Not here though. Ryzen is coming to the world, but not my house. Can't afford it. Ah well, besides the later I build a new computer, the later the stepping and more refined the process. Good combination for if you want better performance.
Anyway, so much of the news and rumors I have been seeing about it have been very positive, which I am very glad to see. AMD directly competing with Intel again, in multiple segments is a very good thing in many ways. Hopefully Vega too will directly compete with NVIDIA very well in all segments too. Sadly though, because of how the world, and some marketing departments work, superior products in performance, feature, and price can still lose because of misinformation, manipulation, and fanboy-ism. I think AMD will have an easier time challenging Intel than NVIDIA for that last point, but only time will tell.
One idea I had though, but I cannot predict when or if it might happen, is to do some Ryzen Return videos or something on (one of) my YouTube channel(s). The idea is that because some games are a bit much for my A10-5800K (but it still does very well) that if/when I have a more powerful Ryzen CPU to translate the higher performance to videos and share what the difference is like. Not all games would be worth doing this with, but it still could be a fun idea. Plus it would give me a good reason to return to some games. (Any reason is a good reason to replay a good game, right?)
For those of you who are fortunate enough to get a Ryzen CPU, enjoy it. I hope I will be able to join you before too long.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Monday, February 20, 2017
A Little Late and Maybe a Little Political
A little late, but I remembered! What I've decided to write about might be considered political, but I'm not sure. Really it's just going to be me calling a proposal I recently heard about from Bill Gates stupid.
This proposal is to apply a tax on the use of robots used for automation in businesses. According to him this tax should be collected by governments so that it can be directed to programs that would help the elderly and at-need youth. Sounds nice, right? Plenty of things sound nice that end up doing harm and are stupid.
Okay, so let's change the wording a little bit: The proposal is to artificially increase the cost of labor, for certain types of businesses (manufacturing would make greater use of robots than, say, software development). This would also artificially make human hires more competitive, at least until cheaper robots are made until the tax can be made, then the robots win and there is a heavy political battle to not increase the tax, as small companies operating near their margin would be pushed into the red. Increasing costs doesn't hit the big and wealthy, it hits the small and medium. (Decreasing costs artificially also hit the small and medium, once the market corrects, which is what happened in 2009, so that is not a solution.)
That's the problem with trying to artificially increase costs of a type of product, is that eventually someone will find a way to make the product cheaper, and then you're left trying to increase the cost more or even stifle innovation.
Also, a source of cheap labor, like robots, is not really a bad thing. Yes some people will lose jobs, others will move into other positions, managing the robots, even managing new factories. So not every human would be hurt by this. Additionally, some will be able to take advantage of the cheap labor to start their own businesses using it, and assuming they have friends who lost their job, they could be brought in to work as well. Increase the cost of the robot labor, and this cannot happen.
It's the whole, innovation drives innovation concept that has been proven throughout history, naturally combined with human tenacity and desire for pride in work. Stifling it with artificial cost increases is far from a good idea.
On top of that, the idea to just use the government-collected tax to fund anything is a poor idea because those people who have to collect the tax, pass it on to those who distribute it, and then those who do distribute it all need to take a cut out of it, because, you know, they're doing work and deserve a paycheck.
So far we're seeing larger businesses successfully weather the tax while smaller will likely struggle with it, innovation either be stifled or limit undercut the success of the tax, and bureaucrats getting paychecks out of what is meant for the targeted elderly and youth. Unless you are a bureaucrat, or a large business wanting small out of the way, where is the benefit to this idea?
Now, if you actually want to do something to help prevent people from losing their jobs because the robots offer cheaper labor, figure out how to reduce the cost of living, because then the human labor can be less expensive and more competitive. Just don't do it artificially by subsidizing the cost of living, reduce the artificial costs that already increase the cost of living. It is harder to do, but it is the 'rising tides raise all ships' solution.
I think that's enough blathering on for now. (By the way, I'm just a guy, far less wealthy, and economically insulated, than Bill Gates, like most everyone on the planet.)
This proposal is to apply a tax on the use of robots used for automation in businesses. According to him this tax should be collected by governments so that it can be directed to programs that would help the elderly and at-need youth. Sounds nice, right? Plenty of things sound nice that end up doing harm and are stupid.
Okay, so let's change the wording a little bit: The proposal is to artificially increase the cost of labor, for certain types of businesses (manufacturing would make greater use of robots than, say, software development). This would also artificially make human hires more competitive, at least until cheaper robots are made until the tax can be made, then the robots win and there is a heavy political battle to not increase the tax, as small companies operating near their margin would be pushed into the red. Increasing costs doesn't hit the big and wealthy, it hits the small and medium. (Decreasing costs artificially also hit the small and medium, once the market corrects, which is what happened in 2009, so that is not a solution.)
That's the problem with trying to artificially increase costs of a type of product, is that eventually someone will find a way to make the product cheaper, and then you're left trying to increase the cost more or even stifle innovation.
Also, a source of cheap labor, like robots, is not really a bad thing. Yes some people will lose jobs, others will move into other positions, managing the robots, even managing new factories. So not every human would be hurt by this. Additionally, some will be able to take advantage of the cheap labor to start their own businesses using it, and assuming they have friends who lost their job, they could be brought in to work as well. Increase the cost of the robot labor, and this cannot happen.
It's the whole, innovation drives innovation concept that has been proven throughout history, naturally combined with human tenacity and desire for pride in work. Stifling it with artificial cost increases is far from a good idea.
On top of that, the idea to just use the government-collected tax to fund anything is a poor idea because those people who have to collect the tax, pass it on to those who distribute it, and then those who do distribute it all need to take a cut out of it, because, you know, they're doing work and deserve a paycheck.
So far we're seeing larger businesses successfully weather the tax while smaller will likely struggle with it, innovation either be stifled or limit undercut the success of the tax, and bureaucrats getting paychecks out of what is meant for the targeted elderly and youth. Unless you are a bureaucrat, or a large business wanting small out of the way, where is the benefit to this idea?
Now, if you actually want to do something to help prevent people from losing their jobs because the robots offer cheaper labor, figure out how to reduce the cost of living, because then the human labor can be less expensive and more competitive. Just don't do it artificially by subsidizing the cost of living, reduce the artificial costs that already increase the cost of living. It is harder to do, but it is the 'rising tides raise all ships' solution.
I think that's enough blathering on for now. (By the way, I'm just a guy, far less wealthy, and economically insulated, than Bill Gates, like most everyone on the planet.)
Sunday, February 5, 2017
A Fun Game to Watch
It isn't over yet, but the Super Bowl has been fun to watch so far. One advantage to not having 'your' team in it is how much easier it is to sit back, eat, and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)