> Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements.
You must be joking. :) The spreadsheet is an enormous force multiplier. Email -when used for useful communication- often substantially reduces the time to close a decision making loop. You can point to telephones as a replacement for email, but telephone switches -themselves- have been computerized for many, many, many decades.
> If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment.
You appear to be talking as if I don't understand that the state of system security in the consumer electronics space is dire. I... kinda covered that in the comment to which you replied. There was no need to qualify your "Yes.". :)
(And yes, I do notice that you're not my original conversation partner.)
I was referring to the Solow productivity paradox: computerised technology certainly feels much more efficient, but in terms of the economic variable "productivity per person-hour" the difference is not as striking as expected.
The qualified yes was really a no: I believe that the market structure can't and won't deliver open, secure, interoperable devices in the forseeable future (say 10 years).
> The qualified yes was really a no: I believe that the market structure can't and won't deliver...
My hypothetical to which you replied was: "Assume that all IoT devices are secure and only exist to serve your interests, rather than the interests of a national intelligence agency or corporate overlord. Doesn't the ability to remotely monitor and control the devices that you own from any place of your choosing bring benefit to you directly, and -directly or indirectly- to society as a whole?".
I even took pains in my comment to mention that I recognised the wide gulf between the situation in my hypothetical and the abysmal state of consumer electronics security.
Now that you've been reminded of what my hypothetical question was, is your answer an unqualified yes, or an unqualified no? Remember that market forces don't apply here; these devices are correctly designed, implemented, secure, and only serve your interests.
> I was referring to the Solow productivity paradox: computerised technology certainly feels much more efficient, but in terms of the economic variable "productivity per person-hour"..
Ah. shrug
Good software to solve complex problems is often not easy. There are clearly areas where the proper application of computerized systems either save substantial amounts of time and effort, or let personnel more easily collect and digest the information required to do his job.
But, but, I'm on a desktop running an open, secure, interoperable device right now. Just migrate this software into a device, right? The capability of devices right now is comparable to desktop computers in the 90s. And way beyond what it took to put a man on the moon. So it'll fit, soon if not now.
You know, there've been a few months since the last article about bullshit jobs here. But it is still funny how people can now discuss the productivity paradox and nobody mentions it.
You must be joking. :) The spreadsheet is an enormous force multiplier. Email -when used for useful communication- often substantially reduces the time to close a decision making loop. You can point to telephones as a replacement for email, but telephone switches -themselves- have been computerized for many, many, many decades.
> If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment.
You appear to be talking as if I don't understand that the state of system security in the consumer electronics space is dire. I... kinda covered that in the comment to which you replied. There was no need to qualify your "Yes.". :)
(And yes, I do notice that you're not my original conversation partner.)