|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2024 12:26:44 GMT
I am a drama queen at heart.  There is method to my madness. You will dismiss the notion as an exaggeration, but then you will ask 'how much of exaggeration?' Only I don't. My position was already that I wanted to see Corbyn's more outrageous proposals such as having a union rep on the board of a company were dropped. Unions representing their workers is fine with me. Equally the pay rises to match inflation are considerably less than the average 14% my business has had to give to retain staff over the last year. So I'm happy. I'm also happy with unions vs bosses. So long as i'm sure the boss gets to pay off the union from his pocket rather than mine, |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 18, 2024 14:20:10 GMT
Dream on, seems you forget that every machine, every line of software has a human in the chain of its generation and at times they make mistakes. What's that got to do with anything. The systems on driverless train will be designed by a human. But the train will still be driverless. But you've been retired a while and a lot has changed in the last few years. It has? Go on name any significant change. The ALARP legal principle is unchanged, the Heath and Safety Act is if anything stricter and ISO 26262 has had its scope extended (but essentially is just a restatement for roads of previous practice under the likes of DO-178 and DO-254. But then you don't understand the significance of a fallible human defining and designing the software do you. Googling 737-Max might give you a clue. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 18, 2024 14:31:37 GMT
Ok, you go with that, flying cars will never take off. Maybe you don't realise that energy cost per mile will go down as they are made more efficient. There have been many incidents of light planes and drones carrying bombs, as you well know. If we have flying cars that are taken over with a hack, they can be crashed into places much like a big drone Its pure physics keeping a vehicle up in the air takes far more energy than keeping it rolling along the ground. . . Because of the much reduced air resistance for planes in cruise, it's actually almost the same use per passenger mile comparing commercial air transports with a two occupant car. Modern jets have a Lift:Drag ratio approaching 20:1 in cruise. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 15:33:14 GMT
Only I don't. My position was already that I wanted to see Corbyn's more outrageous proposals such as having a union rep on the board of a company were dropped. Unions representing their workers is fine with me. Equally the pay rises to match inflation are considerably less than the average 14% my business has had to give to retain staff over the last year. So I'm happy. I'm also happy with unions vs bosses. So long as i'm sure the boss gets to pay off the union from his pocket rather than mine, How you square that when the boss is the government I do not know. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2024 17:45:56 GMT
I'm also happy with unions vs bosses. So long as i'm sure the boss gets to pay off the union from his pocket rather than mine, How you square that when the boss is the government I do not know. You can't The situation is a scam waiting to happen |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 19:41:14 GMT
How you square that when the boss is the government I do not know. You can't The situation is a scam waiting to happen Yet we also see what happens when you give essential services or monopolies to private companies. You'd have never guessed it but the worlds not a perfect place |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2024 20:44:49 GMT
Ok, you go with that, flying cars will never take off. Maybe you don't realise that energy cost per mile will go down as they are made more efficient. There have been many incidents of light planes and drones carrying bombs, as you well know. If we have flying cars that are taken over with a hack, they can be crashed into places much like a big drone Its pure physics keeping a vehicle up in the air takes far more energy than keeping it rolling along the ground. As the cost per mile falls for flying cars so it will fall proportionally for wheeled ones always making them cheaper. Where flying cars might take off is for long journeys and over water. But we already have these cars, we call them planes. Imagining these flying cars in the future If the sci fi I read has credibility they are banned from build up areas because of the risk of accidents (A ford Mondeo falling out of the sky into your garden) So they land outside the town and drive in. Like I said, you go with that. Everything I've read tells me the opposite is true, the police already have flying motorbikes in Dubai where tech is at the heart of everything, they're expensive now but the cost will come down and that's a fact. I expect the flying cars are going to be more like bigger drones at first, which can already carry heavy things relatively efficiently The S3 hoverbike costs $150k currently, that might work out more efficient than driving when you factor in A) the short distances you need to travel in a straight line through the air, without weaving motorways = less energy used B) the fact you can probably go a lot faster |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 20:48:48 GMT
Its pure physics keeping a vehicle up in the air takes far more energy than keeping it rolling along the ground. As the cost per mile falls for flying cars so it will fall proportionally for wheeled ones always making them cheaper. Where flying cars might take off is for long journeys and over water. But we already have these cars, we call them planes. Imagining these flying cars in the future If the sci fi I read has credibility they are banned from build up areas because of the risk of accidents (A ford Mondeo falling out of the sky into your garden) So they land outside the town and drive in. Like I said, you go with that. Everything I've read tells me the opposite is true, the police already have flying motorbikes in Dubai where tech is at the heart of everything, they're expensive now but the cost will come down and that's a fact. I expect they flying cars are going to be more like bigger drones at first, which can already carry heavy things relatively efficiently And considering the prices of many cars these days, espec EVs, even then it works out to about the same amount IIRC as of 2024 (for the flying motorbikes) Only way to know is wait and see. Dubai's mini police helicopters are to avoid traffic congestion. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2024 21:57:50 GMT
You can't The situation is a scam waiting to happen Yet we also see what happens when you give essential services or monopolies to private companies. You'd have never guessed it but the worlds not a perfect place The unions are not a necessary (or natural) component of public sector employment. We all implicitly vote on their pay deals when we select a government party. Nobody would accept this corrupt arrangement ex nilio - from nowhere |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 22:10:39 GMT
Yet we also see what happens when you give essential services or monopolies to private companies. You'd have never guessed it but the worlds not a perfect place The unions are not a necessary (or natural) component of public sector employment. We all implicitly vote on their pay deals when we select a government party. Nobody would accept this corrupt arrangement ex nilio - from nowhere Natural is a very strange word here. Unions are a result of historical events and are at the desire of their members. Once again you complain without a suggested solution |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2024 22:37:11 GMT
The unions are not a necessary (or natural) component of public sector employment. We all implicitly vote on their pay deals when we select a government party. Nobody would accept this corrupt arrangement ex nilio - from nowhere Natural is a very strange word here. Unions are a result of historical events and are at the desire of their members. Once again you complain without a suggested solution You are missing what i'm saying. A negotiation (naturally) needs two sides who are party to the outcome, but with conflicting interests. If one of the negotiating parties isn't paying for the resolution, then the result is very likely to be corrupt The solution is not to have pantomime negotiations with the payer not at the table - instead, the government just decides what the pay will be |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 7:29:03 GMT
Natural is a very strange word here. Unions are a result of historical events and are at the desire of their members. Once again you complain without a suggested solution You are missing what i'm saying. A negotiation (naturally) needs two sides who are party to the outcome, but with conflicting interests. If one of the negotiating parties isn't paying for the resolution, then the result is very likely to be corrupt The solution is not to have pantomime negotiations with the payer not at the table - instead, the government just decides what the pay will be To say that one of the sides is not paying for the resolution is actually nonsense. One side is paying wages to buy labour. The other side is selling it's labour in return for wages. If the side paying for labour negotiates a lower pay settlement with the side selling it's labour, the latter can be said to be paying for the resolution by selling its labour more cheaply. And there is the matter of labour supply and demand. Increasingly, workers in some sectors were seeking foreign places where they could earn much more for working much less, and where they couldn't be made to repay tuition fees and where living costs are much lower. We were beginning to suffer a serious and growing brain drain of highly skilled NHS workers due to ever worsening pay and conditions which was not sustainable. We had to start paying some of them a lot more again or we risked a systemic collapse that would have cost us far more in the end to put right. People on the right frequently argue that we have to pay those at the top the going rate at least to encourage and retain talent. Strange how this is not recognised as valid very often by the same people for highly knowledgeable and skilled public sector workers. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 19, 2024 7:41:43 GMT
Natural is a very strange word here. Unions are a result of historical events and are at the desire of their members. Once again you complain without a suggested solution You are missing what i'm saying. A negotiation (naturally) needs two sides who are party to the outcome, but with conflicting interests. If one of the negotiating parties isn't paying for the resolution, then the result is very likely to be corrupt The solution is not to have pantomime negotiations with the payer not at the table - instead, the government just decides what the pay will be That is based on the assumption that the authorities concerned don't have budgetary constraints and always give in. Which as we saw with the young doctors strike is clearly not the case. Indeed, after the doctors saw a real fall of over 25% in their wages, they settled for a rise of 14% over 2 years, doesn't sound like government just handing out money to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 19, 2024 7:44:20 GMT
You are missing what i'm saying. A negotiation (naturally) needs two sides who are party to the outcome, but with conflicting interests. If one of the negotiating parties isn't paying for the resolution, then the result is very likely to be corrupt The solution is not to have pantomime negotiations with the payer not at the table - instead, the government just decides what the pay will be To say that one of the sides is not paying for the resolution is actually nonsense. One side is paying wages to buy labour. The other side is selling it's labour in return for wages. If the side paying for labour negotiates a lower pay settlement with the side selling it's labour, the latter can be said to be paying for the resolution by selling its labour more cheaply. This is the case when parties to negotiation pay for any compromise with the other side's position. The conflict of interest means a real (natural) negotiation takes place. However, In public sector pay 'negotiations,., the public sector negotiates within itself about how much uninvolved third parties should pay for a compromise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 7:56:36 GMT
To say that one of the sides is not paying for the resolution is actually nonsense. One side is paying wages to buy labour. The other side is selling it's labour in return for wages. If the side paying for labour negotiates a lower pay settlement with the side selling it's labour, the latter can be said to be paying for the resolution by selling its labour more cheaply. This is the case when parties to negotiation pay for any compromise with the other side's position. The conflict of interest means a real (natural) negotiation takes place. However, In public sector pay 'negotiations,., the public sector negotiates within itself about how much uninvolved third parties should pay for a compromise. I don't agree. The unions are representing one side selling it's labour. If they don't do this to the satisfaction of those they represent, their leaders get voted out and new union leaders put in. The government are representing the other side paying the wages - essentially the rest of us. If they fail to do this to our satisfaction, we have the chance to vote them out of office when the time comes. As just one of the millions the government are representing, I am happy with the negotiations thus far, since I recognise the need to pay certain groups much more to head off a recruitment and retention crisis. You might not agree. But each of us in the fullness of time will have our chance to cast our verdict on the doings of this government re such negotiations. |
|
