LogFAQs > #952439792

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Controversial Opinion #4: Automation
LinkPizza 04/03/21 10:07:34 PM #68:	darkknight109 posted... Then you should try taking up a hobby. Work should not be the only thing in your life. Work isn't the only thing in my life. When I was stuck at home for a while, I did a few things. But I started getting bored after a few days. I like going to work and talking with friends. A co-worker and I actually play games together while at work. And I talk to a few friends about anime. And another about just whatever. And you can only do a hobby so much before it becomes boring, as well. I can only read so many book, or play so many games, or watch so many videos before I get bored of it. Everything becomes boring so fast when that's all you do all day. So, sounds like a nightmare. At least work throws in some variety. That's why I wouldn't stop. But many are fine with just sitting around doing nothing and slowly dying... darkknight109 posted... Why would money still exist in a world where robots make everything and human labour becomes redundant? Money is a physical representation of scarcity, which is the idea that human labour is limited and we are therefore owed recompense for it. In a world where the human cost of the production of anything rounds down to zero, the very idea of money becomes pretty meaningless. Because people are greedy. And the ones in charge will keep money around so they can keep all the power. Just because robots make everything doesn't mean money disappears. It would take a lot to make money disappear. Especially because so things humans do better than robots. Like writ stories, and make games. And nobody would want to do that for no reason. Money isn't going away for a long time... And even if it would go away when everything is automated (I'm like 99.999999999999% sure it won't), the transition time between that and no is going to be hell for the people that aren't making money that still need it. People are already losing their jobs in the present... darkknight109 posted... Scanners, conveyor belts, and weight sensors are technology that is decades old. They do not need to be tested to make a self-checkout station. Hell, a self checkout station isn't really all that different from a normal cashier's station - they're relying on, more or less, the exact same technology. By contrast, a smart phone is relying on numerous features (like cellular data transfer) and security mechanisms (like facial recognition) that had never been implemented on such a wide scale before. To call them "mini-computers" is laughably simplistic, given that they don't even share operating system architecture. You think someone trying to steal $100 worth of groceries is bad? Your phone has to protect your banking info, which is probably worth several orders of magnitude more than that. They technology it uses it old (which makes sense since the self-checkout was invented in 1992 and is old technology itself). But it still needs to be tested with regular people use it themselves. And see how they actually interact with all of it. People fuck shit up all the time. Whether accidentally or on purpose... And while it's not different than a normal one, most people may not have used a normal one. Even if you worked in retail, many places don't use the conveyor belt and shit. They do a lot of the same stuff. They are basically like a mini-computer. I don't really see much difference in them. Just like how phones have facial recognition and fingerprint recognition, some computer do, as well... They both can have a lot of apps... Computer can usually do more, though... And for phones, you don't have to enter you banking data. I'd avoided that so if I lost it, I would hopefully be safe in that regard... darkknight109 posted... Relative to their other expenses? No, not really. Otherwise, logically, they would have switched over by now. If, by switching mortgage companies, I could somehow half my monthly payments I would have no reason not to do so. For self checkouts, stores simply didn't see enough financial incentive to make the change. It's not an issue of the technology being there, it's an issue of there not being as much of a driver to adopt it. That is not true in the transportation sector, where individual wages are higher and collective wages make up a much, much higher portion of expenditure. They would save on paying people. Where you have 1 cashier per line (or in the case wher store have bagger, 2 people to pay per line), self checkouts normally have 1 person to watch 4 lines. And some have 1 person watching 8 lines in certain cases. But those are harder to manage. You can really cut down on many employees doing this. That saves a ton of money, especially over 20 years. To say otherwise in a bold-faced lie. Yet, they still haven't done this... So, why haven't they? There's a reason. And whatever that reason is will probably slow down the self-driving jobs, as well. And probably for a longer time period... Especially with many people in the public who don't trust self-driving vehicles. Especially in inclement weather... darkknight109 posted... Insurance will work the same as it does now. Insurance companies love self-driving cars for the same reason employers do - they're more reliable than humans. A customer that pays their premium every year and never gets into any accidents or has any claims is pretty much the perfect customer as far as an insurance company is concerned. Have you noticed how insurance companies are already offering you discounts to install "safe driver" equipment on your car (like speed monitors that confirm you aren't speeding)? Self-driving cars are that taken to the extreme. Insuring self-driving cars isn't a problem now, nor will it be in the future. It's not the same, though. Because in most cases, they already know who's fault it is, even if the person is gone. And they'll shift. But this different since they are no drivers in either vehicle. So, it's not about whether companies will insure the car. It's about fault and who's paying the deductible in most cases. Because there will obviously be accidents... darkknight109 posted... So am I. Automated buses are already on the road today and there are no issues with disabled people using them. The only thing I saw was that one van. And that's not enough for the city I'm in. We pick up at least a hundred people in wheelchairs on a normal daily basis. Having a few of those (especially since it'll probably be pretty pricey) means that having a bunch of those will be nearly impossible. And a waste of money, if we're being honest... I mean, they already have enough trouble buying regular buses with the terrible amount they get a year. And they're busy trying to get vehicles that can hold more people to help the drivers. They aren't going to be wasting money on buying vehicles that can only hold a couple people at a time. Especially when they cost more than vehicles that can hold a decent amount... Plus, the guy in charge of buying the vehicles isn't even interested in the self-driving ones... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:952439792] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Then you should try taking up a hobby. Work should not be the only thing in your life.</quote> Work isn't the only thing in my life. When I was stuck at home for a while, I did a few things. But I started getting bored after a few days. I like going to work and talking with friends. A co-worker and I actually play games together while at work. And I talk to a few friends about anime. And another about just whatever. And you can only do a hobby so much before it becomes boring, as well. I can only read so many book, or play so many games, or watch so many videos before I get bored of it. Everything becomes boring so fast when that's all you do all day. So, sounds like a nightmare. At least work throws in some variety. That's why I wouldn't stop. But many are fine with just sitting around doing nothing and slowly dying... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Why would money still exist in a world where robots make everything and human labour becomes redundant? Money is a physical representation of scarcity, which is the idea that human labour is limited and we are therefore owed recompense for it. In a world where the human cost of the production of anything rounds down to zero, the very idea of money becomes pretty meaningless.</quote> Because people are greedy. And the ones in charge will keep money around so they can keep all the power. Just because robots make everything doesn't mean money disappears. It would take a lot to make money disappear. Especially because so things humans do better than robots. Like writ stories, and make games. And nobody would want to do that for no reason. Money isn't going away for a long time... And even if it would go away when everything is automated (I'm like 99.999999999999% sure it won't), the transition time between that and no is going to be hell for the people that aren't making money that still need it. People are already losing their jobs in the present... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Scanners, conveyor belts, and weight sensors are technology that is decades old. They do not need to be tested to make a self-checkout station. Hell, a self checkout station isn't really all that different from a normal cashier's station - they're relying on, more or less, the exact same technology. By contrast, a smart phone is relying on numerous features (like cellular data transfer) and security mechanisms (like facial recognition) that had never been implemented on such a wide scale before. To call them "mini-computers" is laughably simplistic, given that they don't even share operating system architecture. You think someone trying to steal $100 worth of groceries is bad? Your phone has to protect your banking info, which is probably worth several orders of magnitude more than that.</quote> They technology it uses it old (which makes sense since the self-checkout was invented in 1992 and is old technology itself). But it still needs to be tested with regular people use it themselves. And see how they actually interact with all of it. People fuck shit up all the time. Whether accidentally or on purpose... And while it's not different than a normal one, most people may not have used a normal one. Even if you worked in retail, many places don't use the conveyor belt and shit. They do a lot of the same stuff. They are basically like a mini-computer. I don't really see much difference in them. Just like how phones have facial recognition and fingerprint recognition, some computer do, as well... They both can have a lot of apps... Computer can usually do more, though... And for phones, you don't have to enter you banking data. I'd avoided that so if I lost it, I would hopefully be safe in that regard... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Relative to their other expenses? No, not really. Otherwise, logically, they would have switched over by now. If, by switching mortgage companies, I could somehow half my monthly payments I would have no reason not to do so. For self checkouts, stores simply didn't see enough financial incentive to make the change. It's not an issue of the technology being there, it's an issue of there not being as much of a driver to adopt it. That is not true in the transportation sector, where individual wages are higher and collective wages make up a much, much higher portion of expenditure.</quote> They would save on paying people. Where you have 1 cashier per line (or in the case wher store have bagger, 2 people to pay per line), self checkouts normally have 1 person to watch 4 lines. And some have 1 person watching 8 lines in certain cases. But those are harder to manage. You can really cut down on many employees doing this. That saves a ton of money, especially over 20 years. To say otherwise in a bold-faced lie. Yet, they still haven't done this... So, why haven't they? There's a reason. And whatever that reason is will probably slow down the self-driving jobs, as well. And probably for a longer time period... Especially with many people in the public who don't trust self-driving vehicles. Especially in inclement weather... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Insurance will work the same as it does now. Insurance companies love self-driving cars for the same reason employers do - they're more reliable than humans. A customer that pays their premium every year and never gets into any accidents or has any claims is pretty much the perfect customer as far as an insurance company is concerned. Have you noticed how insurance companies are already offering you discounts to install "safe driver" equipment on your car (like speed monitors that confirm you aren't speeding)? Self-driving cars are that taken to the extreme. Insuring self-driving cars isn't a problem now, nor will it be in the future.</quote> It's not the same, though. Because in most cases, they already know who's fault it is, even if the person is gone. And they'll shift. But this different since they are no drivers in either vehicle. So, it's not about whether companies will insure the car. It's about fault and who's paying the deductible in most cases. Because there will obviously be accidents... darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>So am I. Automated buses are already on the road today and there are no issues with disabled people using them.</quote> The only thing I saw was that one van. And that's not enough for the city I'm in. We pick up at least a hundred people in wheelchairs on a normal daily basis. Having a few of those (especially since it'll probably be pretty pricey) means that having a bunch of those will be nearly impossible. And a waste of money, if we're being honest... I mean, they already have enough trouble buying regular buses with the terrible amount they get a year. And they're busy trying to get vehicles that can hold more people to help the drivers. They aren't going to be wasting money on buying vehicles that can only hold a couple people at a time. Especially when they cost more than vehicles that can hold a decent amount... Plus, the guy in charge of buying the vehicles isn't even interested in the self-driving ones... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1