation. We also expect novel
attacks that take advantage of an improved capacity to analyse
human behaviors, moods, and beliefs on the basis of available
data. These concerns are most significant in the context of
authoritarian states, but may also undermine the ability of
democracies to sustain truthful public debates.
I guess it's the difference between what they're calling "authoritarian states", the mustache-twirling dictators of the 20th century targeting their political opponents (a fetish in papers like this), and the _new_ form of corporate-driven mass surveillance and resulting fascism that is emerging.
There is no need for an evil central power targeting threats to itself, but instead we have seen/are seeing the rise pervasive blanket surveillance and classification of _all_ people in a society, even non-political actors, from many different for-profit companies. The is combined with a new type of society that is entirely dependent on corporate services for almost all functions in life (food, travel, healthcare, communications, travel, work, housing, etc). It's a recipe for disaster.
This kind of state is a _new thing_^tm and we have to be aware of it. We're the ones who are going to be oppressed by it, not just the people living under the Saddam Husseins of the world.
You are right on. To confine this worry to 'authoritarian states' is beyond naive.
Could an A.I. program like you are discussing have prevented the school shooting in Florida by alerting the police of the shooter's state of mind and intentions?
If an A.I. could save kids, is there any way we would not be demanding the A.I. protector be installed on every computer and mobile device today? It would be so easy to see how we would voluntarily give up power to this A.I. protector.
An AI could have possibly alerted the police to the shooter's intentions if it was monitoring the right things, however, a human did alert the FBI, and they failed to act.
With correct follow-through, AI could be a useful tool for narrowing down who is a credible threat, but I agree there's a huge risk in relying on it too heavily and punishing people for pre-crime.
I think the major difference is this notation has the count of loose wires corresponding to dimension, and Penrose notation has the count of loose wires corresponding to tensor valence.
Here, a diagram with 1L and 2R wires corresponds to a 2d-vector, in Penrose's notation it would correspond to a (1,2) tensor that takes kd-vectors to kXk matrices.
But... they certainly have a similar feel. I wonder if you could build up the Penrose notation out of this.
