Cruz’s margin (and how different it was from polling) is a shock! This was a systematic miss, I’m curious to learn the root cause once someone investigates that difference… What significant portion of the electorate was missed?

I feel like we heard this same sentiment 4 years ago, and yet here we are.

Exposed isn’t accurate… everyone who is paying attention and cares knew this. But sadly most Texas Republicans either aren’t paying attention or don’t care (or both).

60% Local; 30% All; 10% Subscribed (still building out my subscribed list)

I enjoy her series; as well as the “What’s Eating Dan” one. The regular ATK show is okay; it’s still quality content, but the delivery feels too fake for me.

Use a secret manager?

Cert is a secret, add a small agent to your containers that pings your secret manager and gets back the current cert. Then saves / imports it (or whatever is appropriate).

This is not job openings, these are net new hires (all new hires minus all job quits / layoffs / retirements / whatever).

But, it’s not spread evenly by sector or geography. There are still areas with net losses.

So if the difference is corporate consolidation… Sounds like that’s the real underlying issue then, not automation.

Economics has well established that monopolistic behavior by firms harms consumers & the overall economy (that’s why we have anti-trust laws in the first place).

Don’t conflate the one problem with another, as I agree the erosion of anti-trust laws is a bad thing and needs to be reversed. But that doesn’t mean firms further automating things is now also bad.

I’d also say “automation affecting the whole economy at once” isn’t unique. The industrial revolution was not isolated to one industry, its effects were economy-wide. Also true for the transportation revolution (trains & steam boats moved everything), telecommunications, and the internet…

If you’re not aware, look up the automation paradox: https://ideas.ted.com/will-automation-take-away-all-our-jobs/

Every* automation advancement has lead to an increase in employment, not decrease. Most often jobs in the immediate sector are lost, but the rise in supporting sector jobs are bolstered.

Classic examples are the cotton mill and combine harvester. The number of agricultural workers declined, but the number of jobs processing agricultural product increased. Or with ATMs, the number of tellers needed per bank location decreased, but the total employment in the banking sector increased (banks opened more branches, namely in places where it was previously cost prohibitive).

As more things are automated, what’s being automated becomes cheaper and more prolific, often increasing (or creating) new opportunities. There are so many historic examples of this, it’s hard to justify “this time is different” predictions… Even for things like AI automating white collar jobs.

*Edit: almost every. It depends a bit on how you count the secondary jobs, and where those are located (automation combined with offshoring results in a net decline in some countries, but increase overall).

A photo op that would be so easy to arrange…

Check out Fez if you haven’t already. Also Tunic does a great job of starting out basic & breaking precedent.