LogFAQs > #954419717

Oak stead was actually supposed to be "instead". I probably wrote that on my phone, which changes corrects words into other things. Like when it changes "Haha" into Haphazard. So, it says, "For example, if instead of half the price, it was only a little cheaper, then more people would be fine with Company A." And the context is literally what we were talking about. I'm pretty sure you only mentioned something about company A and B once. Are you saying you can't even remember you own post from like a week or so ago? If you can't even remember your own comment from a week ago, that sounds like you don't even believe in what you're saying and are just making things up on the spot or something... I can even remember what you said without reading it. You would think you would remember what you wrote... And it's not that I'm bad at quoting. It's because you keep quoting more and more. Since you keep making more, it takes longer for me to keep going back and forth. Hence why I stopped quoting. That and a few other reasons. This is much easier. You could do it, too. Unlike you, I actually understand context clues. And actually read the conversation, I know what we are talking about. It would also help you to make less post instead of posting 29 messages... Something to think about...

And my old arguments haven't been "debunked". You just don't' like them. And they don't have to automate their entire work force to get back money on having more self-checkouts. If they had more, they could fire/lay-off more people. Which would start getting them more money since they could pay less people. Not only that, but they could let some of the self-checkouts "rest" sometimes. Which could increase the normal life of them since they didn't have to be used 24/7. Like with 12 lanes (with would be 4 a group like they normally have), they could use 4 a week. Which could increase life by about 3x the original life. Meaning they could have less chance to break. And during heavy buying times (like holidays and such), they could use all 12, plus any humans they still have. It can end up saving them a ton, especially in the long run. Which Target and Wal-Mart should be planning for... So, it would save them money. Paying money up front to pay less over all the years makes them more money when you do the math...

I know what a personal anecdote is. But I also look it up to tell you exactly what the internet says about it. Like I do with all my info, I look up stuff to have actual proof. Something you seem to lack a lot of... And the reason mine wasn't a personal anecdote is because it wasn't a story of any kind. I was stating what other people had told me in relation to a question. So, it was an answer, and not a persona anecdote. Unless every time you ask a question, it's a personal anecdote. But it's not. It's an answer, which is what aI gave you. So no, it wasn't a personal anecdote... And it's not unverifiable. Like I said, it was their answers to a question. Verifying it would only take asking them the same question again. If they let me take a voice recording or video, that's all the verification it would need... So, it's not a personal anecdote. And you should learn what one is before claiming somebody else posted one... Also, they are immaterial to any post since all of the stuff I asked them was from these post. So, they are some of the most material answer available... I even gave you examples of personal anecdote, which are different that me telling you the answers and opinions of my co-workers and friends. Also, it's not really that biased. While I work with a lot of them, we don't always agree on things. We actually have a lot of different opinions on many things. We still get along well because we don't really need to agree on everything. Not only that, but their were some that I didn't know too well, either. So it wasn't all friends. But it's still like I said, which is that it's close to the results of a sample group of a study. It'd just be a small one. Like a really small one of like a hundred people or so... And don't blame me for the tangent you started. I stated what happened, and you brought us on this tangent...

And while it's impossible to completely remove humans, that doesn't mean the price needs to remain the same. Technically, with less humans, you would think they'd pass on some of the savings to us. But many things still cost the same even after than replaced like half their workforce. And that's because the reason to replace people is for more profits. Which is why even when everyone is replaced, money will still be a thing. The only reason to replace all the people is to make more of a profit. And they will still sell stuff. To even get material for your robot to make stuff, you'll have to pay for it. Because the robots who mine for materials or make materials are owned by someone (And I'm talking about the physical robot, since you seem to get confused sometimes). And that means whoever owns the robots own the materials. And we'll have to pay them for it. Just like we would have to pay to own the robots. I think this is the part you're keep forgetting. Just because they are fully automated doesn't mean anything. Because in the end, someone still owns them. That's what you don't seem to understand. Just because things are fully automated doesn't mean people won't still need to be paid. The robots mine/make the material. You still pay. You aren't paying the robot. You're paying the robot owner since they own whatever the robot mines or makes. So, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand such an easy concept. If my robot is mining some material that's hard to get, that material belongs to me because my robot mined it. So, you would have to pay me for it. Just like others with still have to pay for other materials to buy it from other people. Because someone owns the robots. Or the factory the robots work in. The robots won't own stuff themselves as they are objects to be owned. But if more things get automated, then not many people are going to have money. And the world starts to turn into one of those dystopian futures from different forms of media. I mean, it's easy to see. Even if half of everything was automated, that's a ton of jobs gone. But because so many humans are still working, people still get paid. But only those working. There's barely enough jobs now. Once half of all jobs are gone, we'll have much less. And other jobs could actually afford to pay less since many people would jump at the opportunity to work any job for almost any amount, and people would be easily replaced. It just sounds like a shitty future. But barely anybody will care until it starts to affect them in certain ways. That's the problem...
---

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.