Truck carrying secured Apple payload crashes in San Jose, killing one

Posted:
in General Discussion
A box truck carrying "a very special load" for Apple reportedly crashed on Highway 101 in San Jose on the morning of Jan. 9, injuring one man and killing another, 64-year-old Richard Bartolo.

Fatal Apple truck crash


The two are retired police officers and were armed to protect themselves, according to an NBC Bay Area source. The survivor was the driver, who said he fell asleep at the wheel shortly after 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday while driving north out of Los Angeles. Bartolo was asleep in the back of the cabin.

"There are a lot of questions that still remain open, which is why we are continuing the investigation," said a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, Ross Lee. He did note that the drivers kept a mandatory log and appears to have adhered to rest schedules mandated by law.

NBC cited several sources in saying that the victims were working for SIS Security and transporting "secret" Apple cargo. Apple neither confirmed nor denied that it owned the contents of the vehicle.

While the truck was presumably heading toward Apple Park or 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino, the company keeps virtually all of its research projects under a shroud, even minor hardware updates. The company is known to be working on self-driving car technology, and is likely building an augmented reality headset.

AppleInsider's sources inside Apple not authorized to speak on behalf of the company believe that the vehicle was under Apple contract at the time, but refused comment on possible contents. We have learned that the company that employed the drivers, SIS Security, does the vast majority of Apple's land-based secure transport, ranging from the mundane like shredded document disposal, to prototype device transport. It does not appear that anything has been stolen from the mostly unladen but not empty vehicle, and no foul play is suspected.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
  • Reply 2 of 22
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    In principle I would like to see self driving cars, but in practice I won't support the idea until the computer becomes as smart about human life issues as an 18 year old. Right now I'm guessing that self driving cars have the intelligence of a 6 year old. Which is impressive.
    welshdogwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 22
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,378member
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    ronn
  • Reply 4 of 22
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 211unconfirmed, member
    Apples fault. They mistreat their employees and kill cops.

    /s
  • Reply 5 of 22
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   


    If the only thing that happens from the arrival of self-driving trucks is to piss off the Teamsters, then that's already a good enough reason.

    There are numerous benefits to self-driving vehicles (trucks being one of them). Fewer accidents (bringing fewer injuries/deaths), reduced emissions/pollution, reduced shipping costs for all the companies that need to move goods and reduced highway congestion.

    Put people out of work? I heard this doom & gloom story way back when personal computers just started coming out. Suddenly accountants and other office staff were going to be out of work and there would be massive unemployment when they were replaced by computers. How did that turn out? While there's no doubt some jobs were lost, how many millions of new jobs exist because of the PC industry? Before the personal computer there was always some other piece of technology or equipment that was going to cause massive unemployment by automating tasks that once required a human to do. I don't see this as any different. Some jobs will be lost and other new ones will be created. I can't stand when people use the threat of massive job loss to try and prevent new technology from being adopted.
    auxiofastasleepradarthekatMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 22
    Doesn't have to be self-driving but should include safety lane keeping and braking systems. And the ability to detect near-future problems like pedestrians and stupid drivers. And detect sleeping drivers or inattentive drivers and best of all worlds pull to the side of the road.
    macguiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 22
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,945member
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.
    Having a people before profits mindset myself, I used to think this way.  However, if you take a look at the entirety of human history, you'll find that the type of jobs required in every age simply change based on the needs of and advancements in society.  No one is going to argue these days that we need to bring back manual labour jobs such as ploughing fields or harvesting crops, which disappeared with the advent of machines which could perform those tasks.  And it's not like jobs just magically disappear.  You still need people to build, maintain, and operate those machines.  It's simply that the types of jobs needed change.

    I get that it's a tough thing to hear if you work in those fields.  Heck, I already see that some of the tasks I do in my daily job have been automated.  One day all of them might be automated and I'll have to figure out what else I can do.  Hopefully that doesn't happen before I retire/stop working, but there's no guarantee of anything in life.
    fastasleepradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 22
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,945member

    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    If the only thing that happens from the arrival of self-driving trucks is to piss off the Teamsters, then that's already a good enough reason.
    And now I'm going to argue the opposite side of the coin.  My father was a manual labourer who worked in road construction and lived through a period where there were literally no rights for people in that line of work.  For example, you'd travel out to the middle of nowhere to work, but if it happened to rain for a week and you weren't able to do the job guess what... you didn't get paid (but yet you were stuck out there with living expenses).  Eventually a labour union was formed and they negotiated that road construction companies must pay living expenses for employees who need to travel for work.

    Despite all of the propaganda to the contrary, there are reasons why labour unions exist for certain lines of work (even if the management at the head of some unions has become self-serving).  But It's certainly not to prevent change from happening in the job market.  It's to ensure that, when a job is required, the person who performs that job is compensated fairly and has rights.  For jobs which require a higher level of skill/training (demand is higher than supply), you typically don't need a union because the worker has enough bargaining power to ensure this.  But for jobs which don't (supply is higher than demand), that's where exploitative situations can arise (and have throughout human history).
    edited January 11 gatorguyradarthekatblurpbleepbloopnhtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 22
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    In principle I would like to see self driving cars, but in practice I won't support the idea until the computer becomes as smart about human life issues as an 18 year old. Right now I'm guessing that self driving cars have the intelligence of a 6 year old. Which is impressive.
    Siri is approximately 9 years old.
    She will be driving before her 16th birthday.
    LordeHawkradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 22
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    Oh no! Think of the workers! Lets start smashing print presses while we're at it!
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 22
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    In principle I would like to see self driving cars, but in practice I won't support the idea until the computer becomes as smart about human life issues as an 18 year old. Right now I'm guessing that self driving cars have the intelligence of a 6 year old. Which is impressive.
    Siri is approximately 9 years old.
    She will be driving before her 16th birthday.
    For the love of God never let Siri drive... "Hey Siri, turn left after the bridge." "Ok, turning left off the bridge"...
    edited January 11 radarthekatSpamSandwichmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 22
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    First they came for the buggy whip makers, and I said nothing ...
    edited January 11 radarthekatburnsidewatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 22
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,898moderator
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    A self-driving (SD) vehicle that gets cut off may react better than a human-driven vehicle in the same situation.  It may be able to react far faster than human reaction speed, and it will certainly record the incident from multiple sensors.  It’ll be the driver who cut off the SD vehicle who will be to blame in your scenario. 

    The world will not remain idle.  There are close to 200 countries, so any one, even the United States, will not hold back the eventual transition to SD vehicles.  Better to lead than to be left behind.  And the transition will be gradual, like the proverbial boiling frog.  All those 1.4 million US truckers will not be out of work all at once.  Early on, some will find their careers bolstered by being selected as in-truck pilots, monitoring the functioning of the SD truck and standing by to take control.  They may each travel a single shift with a truck, then sleep and take another truck in the opposite direction, so their job will take them away from home for shorter periods.  The truck itself will continue on down the road, 24/7, picking up a new pilot at the end of the last pilot’s shift.  It’ll be a long time before the roads are exclusively travelled by SD vehicles, time perhaps for a generatIon of truckers to retire while the next generation finds work in other fields or in augmented roles within the trucking sector. 
    edited January 11 fastasleep
  • Reply 14 of 22
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,898moderator

    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    First they came for the buggy whip makers, and I said nothing ...
    How will the horses earn their feed?  
    burnside
  • Reply 15 of 22
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,835member
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    I'd suggest you read about the Luddites. 
  • Reply 16 of 22
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    In principle I would like to see self driving cars, but in practice I won't support the idea until the computer becomes as smart about human life issues as an 18 year old. Right now I'm guessing that self driving cars have the intelligence of a 6 year old. Which is impressive.
    Siri is approximately 9 years old.
    She will be driving before her 16th birthday.
    Hope not because "she" still doesn't know the latitude of Madrid, Spain.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,638member
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   

    I think that for trucks, there will always be humans on board any autonomous vehicle. The final destination will almost always require a human touch. Like backing into a loading dock, parking in a specific place not known to the computer system etc. Seems the benefits for large trucks will mostly be on the long highway runs, not crowded city conditions. Like a lot of predictions about automation, the claims of "eliminating" humans from the process is probably wishful thinking.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   


    If the only thing that happens from the arrival of self-driving trucks is to piss off the Teamsters, then that's already a good enough reason.

    There are numerous benefits to self-driving vehicles (trucks being one of them). Fewer accidents (bringing fewer injuries/deaths), reduced emissions/pollution, reduced shipping costs for all the companies that need to move goods and reduced highway congestion.

    Put people out of work? I heard this doom & gloom story way back when personal computers just started coming out. Suddenly accountants and other office staff were going to be out of work and there would be massive unemployment when they were replaced by computers. How did that turn out? While there's no doubt some jobs were lost, how many millions of new jobs exist because of the PC industry? Before the personal computer there was always some other piece of technology or equipment that was going to cause massive unemployment by automating tasks that once required a human to do. I don't see this as any different. Some jobs will be lost and other new ones will be created. I can't stand when people use the threat of massive job loss to try and prevent new technology from being adopted.
    I agree that it's counter-productive to resist technological change. I also think it's pointless. However, I don't share your dismissive view of its effects.

    One example with which I'm personally familiar is live broadcasting. As recently as five years ago, the technical side of putting a local newscast on the air required six to ten people. Developments in broadcast automation have reduced that number to one, and that one now handles shows for multiple cities. Ignore for now how one person being responsible for the same number of tasks that used to have the attention of ten brains results in exponentially greater workplace stress, increased errors, and diminished quality. Consider only that the change results in a LOT of bodies flooding the market.

    When an industry mass-dumps personnel, there's a glut of people vying for positions in related fields. Those related fields are also applying their own workforce reduction strategies, further compounding the problem. It's easy to say "Just retrain for a new career," but it ignores practical realities. Going back to school when you already have a family, mortgage, and car payments isn't a viable option. And retrain for what? Where are the growth industries for employment?

    We're rapidly approaching, or may have already reached, a point at which society has more worker bees available than there are hives. What do we do with all the people we no longer need to keep the machinery running? We obviously aren't going to suppress technological advancement to protect the jobs it makes obsolete, but we better figure out how we're going to function as a society as we progress towards fewer and fewer people having a regular income.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 19 of 22
    zoetmb said:
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    Sure.  Let's put more people out of work just to increase profits and to give tech types an erection.  It's bad enough that we already have those double trucks on highways.

    We already have people attacking self-driving vehicles.    What's going to happen when idiots start cutting off self-driving trucks just to see if they can cause an accident?   The truck will either have to slam on its brakes which could result in a rear-end collision or it might swerve into another lane, which could also cause a serious accident.

    The Teamsters Union has 1.4 million members.   Do you really think they're not going to react when they start losing jobs to self-driving trucks?

    And even though human-driven trucks get into plenty of accidents, including some incredibly stupid ones, like shearling off the top because they went through an overpass tunnel that was too low for the truck, there will be far more emotion associated with accidents caused by self-driving vehicles.   As soon as there are more than a few deaths, politicians will start pushing for bans in local areas because it's an issue that's easy to understand and is very populist.    I can see the demonstrators now:  "No Self-Driving Trucks Around Our Kids!" regardless of whether self-driving trucks have better accident records than human-driven trucks.  

    And as far as this driver was concerned, if he fell asleep at 3am while driving, I don't care what's in his log book, he obviously didn't get enough rest.   


    If the only thing that happens from the arrival of self-driving trucks is to piss off the Teamsters, then that's already a good enough reason.

    There are numerous benefits to self-driving vehicles (trucks being one of them). Fewer accidents (bringing fewer injuries/deaths), reduced emissions/pollution, reduced shipping costs for all the companies that need to move goods and reduced highway congestion.

    Put people out of work? I heard this doom & gloom story way back when personal computers just started coming out. Suddenly accountants and other office staff were going to be out of work and there would be massive unemployment when they were replaced by computers. How did that turn out? While there's no doubt some jobs were lost, how many millions of new jobs exist because of the PC industry? Before the personal computer there was always some other piece of technology or equipment that was going to cause massive unemployment by automating tasks that once required a human to do. I don't see this as any different. Some jobs will be lost and other new ones will be created. I can't stand when people use the threat of massive job loss to try and prevent new technology from being adopted.
    I agree that it's counter-productive to resist technological change. I also think it's pointless. However, I don't share your dismissive view of its effects.

    One example with which I'm personally familiar is live broadcasting. As recently as five years ago, the technical side of putting a local newscast on the air required six to ten people. Developments in broadcast automation have reduced that number to one, and that one now handles shows for multiple cities. Ignore for now how one person being responsible for the same number of tasks that used to have the attention of ten brains results in exponentially greater workplace stress, increased errors, and diminished quality. Consider only that the change results in a LOT of bodies flooding the market.

    When an industry mass-dumps personnel, there's a glut of people vying for positions in related fields. Those related fields are also applying their own workforce reduction strategies, further compounding the problem. It's easy to say "Just retrain for a new career," but it ignores practical realities. Going back to school when you already have a family, mortgage, and car payments isn't a viable option. And retrain for what? Where are the growth industries for employment?

    We're rapidly approaching, or may have already reached, a point at which society has more worker bees available than there are hives. What do we do with all the people we no longer need to keep the machinery running? We obviously aren't going to suppress technological advancement to protect the jobs it makes obsolete, but we better figure out how we're going to function as a society as we progress towards fewer and fewer people having a regular income.
    Right now, the US is in the tightest job market in 50 years. I think anyone who really wants a job (maybe not in the same industry they left) can get a job.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,109member
    krreagan2 said:
    Auto drive can't come early enough! Especially for the long haul truckers!
    In principle I would like to see self driving cars, but in practice I won't support the idea until the computer becomes as smart about human life issues as an 18 year old. Right now I'm guessing that self driving cars have the intelligence of a 6 year old. Which is impressive.
    They don't have any intelligence.
Sign In or Register to comment.