| General > General Technical Chat |
| If COVID-19 causes a recession, will it be harder to get a job in tech? |
| << < (4/7) > >> |
| NiHaoMike:
Most likely the next "killer" remote desktop solution would leverage hardware encode blocks inside modern GPUs rather than using a dedicated ASIC like iDRAC does. I think Nvidia basically has the technology close to perfected, all they have to do is make a few tweaks and rebrand it for office use. Besides the software, all that's really needed is a cheap Nvidia GPU for the PCs that don't already have one. --- Quote from: David Hess on March 23, 2020, 10:48:50 pm ---Assuming a good remote desktop implementation, performance is dominated by latency and bandwidth unless video is being played on the remote system. --- End quote --- Where more or less every remote desktop solution has fallen over in my experience is when using data visualization software, especially with live feeds that constantly refresh the view or manually rotating a 3D view. |
| wizard69:
--- Quote from: engineheat on March 20, 2020, 12:20:36 am ---I'm sure it'll be harder, but not sure how much tech companies would be affected compared to other industries. Any advice? Thanks --- End quote --- The economy can not survive this blanket shut down for much more than a week or two. There isn't a risk of recession but rather a massive depression, frankly one that outstrips the depression of the 1930's. So the answer to your question is pretty simply demand and end to the shut down and let the chips land where they may. That means lots of telephone calls to your representatives and senators. As in the past your ability to survive will based upon what is between your ears because the remaining business will have the pick of the litter so to speak. It actually may be a good time to start a business though if you can do so with minimal capital investment. We could enter into a year or more of 'short contract only' work until companies can actually start hiring. To perfectly honest the best thing the populace could do is demand an end to the shut down and let the chips fall where they may. It is pretty simple, the longer the shut down the more damage we do to the economy. Dome may think that that is horrible but the reality is the only reasons we have a shut down is to make life easy for the medical industry. Any argument that they are containing the virus is nonsense considering the virus is world wide now. Those that are likely to die from the virus will no matter what until there is a valid treatment. |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: wizard69 on March 24, 2020, 12:02:26 pm ---To perfectly honest the best thing the populace could do is demand an end to the shut down and let the chips fall where they may. It is pretty simple, the longer the shut down the more damage we do to the economy. Dome may think that that is horrible but the reality is the only reasons we have a shut down is to make life easy for the medical industry. Any argument that they are containing the virus is nonsense considering the virus is world wide now. Those that are likely to die from the virus will no matter what until there is a valid treatment. --- End quote --- I don't think it's that simple. If the whole world were shut down for a few weeks, then the virus could theoretically blow over, leaving no new cases and the economy should recover fairly quickly. If we do nothing, then it has the potential to cause more economic harm, in the long run. Of course we know the whole world isn't going to shutdown, but China has already proven this can be contained. It will be interesting to see what happens to China now. I think this will make the rest of the world weaker and China will dominate more. |
| james_s:
They need to at least define a length for the shutdown. Here where I am the stay home order is "at least" 2 weeks and the uncertainty is paralyzing. I mean as a business how do you plan for that? Do you hunker down and hope you can survive 2 weeks or do you lay off all your employees betting that the lockdown will stretch out longer? It seems better to just say "we're going to try this for 2 weeks and then that's that", if it doesn't work it doesn't work, but ditch the uncertainty. This all certainly shows how woefully unprepared we are these days. We have few manufacturing facilities left anymore and those we do have are heavily automated highly optimized operations that already run 24/7. Gone are the days when we could simply hire a ton of people and crank the output way up to mass produce huge quantities of stuff in an emergency. This virus should not have come as a surprise, we've known for ages that something like this would happen eventually and we know there will be other massive emergencies like wildfires, earthquakes, floods terrorist attacks and pandemics in the future. We should have a plan in place already rather than panicking and flailing like officials are now. |
| SiliconWizard:
The uncertainty is a big problem indeed, but not sure they have currently a choice. Economically speaking, this is a disaster. No doubt about it. I think the idea is to confine people while monitoring the spread closely. Only when it shows signs of decline will they end the confinement IMO, with a margin. Problem is, no one knows when this is going to happen. While confinement itself is effective, at least at keeping things under control, since we largely under-detect infected people, it's almost impossible to judge just by monitoring the figures when it's going to be OK to end it. It's just going to be a game of probability. But for anyone in charge of deciding this - let's say things start to look good, they end the confinement, and a while after the infection rate is on the rise again. They may risk jail for that. Who's going to have enough balls? One thing I'm wondering is how long someone infected, but showing no symptoms, is contagious? Is it even possible to carry the virus more than a few days if we have absolutely no symptom, and if so, how many? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |