I think that's a side effect of the modern expectation that everyone move cross country on a dime if it makes sense economically. Kinda hard to figure out ecological best practices when families can barely stick around for a generation and people constantly move into areas they're just not familiar or comfortable with.
It takes a long time for best practices to become accepted and normal, and there just isn't the geneological inertia to develop that anymore
I think it predated that in that it occured with even slow "colonization" (regardless of it being occupied or not) but that is a good point. Expectations shape it first.
Keep in mind that they might only get a room, but it's probably a pretty damn big room. And otherwise nice.
Not sure I'd take that tradeoff at my current age, but considering I lived in a shoebox with a shared bathroom during College for maybe 3/4 the price post-inflation, I'd have taken it in a heartbeat.
The nice thing is that they're at least moving those people out of the lower tiers of housing.
If someone can afford $5000 a month for rent, I'd prefer they compete for mansions that would otherwise remain vacant than townhomes which might otherwise go to people who can only afford $2000 a month.
One of the things I think is under-discussed (although the article does touch on this) is that this is another move to take customers from buyers to renters. It used to be that customers bought things, and then they owned them - games included.
Now, we've removed legal "ownership" basically entirely, as well as physical "ownership" when dealing with online stores when it comes to video games. This would take that a step further - now you don't even own the hardware producing your content - instead you'll likely need to pay an ongoing fee for access, as well as probably a fee for content.
Not sure it really makes sense to fix a lack of people with something that's extremely labor intensive (at least up front). Not to mention, getting robots to be cheap requires a really highly advanced society, which requires a lot of people and a lot of time.
That said, it'd be interesting to see at what point or under what conditions a robot's total labor output exceeds it's total labor input (including watching it, debugging, programming, etc)
> the technology in which they are an expert is obsolete
A lot of the principles, idioms, patterns, and instincts experts pick up transcend technology. Sure, they won't be able to optimize a framework they've never interacted with, and some bugs will probably require a trip to stack overflow, but they know how different pieces fit together, where to go for help, what it looks like when something isn't working, best practices for avoiding a huge catastrophe, and - probably most importantly - the wetware people skills required to get things done and done right.
Being a master software engineer, in other words, has almost nothing to do with the particulars of the software.
When I was working with a react code base, there are a lot of brittle and bloated components, which didn't follow React idioms at all. Make a lot of data flow out of sync.
It turns out there are a lot of senior programmers use their experiences from Java or other background to build things. They've read some redux docs, but they refuse to use follow those idioms just because it looks weird.
I don't about master software engineers. But I see front-end development or WebSocket programming differs from plain old stateless HTTP back-end programming because there's a major partaway from request response programming model. For those scenario even typical hexagon pure domain model starts to falling apart, because the model is simply not reactive.
I've been listening to the Revolutions podcast recently, and I'm currently in the post-french-revolution series of European revolutions. Kinda funny - France tried setting up some guaranteed-work promises and implemented them through a series of National Workshops, where you could theoretically show up, do some labor for the country, and go home after a full day with subsistence wages.
Of course, the people proposing/pushing for the idea and the people implementing the idea did not share a lot of membership, so the implementers put a person deeply opposed to the project in charge. Of course, no projects of use got approved, most of the projects that did get approved were obviously pointless and tedious, and they were constantly thousands of jobs short or what was needed to employ everyone who wanted work anyway.
So yeah, that's why we have the "digging and filling holes" analogy for useless make-work. Ideas are fine and all, but it doesn't matter for shit if you have an antagonist implementing them.
It takes a long time for best practices to become accepted and normal, and there just isn't the geneological inertia to develop that anymore