[H1N1]

(12-07-2016 11:12 AM)Seadog Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:18 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

This sort of thing is going to buy everybody more leisure time. With less need for checkout girls, you'll also be able to have more helpful staff distributed throughout the store. It's unfortunate it's Amazon leading the way, and it's concerning how much closer this puts us to a cashless society, but there's no denying that it is also going to be pretty awesome in many other ways. Ditto driverless cars.

It's a funny observation I've noted, that that is rarely the case. Every benefit, or "planned improvement" instead ends up rearranging specifics, but at the end of the day not changing much in terms of actual time freed or advantages.

Case in point, cars allowed people to travel 20x the speed of walking. Did people use this invention to free up time? Or did they simply choose to commute the same 30 mins to work but live farther out?

Going to university used to mean you were smart would get a good job. So they made it so everyone can go and much more accessible via a big loan program. Does everyone get a good job now? Or does it remain the realm of the top 25% or so just like it did before, while universities prosper on account of record enrollment and raising fees, enabled by said programs?

I had a teacher in HS go on about how all these robots and tech were going to make people's lives so much easier, how wouldn't have to work as much but now people are working more than ever! The truth is, if you want to live like someone in 1900, you could likely do so working 10 hours a week.

So while some may use these improvements for more leisure time, I think the majority will use it to shop more, consume more, work more, and otherwise twiddle away their time.

This isn't to say I'm against it, but if history is any guide, most people will simply use this endowment of free time to exchange standing in line on their phone looking at FB, for not standing in line on their phone looking at FB. A deficit of leisure time is not the issue with today's society.

Some people will not use the time well. Of course, but so what? Some will - and even those that don't will have their lives measurably improved by the advent of new technologies like this one that increase their lot. The inheritance of the average poor person in the west now is an embarrassment of riches compared to the average rich guy 100 years ago.

Again, I don't pretend all progress is a good thing, or proceeds in the right direction (just look at wind turbines) - but all kinds of innovations are dragging forward the lives of ordinary and unimaginative people the world over. They may not appreciate it, or even understand how to take it for what it is worth, but the fact that they don't understand how good their lives are does not mean that they aren't in fact really damn good.

It's also important to bear in mind that we are not at 'the end' of things here. There is a tendency, such as in your comment about how 'people just commute further' to assume that this is all there is, or that people make bad choices because of some arbitrary metric. The ability to commute transforms a person's opportunities. Without rapid transport you are doomed to the same few square miles in which you were born, for most people any way. With the car, and an acceptable commute, one can structure one's life so as to maximise the opportunities available to them in their leisure time.

[Alsos]

Good points, Seadog.

Maybe the answer to convenience-chasing is to look at any "convenience" more holistically, ie: accounting for the time, money, effort, and quality of the various alternatives.

For example, I can pay $1000 every ten years for my own washer and dryer - historically among the first great household convenience devices - which I will use to wash five loads of laundry averaging 5lbs a week in my own home. Each load of laundry takes (say) five minutes to gather and put in the machine, and ten minutes total to put in the dryer and afterwards sort, fold, and put away. Each load of laundry requires (say) $2 of electricity and water and soap. This saves me the need to plan ahead, to bag up and carry my laundry to the cleaners, and to retrieve it and carry it into the house later, along with the immediate cash cost of paying the cleaners for their work.

If my earning potential averages to $50/hr over the lifetime of those machines, then this "convenience" costs me $74.42 per week, or $38,700 over the 10-year life of the machines.

The obvious alternative is to take the laundry to a cleaner. Assume they charge $3/lb for generic laundry, I drop off and pick up all five loads at one time, once per week, spending five minutes each visit. That adds up to $83.33 per week, or $43,333 over ten years. The laundry machines are the better option then purely on cost, but the laundry service saves you time (the proxy here for labor/effort). You are in effect spending $4,633 more over that period to save yourself 563 hours of time you'd otherwise spend doing the work yourself. The machines are cheaper, but actually less convenient.

Now, if you can get a lower cost per pound, the situation changes dramatically. At $2/lb for generic laundry, your cost is $58.33/week or $30,332 over ten years. Now you've not only recovered those 563 hours of your life (the convenience) but you're paying $8,368 less in the process (cost savings). In this case having machines is both more expensive and more inconvenient.

In neither case is having your own washer and dryer more convenient. Yes, it's a simplified model and including other factors and using different assumptions would change the calculus. The point is that what seems like a convenience may not be when you take everything into account. And also that saving money is no savings if it costs you more in time (the "DIY fallacy").

[Mage]

(12-07-2016 07:34 AM)glugger Wrote:  

Computers fail a lot less than humans though, CC.

I disagree.

This is a common technocrat argument to point out that humans are stupid, to make you disbelieve in your powers and make you to surrender your place to machines and control.

In terms of driving, I just duckduckgoed it and it seems that 20% (average number from various studies and reports) of all driving casualties come from drunk driving, 16 % come from other drugs. Many more probably come from technological addictions like smart phone using and similar.

The point is driving accidents could be dramatically reduced by at least 50% if only people were not addicted to alcohol/drugs/technology. I believe we could lessen the accidents even more if we took off 25% of population from antidepressants and and remove planned obsolescence which affects all cars both smart and dumb ones. All it takes is self discipline and spirit and it basically depends on the consciousness level of population.

This is why I believe the only real solution to world problems including driving is rising levels of consciousness and spirituality among human beings.

This is similar to how USA constitution stands - as John Adams put it without people maintaining the the sense, spirit and honesty - rights and freedoms given by constitution would fall with it.

This goes to all areas of life - want to reduce surveillance - create a healthy and sane society with natural gender roles where people are not going crazy and doing mass shootings in schools over rejection from females, create a healthy and sane society where people feel aversion to petty theft and and you can remove body scanners in shops and airports and reduce the amount of security cameras and technologies.

This is not utopian - we once had a society that functioned very well without security cameras and body scanners - because people were more sane, spiritual, religious, psychologically healthy and happy. But people can be even more conscious than that if only we would actively move to that direction instead of hoping from the next magic pill from science labs, that always induces new side effects and new problems.

Miserable people - addicted to drugs or alcohol, angry about rejections, entitled degenerates will be miserable no matter what technologies you invent.

If you fear big brother state you must raise the level of virtuous self discipline, spirituality and religiousness (the fake religion of Islam excluded) in society. Only such a society can avoid the destiny of Borg. A drugged, stressed, alienated atheist society is destined to turn into total control Matrix or annihilate itself.

[CynicalContrarian]

(12-07-2016 09:18 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Does your smartphone fail or glitch very often? I can think of one or two occasions in the last 5 years where I've had a mainstream app freeze on me.
Stores already use computers - lots of them. Every checkout, running outdated software, manned by technologically illiterate employees. There's no reason to suppose that Amazon Go will fail any more often than the existing hardware. In fact it is less likely as the software will keep pace with technological development as there's no real infrastructure/hardware overhead.
Most of the purchase assessment stuff will be done by some very cool image analytics tricks, which will make stealing almost impossible.
This sort of thing is going to buy everybody more leisure time. With less need for checkout girls, you'll also be able to have more helpful staff distributed throughout the store. It's unfortunate it's Amazon leading the way, and it's concerning how much closer this puts us to a cashless society, but there's no denying that it is also going to be pretty awesome in many other ways. Ditto driverless cars.

Can't say that I own a smartphone brah.
Plus whether it's Galaxy 7's melting or people's WiFi being hacked for identity theft. Can't say those devices are foolproof.

Having done a fair bit of retail IT, as well as other IT myself. It will take a great deal for me to be impressed by the likes of Amazon Go & driverless cars.

I also recall that simple email was touted as being able to make the office a paperless workplace.
Didn't quite work out as intended.

Bah humbug.

[greekgod]

(12-07-2016 12:04 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 10:55 AM)greekgod Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:56 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:37 AM)greekgod Wrote:  

Makes next to no logical business sense. Grocers historically achieve 2% profit margins.

I understand Amazon is essentially the world's best logistical company but what could be their expected ROI?

Havent seen a piece of produce in any of their ads either. Telling.

I've also come to the conclusion that automated cars are to control the rationing of gasoline. There is no other incentive otherwise. Don't tell me that Google gives a shit about fatality rates from head on collisions.

Apart from the reduced staff bill, reduced infrastructure bill, the eradication of legacy issues, the redundancy of 3rd party retail analytics systems, and the reduced theft rates - other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

And the cost savings will get passed on to whom? The shareholder or the consumer?

And the additional data they gain will be sold to who?

And the barrier of entry for those on SNAP cards and Obama Phones will be paid by who?


I agree that it is reduces labor costs, toss up on infrastructure costs(IoT aint cheap, network to run such a smart store is going to be a headache), 3rd party analytics are good (competition within the BI realm), couldn't comment on legacy issues, and I don't give a shit about theft rates.

So where are we? Reduction in labor costs, further atomization of society, Seattle's gain is Waco's loss, more invasive data dragnets, less time in store, and zero indication if/how those cost savings are passed on to the consumer.

After all, when Bezos bought WaPo, he totally revolutionized the Journalism game, right?

What do the shareholders do with their spare cash, if not invest further into businesses which provide jobs and services which benefit workers/consumers? Who do you think invests in the factories that employ workers, buy capital machinary from other factories which employ workers, etc etc? This is how the general standard of living is increased.

Probably the same people they sell it to now. I've not said it's an unreservedly good thing - I have serious qualms about Amazon (particularly) as a company.

I'm not American so I can't answer the last question. Given that you can buy a smart phone for about £20 these days, I can't see there being that much of a barrier, particularly as market saturisation is likely 10 years away.


Infrastructure will be MUCH cheaper. Running the smart store will be cheap because there is very little wired infrastructure, and the amount of data for the ML to work across will be vast. Improvements will be rapid and seamless. 3rd party analytics will be much less good from a tech point of view. Competition will still exist, it just may be between Toyota and Tesla rather than the conventional retail analytics companies like Footfall. Theft matters - thousands of pounds worth of stuff goes missing each week from a typical Tesco etc. Who absorbs that cost in the long run?

There are reduced labour costs, sure, but I'm not sure that's a good or bad thing by itself. This 'atomization' seems nebulous to me - as you say, less time in store - this frees up more time in principle to see a friend, call them on the phone, or log onto the forum and debate with your web friends.

The savings are passed on to the consumer in improved quality of life and leisure. Your productive time improves dramatically with the introduction of a system such as this. Think, if you are able to compile a shopping list ahead of time - perhaps on the ride over in your driverless car - the app can direct you around the store, so that you spend no time looking for things, and no time queuing to buy them. That alone would knock half an hour or more off my weekly shop.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the concerns about Amazon. As someone who is building a tech business I have very real reservations about the vast monopolistic control these major companies have over the exciting new areas opening up. One can love the technology and the freedom it brings without loving the company that builds it.

Shareholders, take a look at this link and consider if you stand by your statement. Shareholders hate to reinvest. They want their dividends and value for them. http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders?ltr=1 Bezos being the biggest shareholder at this point causes me to think hes about power, not investment or helping others. I could be wrong but thats my hunch.

Data; hard to tell. When you begin to build a complete persona type on browsing, info consumption, food, supplement, medicine, and other soft goods, well thats dangerous.

Phone, ok, good point.

Atomization is not nebulous at all. Everything is designed to make you more reliant on a corporation, for a fee of course. Social fabric is ripped up. I happen to be reading David Mamet's book on culture just last night and he makes a strong argument about the danger on convenience. The first industry to adopt to the "2 income" household was food producers. Women had to get that job because it made rearing families and associated costs more affordable. Ie, supposedly less cost or more convenient. But, what happened when women cooked less? Obesity rates sky rocketed. Diabetes is up. Life expectancy is down. This doesnt even scratch the other areas children and families have been hurt by mandating women go into the workforce enmasse. Consider "the pill" which supposedly would help with cramps and safe sex, abortions are still going off @ 500K a year and STDs are thru the roof. Cheap money, we all know how that is going. NINJA mortgages, didn't work out so well.

Have smartphones improved the world? I honestly don't know.

Point is, cost to acquire is good. It makes you think longer and consider if you really need it. Decision fatigue, which supermarkets are the proprietors of, is bad. Sucks. I hate that shit!

I'm not a tech guy so this is speculation but won't that store have to be jam packed with a very extensive wireless network. The best RFIDs cover no more than 50 feet. They're going to have the lowest quality, disposable tags possible.

How do you get RFID chips on produce?

I might be wrong. Thats ok.

The larger point you are mistaking is human nature. Humans love ease. The rest of the world isn't like this forum. They'll use that time for more TV consumption or facebook arguing. My roommate would get groceries delivered. Why? So he could watch another episode of the simpsons (loser!) or diddle on tinder.

Thats the consumer side of human nature. The owner/distributor side, i know nothing about. Clearly, Mr. Bezos isn't a profit guy. Whats his motivation?

What of the local farmer or beverage distributor? How do they negotiate with Amazon?

I'm bearish but I do appreciate your optimism. Amazon is a world class technology company. Yes, the novelty and innovation is intriguing, for sure. Does this outweigh the costs? Not so sure.

One wonders............when does Amazon Air start? "You can fly from Orlando to San Diego while your pilot sits in Seattle sipping a starbucks latte!"

Clearly, I've taken too many contrarian pills today. And I hope this doesn't come off as me attacking you, I just don't trust those goons anymore.

[H1N1]

(12-07-2016 10:36 PM)greekgod Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 12:04 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 10:55 AM)greekgod Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:56 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:37 AM)greekgod Wrote:  

Makes next to no logical business sense. Grocers historically achieve 2% profit margins.

I understand Amazon is essentially the world's best logistical company but what could be their expected ROI?

Havent seen a piece of produce in any of their ads either. Telling.

I've also come to the conclusion that automated cars are to control the rationing of gasoline. There is no other incentive otherwise. Don't tell me that Google gives a shit about fatality rates from head on collisions.

Apart from the reduced staff bill, reduced infrastructure bill, the eradication of legacy issues, the redundancy of 3rd party retail analytics systems, and the reduced theft rates - other than that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

And the cost savings will get passed on to whom? The shareholder or the consumer?

And the additional data they gain will be sold to who?

And the barrier of entry for those on SNAP cards and Obama Phones will be paid by who?


I agree that it is reduces labor costs, toss up on infrastructure costs(IoT aint cheap, network to run such a smart store is going to be a headache), 3rd party analytics are good (competition within the BI realm), couldn't comment on legacy issues, and I don't give a shit about theft rates.

So where are we? Reduction in labor costs, further atomization of society, Seattle's gain is Waco's loss, more invasive data dragnets, less time in store, and zero indication if/how those cost savings are passed on to the consumer.

After all, when Bezos bought WaPo, he totally revolutionized the Journalism game, right?

What do the shareholders do with their spare cash, if not invest further into businesses which provide jobs and services which benefit workers/consumers? Who do you think invests in the factories that employ workers, buy capital machinary from other factories which employ workers, etc etc? This is how the general standard of living is increased.

Probably the same people they sell it to now. I've not said it's an unreservedly good thing - I have serious qualms about Amazon (particularly) as a company.

I'm not American so I can't answer the last question. Given that you can buy a smart phone for about £20 these days, I can't see there being that much of a barrier, particularly as market saturisation is likely 10 years away.


Infrastructure will be MUCH cheaper. Running the smart store will be cheap because there is very little wired infrastructure, and the amount of data for the ML to work across will be vast. Improvements will be rapid and seamless. 3rd party analytics will be much less good from a tech point of view. Competition will still exist, it just may be between Toyota and Tesla rather than the conventional retail analytics companies like Footfall. Theft matters - thousands of pounds worth of stuff goes missing each week from a typical Tesco etc. Who absorbs that cost in the long run?

There are reduced labour costs, sure, but I'm not sure that's a good or bad thing by itself. This 'atomization' seems nebulous to me - as you say, less time in store - this frees up more time in principle to see a friend, call them on the phone, or log onto the forum and debate with your web friends.

The savings are passed on to the consumer in improved quality of life and leisure. Your productive time improves dramatically with the introduction of a system such as this. Think, if you are able to compile a shopping list ahead of time - perhaps on the ride over in your driverless car - the app can direct you around the store, so that you spend no time looking for things, and no time queuing to buy them. That alone would knock half an hour or more off my weekly shop.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the concerns about Amazon. As someone who is building a tech business I have very real reservations about the vast monopolistic control these major companies have over the exciting new areas opening up. One can love the technology and the freedom it brings without loving the company that builds it.

Shareholders, take a look at this link and consider if you stand by your statement. Shareholders hate to reinvest. They want their dividends and value for them. http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders?ltr=1 Bezos being the biggest shareholder at this point causes me to think hes about power, not investment or helping others. I could be wrong but thats my hunch.

Data; hard to tell. When you begin to build a complete persona type on browsing, info consumption, food, supplement, medicine, and other soft goods, well thats dangerous.

Phone, ok, good point.

Atomization is not nebulous at all. Everything is designed to make you more reliant on a corporation, for a fee of course. Social fabric is ripped up. I happen to be reading David Mamet's book on culture just last night and he makes a strong argument about the danger on convenience. The first industry to adopt to the "2 income" household was food producers. Women had to get that job because it made rearing families and associated costs more affordable. Ie, supposedly less cost or more convenient. But, what happened when women cooked less? Obesity rates sky rocketed. Diabetes is up. Life expectancy is down. This doesnt even scratch the other areas children and families have been hurt by mandating women go into the workforce enmasse. Consider "the pill" which supposedly would help with cramps and safe sex, abortions are still going off @ 500K a year and STDs are thru the roof. Cheap money, we all know how that is going. NINJA mortgages, didn't work out so well.

Have smartphones improved the world? I honestly don't know.

Point is, cost to acquire is good. It makes you think longer and consider if you really need it. Decision fatigue, which supermarkets are the proprietors of, is bad. Sucks. I hate that shit!

I'm not a tech guy so this is speculation but won't that store have to be jam packed with a very extensive wireless network. The best RFIDs cover no more than 50 feet. They're going to have the lowest quality, disposable tags possible.

How do you get RFID chips on produce?

I might be wrong. Thats ok.

The larger point you are mistaking is human nature. Humans love ease. The rest of the world isn't like this forum. They'll use that time for more TV consumption or facebook arguing. My roommate would get groceries delivered. Why? So he could watch another episode of the simpsons (loser!) or diddle on tinder.

Thats the consumer side of human nature. The owner/distributor side, i know nothing about. Clearly, Mr. Bezos isn't a profit guy. Whats his motivation?

What of the local farmer or beverage distributor? How do they negotiate with Amazon?

I'm bearish but I do appreciate your optimism. Amazon is a world class technology company. Yes, the novelty and innovation is intriguing, for sure. Does this outweigh the costs? Not so sure.

One wonders............when does Amazon Air start? "You can fly from Orlando to San Diego while your pilot sits in Seattle sipping a starbucks latte!"

Clearly, I've taken too many contrarian pills today. And I hope this doesn't come off as me attacking you, I just don't trust those goons anymore.

Greekgod, you certainly don't come off as though you are attacking me - I'm enjoying the opportunity for robust debate, and think you've been completely civilised in your approach.

Shareholders love to reinvest. I run a tech business and have been going through the investment raising process. I've been inundated with offers from very rich guys who are shareholders in all sorts of companies. Pretty much their defining characteristic is that they want to know how they are going to make 5-10x their investment within the next 5 years. They have almost no interest in dividends - it is the capital value they want. Of course, I'm not amazon, but one can't take an isolated company, and then isolate a shareholder, and try to legislate for the market based on that one example. Banks offer very little return, if at all, on money at the moment, and rich people are always looking to diversify their portfolio. Small companies like mine are often the beneficiaries of this, and when we are, we are able to create jobs. Who benefits? The rich guys for sure when we make ourselves successful, but also the bookkeeper, the cleaner, the warehouseman, the assembly staff etc that I'm able to employ, as well as the more highly skilled graduate roles I've created. That's not to mention my customers who are able to buy things from me which address their problems for which no previous solution existed. The knock-on benefits of rich people being rich are tremendous. There are bad ones, of course, and isolated poor outcomes inevitably, but so what, these don't reflect the mean.

Data: it could be dangerous - I have my reservations about Amazon knowing too much about me. It could also herald the advent of many wonderful things, and my own view is that one must be cautious, of course, but open minded and receptive to the wonders these innovations will bring.

No, I suspect not - though we won't know for certain until spring. Likely there will be relatively few cameras running some wonderfully clever analytics platform that profiles the movements of your arms etc to pinpoint you relative to a product. They will also have the pings from your smartphone to locate you. Things like fruit and veg may be on weighted scales as well as it's harder to assess from a camera. Video analytics is a very clever field where an extraordinary amount of work has been done in recent years. This sort of thing is actually quite viable now. RFID would be terribly cumbersome and expensive, and I don't think there'd be any appetite for developing this kind of project were it to be dependent on it.

Humans do indeed love leisure, and productive leisure time to my mind is one of life's great goods. Again, I am aware that many people will waste it - but so what? Should these people be shackled to their desks and forced to type in the gloaming simply because they'd otherwise be shagging a 5 behind a dumpster or watching the Simpsons, or if they are discerning, Family Guy?

I've no idea what Bezos' motivations are. Money and power are remarkably similar things, and look to be fun things to have. I hope I have them someday soon, as I suspect they open up even more of life to you.

I suspect the local farmer or distributer negotiates with Amazon in much the same way as they currently negotiate with Sainsbury's or Tesco - with difficulty, in a slow and exasperating process that ultimately pays them enough for the whole exercise to have been worth while. Perhaps there is an opportunity to create a platform aimed at farmers and producers to help them bring their produce to the attention of large retailers more easily. I don't know. If such a thing doesn't exist, and could be made, it might make you a rich man.

[glugger]

(12-07-2016 04:03 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 07:34 AM)glugger Wrote:  

Computers fail a lot less than humans though, CC.

I disagree.

This is a common technocrat argument to point out that humans are stupid, to make you disbelieve in your powers and make you to surrender your place to machines and control.

In terms of driving, I just duckduckgoed it and it seems that 20% (average number from various studies and reports) of all driving casualties come from drunk driving, 16 % come from other drugs. Many more probably come from technological addictions like smart phone using and similar.

The point is driving accidents could be dramatically reduced by at least 50% if only people were not addicted to alcohol/drugs/technology. I believe we could lessen the accidents even more if we took off 25% of population from antidepressants and and remove planned obsolescence which affects all cars both smart and dumb ones. All it takes is self discipline and spirit and it basically depends on the consciousness level of population.

This is why I believe the only real solution to world problems including driving is rising levels of consciousness and spirituality among human beings.

This is similar to how USA constitution stands - as John Adams put it without people maintaining the the sense, spirit and honesty - rights and freedoms given by constitution would fall with it.

This goes to all areas of life - want to reduce surveillance - create a healthy and sane society with natural gender roles where people are not going crazy and doing mass shootings in schools over rejection from females, create a healthy and sane society where people feel aversion to petty theft and and you can remove body scanners in shops and airports and reduce the amount of security cameras and technologies.

This is not utopian - we once had a society that functioned very well without security cameras and body scanners - because people were more sane, spiritual, religious, psychologically healthy and happy. But people can be even more conscious than that if only we would actively move to that direction instead of hoping from the next magic pill from science labs, that always induces new side effects and new problems.

Miserable people - addicted to drugs or alcohol, angry about rejections, entitled degenerates will be miserable no matter what technologies you invent.

If you fear big brother state you must raise the level of virtuous self discipline, spirituality and religiousness (the fake religion of Islam excluded) in society. Only such a society can avoid the destiny of Borg. A drugged, stressed, alienated atheist society is destined to turn into total control Matrix or annihilate itself.

These are all fine points, we should be wary of how we use technology. But to say that humans outperform in anything other than social situations or complex physical tasks is disingenuous at best.

[Latinopan]

IBM did a commercial about the "future" years ago.

It was similar to AmazonGo

[greekgod]

Pertinent to this thread. Albeit there is nothing conclusive about it, it shows Bezos is more nefarious and interested in being all knowing than making your life easier.

I wonder when Synapse and Nurv go online. Tim Robbins needs comeback anyways.


http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ar...on/374632/

[Geomann180]

I wonder if this is inspired by the new $15 an hour minimum wage.

G