by
May 20. 2016
0520 기사
1. http://media.daum.net/society/others/newsview?newsid=20160520035045216&RIGHT_REPLY=R9
서울·부산·대구·대전 등 도시 지하철을 운행하고 있는 지방자치단체들이 중앙 정부에 지하철 적자를 국비로 보전해주지 못하면 무임승차 연령을 만 65세에서 만 70세로 올려 줄 것을 요구한 것으로 확인됐다. 이에 따라 무임승차 연령 인상을 둘러싼 논란이 불가피할 전망이다.
지자체들은 이에 따라 정부의 복지정책인 무임정책의 지속적 실행을 위해서는 지하철의 무임손실에 대한 국비 지원이 반드시 필요하다고 건의했다. 만약 국비 지원이 어렵다면 무임 대상연령을 만 65세 이상에서 만 70세 이상으로 올려줄 것을 요구했다. 기대 수명 증가에 따라 30년 전 설정한 무임 대상 연령을 상향할 필요가 있다는 것. 현재 정부는 철도산업기본법에 따라 코레일의 무임손실 적자만 보전해주고 있으며, 지자체가 예산으로 부담해야 한다는 원칙을 견지하고 있다.
지자체에게만 짐을 떠넘기지 말자. 지자체 중에 서울시말고는 돈 많은 곳도 없다. 정부가 말을 하면, 지키든가 아니면 못지키겠다고 말을 하든가.
In short, no. Our own research suggests that many of those jobs are pretty much gone for good. And it has a lot to do with how the global economy works. Instead of hoping that firms eventually bring jobs back, the focus should be on developing a new type of worker with a skill set that takes advantage of the needs and reality of our increasingly globalized and networked economy.
Labor-cost advantages, increasing availability of qualified personnel abroad and advanced information and communication technology have made it attractive to create more jobs abroad rather than at home. Free trade agreements and the collapse of the Iron Curtain have also played a huge role. For example, estimates suggest that since 2001, 3.2 million jobs have been offshored from the U.S. to China alone.
In other words, companies like these doubled down on their global footprint while reducing their dependence on any one location, whether it is Egypt or the U.S., thus increasing their flexibility to deal with unexpected problems. This makes it even less likely they’ll bring those jobs home.
Therefore, old recipes, such as lowering corporate taxes, investing in infrastructure and technical training, will barely help the U.S. bring back old jobs. Nor will “building new walls” make the U.S. less dependent on foreign talent pools and expertise.
The focus instead needs to be on preparing a U.S. workforce for an economy that is increasingly globally connected.
기업의 해외진출은 거부할 수 없는 흐름. 단순히 비용절감이 아니라 세계 경제 변화에 유연하게 대처하는 능력을 키우기 위해서라도 바깥으로 진출한다. 해외 진출은 기업의 체질을 유연하게 바꾼다. 한 군데에서의 집중을 해소하고.. 문제 해결이 될 수도. 나간 기업에 아쉬워하지말고, 본국 노동자의 질을 올리는 게 가장 급선무라고.
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/opinion/the-real-bias-built-in-at-facebook.html?_r=0
But “surfaced by an algorithm” is not a defense of neutrality, because algorithms aren’t neutral.
On Facebook the goal is to maximize the amount of engagement you have with the site and keep the site ad-friendly. You can easily click on “like,” for example, but there is not yet a “this was a challenging but important story” button.
The newsfeed algorithm also values comments and sharing. All this suits content designed to generate either a sense of oversize delight or righteous outrage and go viral, hoaxes and conspiracies as well as baby pictures, happy announcements (that can be liked) and important news and discussions. Facebook’s own research shows that the choices its algorithm makes can influence people’s mood and even affect elections by shaping turnout.
Software giants would like us to believe their algorithms are objective and neutral, so they can avoid responsibility for their enormous power as gatekeepers while maintaining as large an audience as possible. Of course, traditional media organizations face similar pressures to grow audiences and host ads. At least, though, consumers know that the news media is not produced in some “neutral” way or above criticism, and a whole network — from media watchdogs to public editors — tries to hold those institutions accountable.
The first step forward is for Facebook, and anyone who uses algorithms in subjective decision making, to drop the pretense that they are neutral. Even Google, whose powerful ranking algorithm can decide the fate of companies, or politicians, by changing search results, defines its search algorithms as “computer programs that look for clues to give you back exactly what you want.”
But this is not just about what we want. What we are shown is shaped by these algorithms, which are shaped by what the companies want from us, and there is nothing neutral about that.
트렌딩 토픽은 작은 일. 어떤 피드가 탐라에 잘 노출되는지 결정하는 알고리즘도 편향성이 있다고. 당연한 이야기다. 알고리즘은 알고리즘이 '판단하기에' 우리가 좋아할 만한 이야기를 노출시키거든. 문제 해결은 문제를 인식하는 데에서 시작. 알고리즘이 중립적이란 환상부터 깨야.
4. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36326627
"This should help Google compete more effectively both with Amazon's Echo device but also with better-branded personal assistants like Siri, Cortana, and Alexa."
Facebook already has a smart chat app. Amazon already has a cool assistant you can talk to in the kitchen.
And Oculus and Samsung have the Gear VR, a smartphone-powered headset.
So, the task for Google is both straightforward and enormous. Do all that, just better than everyone else.
홈디바이스 중심인 아마존 에코와도 싸울 예정인 구글의 구글어시스턴트. 스마트폰을 넘어 집까지 들어오는 스마트인프라. 웨어러블은 거르고 집으로 오네
5. http://media.daum.net/society/all/newsview?newsid=20160520060108995&RIGHT_REPLY=R43
다 잡아 족쳐야.
