9 ms·

I think this is what worries me about the "mainstream" debate that might be incorrectly framing the whole problem altogether. Here, the rise of the gig economy

by xster 7y ago

I think this is what worries me about the "mainstream" debate that might be incorrectly framing the whole problem altogether. Here, the rise of the gig economy came from automation. Not in the caricature sense that there are robot automatons that serve your plates in a restaurant, but in a sense that scalable automated processes replaced human dispatchers that answers your phone calls at the taxi companies and radios drivers to pick you up, and automated processes that replaced taxi drivers wandering around aimlessly on the street trying to pick people up. Here we get higher productivity but it's also a powerful hegemonizing, monopolizing, wealth concentrating force where the controllers of these automated processes, which scales globally at low cost, can skim value-add (that used to be done by more people with jobs) from the transportation and other needs everywhere. But the solution isn't to break them up and for society to become unproductive and un-automated again by forcing minimum wage, health insurance, guaranteed menial jobs etc. Whether we like it or not, taxi radio dispatchers is never coming back as a mainstream job that can be the bedrock of local communities again. Instead, we need to start having discussions now about the fundamental way how we structure human society in a world where more and more of this planet's 'productivity' is concentrating more and more in the hands of those who produce the AI automations. This is nothing short of answering the question of why we're alive. Right now, our sense of purpose comes from trading our muscular and mental power during life on this planet for GDP. If that's the metric, our muscular and mental powers' productivity vs AI will lose (maybe in 5 years, maybe in 10 years), and by implication, we lose our purpose for living. We need to stop pretending there is an artificial scarcity of productivity and change the purpose of life. This is a Sanders vs Yang timeline of solving the problems we need to solve in the next 5 years vs solving the problems we need to solve in the next 20 years.

ilaksh 7y ago
The solution is to replace the monopoly companies with public decentralized protocols that will enable a large shared network of customers to be serviced by a competing field of companies that plug into it.
- xster 7y ago
  That's still a classic Sanders vs Yang mentality to the problem. I'm not saying that the public forcing more competition isn't good, but it's orthogonal. If we broke Uber into 1000 Uberlets, it still doesn't change that their only path out is still to be first in replacing all drivers with AI. As pro union, pro minimum wage, pro health benefit, pro 3 day weekend as I am, taxi driver jobs are still not coming back. There just aren't going to be sustainable mining towns or fishing towns or trucker stop towns. This doesn't answer the humanity in 2050 question. And we need to start answering that question now.
  - ilaksh 7y ago
    There are a few decades between then and now. In 2050 your job will be automated also.
- core-questions 7y ago
  This is the longest-winded name for a "free market" that I've ever heard
core-questions 7y ago
> more and more of this planet's 'productivity' is concentrating more and more in the hands of those who produce the AI automations. Sometimes I think folks who think like this really need to get outside more. Yes, a lot of things are being automated, but (a) consider the janky quality of automation, because it's really not mature yet even in purely-software environments where everything can be controlled, and (b) consider the raw cost of doing it vs. the productivity savings and side effects. It's just not worth it for a lot of things and won't be until we have general-purpose AI and general-purpose robotic workers that can take on human-scale jobs. Even then, it might still be cheaper to get actual people in a lot of cases. But even if so: as someone who implements something you might call automation, like most here, I have to ask: why is it exactly that I should owe a massive amount of my economic output to those who aren't outputting anything? At what point do I simply say "fuck it" and stop working too, because some ridiculous percentage of my income has to be applied towards feeding those who won't/can't/don't do anything productive?
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  And exactly how is the output of an automated system "your output"? The output of setting up an automated system is, the automated system. The output of that system is, surely an interesting question at least.
- xster 7y ago
  > Sometimes I think folks who think like this really need to get outside more. Yes, a lot of things are being automated, but (a) consider the janky quality of automation, because it's really not mature yet even in purely-software environments where everything can be controlled, and (b) consider the raw cost of doing it vs. the productivity savings and side effects. It's just not worth it for a lot of things and won't be until we have general-purpose AI and general-purpose robotic workers that can take on human-scale jobs. Even then, it might still be cheaper to get actual people in a lot of cases. I think that's the general mental mismatch that people have when thinking there's a 1:1 match between the present human job and the future 'robot job'. Cashiers is the most common job in America and the biggest job loss to automation in the coming years. But it's not some Boston Dynamics humanoid fumbling your quarters around. Nor does it have anything to do with general-intelligence AI. It's simply the task specific orange forklift bots in Amazon warehouses that's wiping out American retail because with that bot, stuff on Amazon is a bit cheaper than in malls. > But even if so: as someone who implements something you might call automation, like most here, I have to ask: why is it exactly that I should owe a massive amount of my economic output to those who aren't outputting anything? At what point do I simply say "fuck it" and stop working too, because some ridiculous percentage of my income has to be applied towards feeding those who won't/can't/don't do anything productive? I think that's the core question. Why are you giving away your hard earned money to feeding your child? There is no GDP output from the child.
conductr 7y ago
I’m not convinced this is even on the list of things that need to considered in the next 5 years. If we triage “the problems” this is take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning. Climate, healthcare, immigration, requires focus to fix correctly
Thorentis 7y ago
Yep, this is a fascinating (and scary) thing to think about. What will happen to a society where every single person has their basic needs met by some form of automation, and nobody needs to work? I would say most first world countries are already in this scenario if so much money wasn't spent on non essentials. Industrial scale farming, mass produced pharmaceuticals, rapid house construction etc. mean that if a society wanted, you could have 10% of the population providing for the 90% (an inversion of what was the case for most of human history). There is no precedent or example from history to show us what this will do to society. How will humans cope with not actually needing to do anything? I personally envisage a Matrix like scenario where this societal change will also usher in advances in VR and related tech. People may spend most of their time engrossed in entertainment, until eventually, they see no need to participate in the real world at all.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >What will happen to a society where every single person has their basic needs met by some form of automation, and nobody needs to work? Those who control the "means of automation" (robot factories, power stations, etc) --let's say 0.01%--, will rule over the rest, in gated communities and closed enclaves. A small percentage of the population will live alongside them, in B-rated residences, to provide them services that, either still need humans or are better done by humans (e.g. sex), or its considered "classier" to have humans do for you (e.g. cooking). Let's say that's a 10%. The rest 90% will be left to rot in urban and suburban slums, develop their own black economy, and shot on sight when they dare enter the rich areas. https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1784786616 https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1784786616 https://www.amazon.com/City-Quartz-Excavating-Future-Angeles/dp/1844675688 https://www.amazon.com/City-Quartz-Excavating-Future-Angeles...
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    Will be left? Come on down to New Orleans and take a tour of Peter Thiel’s cameras!
  - wedn3sday 7y ago
    The irony of your amazon links at the bottom of the rant is delicious. Given the pessimism of your comment (not saying its wrong), Im surprised you didn't factor in how much the rich will invest in sex robots. Imagine if Bezos invested the same amount he's going to lose in the divorce settlement into human-like robotics. Brothels are illegal in much of the western world, but the first person to put $1bn into the sexbot industry will clean up, no laws against fucking a toaster!
Decathect 7y ago
Wealth is accruing to people with power and capital. The people who produce automations are laborers like the rest of society, just with a temporarily elevated standard of living. As writing software is deskilled and supplanted, it'll be increasingly apparent that we were just a midterm necessary evil to the people signing our paychecks. To me, the central problem is wealth disparity as a proxy for power disparity: our democratic government is more than capable of addressing our ongoing needs and desires if not for the overwhelming, unjust, and unearned influence of the wealthy. This is why I think Sanders has the correct prescription and Yang is naive: the solution isn't a policy or set of policies to fix specific problems, no matter how farsighted, it's restructuring our political system to be solely answerable to people who it feigns to represent.
- xster 7y ago
  Right (and slightly orthogonal, back to the mode of production topic), I think we can treat it in 2 ways: 1- We recognize this Bonds villain plan, we stop it and go back to our happy pastural life and everyone lives happily ever after; or 2- We grant ourselves this new productivity as a reward that frees us from labor (but in the process have to answer the hard question of how to deal with going from solving the conflict between the 1% and the 99% to solving the conflict between the 0.0001% and the 99.9999%)
  - sprafa 7y ago
    The thing is this beautiful new freedom from labour is also freeing us from subsistence. I see it all over London where I am - there’s now a permanent underclass with no chance of getting up in the social ladder because they are doing jobs such as cleaning, maintenance, baristas... stuff that requires no specialised skills but most importantly will never allow you to pay for your children’s way into higher education. Thus I fear we are permanently removing 30-40% and increasing numbers from the social ladder. If we keep automating everything and capital gets to own the cloud processing power that allows for it, and we “rent everything” as some people are predicting, what the hell earning power will anyone have unless they work in AI or programming new things to automate?
  - 7y ago
clairity 7y ago
this kind of thinking so vastly underestimates the creative capacity of humans and the amazing nimbleness of the invisible hand, not to mention the sheer vastness of existence itself. humans will work on other, bigger, more varied, and more complex problems. we have not solved the universe yet, let alone understand even the basic workings of biochemical machinery. there is a crap ton of things we can apply our mental capacity to. we've had this kind of worry since at least the industrial revolution, and somehow we're all still working, despite unprecedented productivity and an order of magnitude more people. UBI is a patronizing and elitist social welfare pipe dream to address a problem that doesn't exist. as silly as 'social media influencers' may be, they're an apt example of how the world changes in unexpected ways to accomodate the ambitions of some of the billions of people on this earth with active brains and pumping hearts.
- dpau 7y ago
  i agree with you in spirit. but as it stands, whether due to genetics, upbringing, education, social class and/or opportunity, the vast majority of humans are not capable of creatively working on those complex problems and never will be no matter how much retraining they are provided. UBI is a solution for this increasing large proportion of humanity. (which i, as a developer, will join soon enough.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- xster 7y ago
  Ya, rereading what I wrote, I might have missed a part of what I was trying to address. I don't think anyone is proposing that humans then do nothing and watch VR porn while being tube fed for the rest of their lives. There is indeed an infinite amount of things left to do. The question is given this 'initial condition' where everyone is where they are currently in 2019, who does that work. Is it the 56 year old truck driver who's now 100k in the hole for the truck he bought that's now useless with automated trucks and who's using his disability benefits to feed his opiate problems from the painkillers he needed for his back from all the hours in the truck? If he's not the guy we're putting in CERN trying to demonstrate the next Higgs field interaction, what do we do with him?
anon1m0us 7y ago
Adam Smith addressed this in "The Wealth of Nations." The coal furnace door opening children all got fired when one of them discovered they could tie the door handle to the piston and open the door automatically for the coal shovelers. This isn't an AI problem. This is an owner vs. employee problem. Advances in technology accrue to the owners at the expense of the employee. This always happens because employees sign over rights to their innovations to the employer in exchange for a short term need for money. Most people never take the time or spend the money to invest in themselves.
- mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  Whatever your opinion of college is, last I checked people are still treating it as an investment in themselves.
hos234 7y ago
> change the purpose of life We are not sophisticated enough to get roads fixed and keep the water supply clean. Long way to go. Don't fall for people who tell you it can happen faster, until they have fixed the roads and cleaned the water in one town.
- JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
  If the economic incentive was there, we would have fixed roads and clean water supply, it's a solved problem, it's just not scaled across all of society because it costs $$$. The argument being made is that the drivers of loss of jobs are progress, and the jobs being created as a result of this are not going equitably towards the people displaced. The purpose of life argument isn't saying that you will have clean water and fixed roads when AI automates you out of the job, it's the opposite - you won't have a fixed road or clean water because you don't matter. The money ain't near you or your run-down, economically irrelevant, town.
  - hos234 7y ago
    If it's a solved problem show me the fixed roads and clean water and I will buy what you are selling. Do it in one town. There is no need to debate and discuss anything more if you have proof for the simplest case.
    - JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
      You want me to show you a road that has been fixed and a water supply that is clean? I mean, look at any major city with significant wealth? I don't understand your argument at all. It's unrelated to people being automated out of a job and the structure of our society changing. We aren't going towards a utopia where everything is perfect, we are talking about a stumbling forward into the unknown, all our crummy parts bolted onto us.
      - hos234 7y ago
        I was responding to your framing things as a choice between a 5 year time frame Vs a 20 time frame. How can anyone asses without proof a 5 year time frame is possible? So I said don't fall for people who claim they can do things fast without asking for proof. Otherwise anyone can claim anything is possible by tomorrow.
sedachv 7y ago
> But the solution isn't to break them up and for society to become unproductive and un-automated again by forcing minimum wage, health insurance, guaranteed menial jobs etc. I don't know if you know anything about 1990s-early 2000s artificial intelligence research, but the vision of the future back then was artificial agents communicating through standardized protocols to negotiate for goods and services.[1] So, a decentralized dispatching system. What you are saying is false dichotomy monopolist propaganda. There is no technical reason why the only choice is between Uber and manual dispatching. [1] I spent a few summers as a research assistant working on multi-agent systems. Feel free to object with "but, it's not technically feasible because X, Y, Z." I can probably refute most technical reasons and provide a good explanation.

by xster 7y ago

ilaksh 7y ago

The solution is to replace the monopoly companies with public decentralized protocols that will enable a large shared network of customers to be serviced by a competing field of companies that plug into it.

xster 7y ago
That's still a classic Sanders vs Yang mentality to the problem. I'm not saying that the public forcing more competition isn't good, but it's orthogonal. If we broke Uber into 1000 Uberlets, it still doesn't change that their only path out is still to be first in replacing all drivers with AI. As pro union, pro minimum wage, pro health benefit, pro 3 day weekend as I am, taxi driver jobs are still not coming back. There just aren't going to be sustainable mining towns or fishing towns or trucker stop towns. This doesn't answer the humanity in 2050 question. And we need to start answering that question now.
- ilaksh 7y ago
  There are a few decades between then and now. In 2050 your job will be automated also.
core-questions 7y ago
This is the longest-winded name for a "free market" that I've ever heard

core-questions 7y ago

> more and more of this planet's 'productivity' is concentrating more and more in the hands of those who produce the AI automations. Sometimes I think folks who think like this really need to get outside more. Yes, a lot of things are being automated, but (a) consider the janky quality of automation, because it's really not mature yet even in purely-software environments where everything can be controlled, and (b) consider the raw cost of doing it vs. the productivity savings and side effects. It's just not worth it for a lot of things and won't be until we have general-purpose AI and general-purpose robotic workers that can take on human-scale jobs. Even then, it might still be cheaper to get actual people in a lot of cases. But even if so: as someone who implements something you might call automation, like most here, I have to ask: why is it exactly that I should owe a massive amount of my economic output to those who aren't outputting anything? At what point do I simply say "fuck it" and stop working too, because some ridiculous percentage of my income has to be applied towards feeding those who won't/can't/don't do anything productive?

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
And exactly how is the output of an automated system "your output"? The output of setting up an automated system is, the automated system. The output of that system is, surely an interesting question at least.
xster 7y ago
> Sometimes I think folks who think like this really need to get outside more. Yes, a lot of things are being automated, but (a) consider the janky quality of automation, because it's really not mature yet even in purely-software environments where everything can be controlled, and (b) consider the raw cost of doing it vs. the productivity savings and side effects. It's just not worth it for a lot of things and won't be until we have general-purpose AI and general-purpose robotic workers that can take on human-scale jobs. Even then, it might still be cheaper to get actual people in a lot of cases. I think that's the general mental mismatch that people have when thinking there's a 1:1 match between the present human job and the future 'robot job'. Cashiers is the most common job in America and the biggest job loss to automation in the coming years. But it's not some Boston Dynamics humanoid fumbling your quarters around. Nor does it have anything to do with general-intelligence AI. It's simply the task specific orange forklift bots in Amazon warehouses that's wiping out American retail because with that bot, stuff on Amazon is a bit cheaper than in malls. > But even if so: as someone who implements something you might call automation, like most here, I have to ask: why is it exactly that I should owe a massive amount of my economic output to those who aren't outputting anything? At what point do I simply say "fuck it" and stop working too, because some ridiculous percentage of my income has to be applied towards feeding those who won't/can't/don't do anything productive? I think that's the core question. Why are you giving away your hard earned money to feeding your child? There is no GDP output from the child.

conductr 7y ago

I’m not convinced this is even on the list of things that need to considered in the next 5 years. If we triage “the problems” this is take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning. Climate, healthcare, immigration, requires focus to fix correctly

Thorentis 7y ago

Yep, this is a fascinating (and scary) thing to think about. What will happen to a society where every single person has their basic needs met by some form of automation, and nobody needs to work? I would say most first world countries are already in this scenario if so much money wasn't spent on non essentials. Industrial scale farming, mass produced pharmaceuticals, rapid house construction etc. mean that if a society wanted, you could have 10% of the population providing for the 90% (an inversion of what was the case for most of human history). There is no precedent or example from history to show us what this will do to society. How will humans cope with not actually needing to do anything? I personally envisage a Matrix like scenario where this societal change will also usher in advances in VR and related tech. People may spend most of their time engrossed in entertainment, until eventually, they see no need to participate in the real world at all.

coldtea 7y ago
>What will happen to a society where every single person has their basic needs met by some form of automation, and nobody needs to work? Those who control the "means of automation" (robot factories, power stations, etc) --let's say 0.01%--, will rule over the rest, in gated communities and closed enclaves. A small percentage of the population will live alongside them, in B-rated residences, to provide them services that, either still need humans or are better done by humans (e.g. sex), or its considered "classier" to have humans do for you (e.g. cooking). Let's say that's a 10%. The rest 90% will be left to rot in urban and suburban slums, develop their own black economy, and shot on sight when they dare enter the rich areas. https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1784786616 https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1784786616 https://www.amazon.com/City-Quartz-Excavating-Future-Angeles/dp/1844675688 https://www.amazon.com/City-Quartz-Excavating-Future-Angeles...
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Will be left? Come on down to New Orleans and take a tour of Peter Thiel’s cameras!
- wedn3sday 7y ago
  The irony of your amazon links at the bottom of the rant is delicious. Given the pessimism of your comment (not saying its wrong), Im surprised you didn't factor in how much the rich will invest in sex robots. Imagine if Bezos invested the same amount he's going to lose in the divorce settlement into human-like robotics. Brothels are illegal in much of the western world, but the first person to put $1bn into the sexbot industry will clean up, no laws against fucking a toaster!

Decathect 7y ago

Wealth is accruing to people with power and capital. The people who produce automations are laborers like the rest of society, just with a temporarily elevated standard of living. As writing software is deskilled and supplanted, it'll be increasingly apparent that we were just a midterm necessary evil to the people signing our paychecks. To me, the central problem is wealth disparity as a proxy for power disparity: our democratic government is more than capable of addressing our ongoing needs and desires if not for the overwhelming, unjust, and unearned influence of the wealthy. This is why I think Sanders has the correct prescription and Yang is naive: the solution isn't a policy or set of policies to fix specific problems, no matter how farsighted, it's restructuring our political system to be solely answerable to people who it feigns to represent.

xster 7y ago
Right (and slightly orthogonal, back to the mode of production topic), I think we can treat it in 2 ways: 1- We recognize this Bonds villain plan, we stop it and go back to our happy pastural life and everyone lives happily ever after; or 2- We grant ourselves this new productivity as a reward that frees us from labor (but in the process have to answer the hard question of how to deal with going from solving the conflict between the 1% and the 99% to solving the conflict between the 0.0001% and the 99.9999%)
- sprafa 7y ago
  The thing is this beautiful new freedom from labour is also freeing us from subsistence. I see it all over London where I am - there’s now a permanent underclass with no chance of getting up in the social ladder because they are doing jobs such as cleaning, maintenance, baristas... stuff that requires no specialised skills but most importantly will never allow you to pay for your children’s way into higher education. Thus I fear we are permanently removing 30-40% and increasing numbers from the social ladder. If we keep automating everything and capital gets to own the cloud processing power that allows for it, and we “rent everything” as some people are predicting, what the hell earning power will anyone have unless they work in AI or programming new things to automate?
- 7y ago

clairity 7y ago

this kind of thinking so vastly underestimates the creative capacity of humans and the amazing nimbleness of the invisible hand, not to mention the sheer vastness of existence itself. humans will work on other, bigger, more varied, and more complex problems. we have not solved the universe yet, let alone understand even the basic workings of biochemical machinery. there is a crap ton of things we can apply our mental capacity to. we've had this kind of worry since at least the industrial revolution, and somehow we're all still working, despite unprecedented productivity and an order of magnitude more people. UBI is a patronizing and elitist social welfare pipe dream to address a problem that doesn't exist. as silly as 'social media influencers' may be, they're an apt example of how the world changes in unexpected ways to accomodate the ambitions of some of the billions of people on this earth with active brains and pumping hearts.

dpau 7y ago
i agree with you in spirit. but as it stands, whether due to genetics, upbringing, education, social class and/or opportunity, the vast majority of humans are not capable of creatively working on those complex problems and never will be no matter how much retraining they are provided. UBI is a solution for this increasing large proportion of humanity. (which i, as a developer, will join soon enough.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xster 7y ago
Ya, rereading what I wrote, I might have missed a part of what I was trying to address. I don't think anyone is proposing that humans then do nothing and watch VR porn while being tube fed for the rest of their lives. There is indeed an infinite amount of things left to do. The question is given this 'initial condition' where everyone is where they are currently in 2019, who does that work. Is it the 56 year old truck driver who's now 100k in the hole for the truck he bought that's now useless with automated trucks and who's using his disability benefits to feed his opiate problems from the painkillers he needed for his back from all the hours in the truck? If he's not the guy we're putting in CERN trying to demonstrate the next Higgs field interaction, what do we do with him?

anon1m0us 7y ago

Adam Smith addressed this in "The Wealth of Nations." The coal furnace door opening children all got fired when one of them discovered they could tie the door handle to the piston and open the door automatically for the coal shovelers. This isn't an AI problem. This is an owner vs. employee problem. Advances in technology accrue to the owners at the expense of the employee. This always happens because employees sign over rights to their innovations to the employer in exchange for a short term need for money. Most people never take the time or spend the money to invest in themselves.

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
Whatever your opinion of college is, last I checked people are still treating it as an investment in themselves.

hos234 7y ago

> change the purpose of life We are not sophisticated enough to get roads fixed and keep the water supply clean. Long way to go. Don't fall for people who tell you it can happen faster, until they have fixed the roads and cleaned the water in one town.

JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
If the economic incentive was there, we would have fixed roads and clean water supply, it's a solved problem, it's just not scaled across all of society because it costs $$$. The argument being made is that the drivers of loss of jobs are progress, and the jobs being created as a result of this are not going equitably towards the people displaced. The purpose of life argument isn't saying that you will have clean water and fixed roads when AI automates you out of the job, it's the opposite - you won't have a fixed road or clean water because you don't matter. The money ain't near you or your run-down, economically irrelevant, town.
- hos234 7y ago
  If it's a solved problem show me the fixed roads and clean water and I will buy what you are selling. Do it in one town. There is no need to debate and discuss anything more if you have proof for the simplest case.
  - JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
    You want me to show you a road that has been fixed and a water supply that is clean? I mean, look at any major city with significant wealth? I don't understand your argument at all. It's unrelated to people being automated out of a job and the structure of our society changing. We aren't going towards a utopia where everything is perfect, we are talking about a stumbling forward into the unknown, all our crummy parts bolted onto us.
    - hos234 7y ago
      I was responding to your framing things as a choice between a 5 year time frame Vs a 20 time frame. How can anyone asses without proof a 5 year time frame is possible? So I said don't fall for people who claim they can do things fast without asking for proof. Otherwise anyone can claim anything is possible by tomorrow.

sedachv 7y ago

> But the solution isn't to break them up and for society to become unproductive and un-automated again by forcing minimum wage, health insurance, guaranteed menial jobs etc. I don't know if you know anything about 1990s-early 2000s artificial intelligence research, but the vision of the future back then was artificial agents communicating through standardized protocols to negotiate for goods and services.[1] So, a decentralized dispatching system. What you are saying is false dichotomy monopolist propaganda. There is no technical reason why the only choice is between Uber and manual dispatching. [1] I spent a few summers as a research assistant working on multi-agent systems. Feel free to object with "but, it's not technically feasible because X, Y, Z." I can probably refute most technical reasons and provide a good explanation.