151–160 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once he replaces everyone with robots, and all the factories do the same, people will get stuff at home for watching ads.
but ads exist to convince people to buy things. if people can't afford to buy things, why would you need ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once he replaces everyone with robots, and all the factories do the same, people will get stuff at home for watching ads.
but ads exist to convince people to buy things. if people can't afford to buy things, why would you need ads?
Why do we think this is a good thing without socialism? I am not a fan of socialism, but with the level of automation we are reaching, do we really want to be ruled by our incel tech-bro overlords, living out of UBI, in a permanently bi-strated society without even the illusion of social mobility and democracy we have nowadays?
Social system aside, I'd say being a human worker mindlessly shoving boxes into other boxes all day is no fit way to live. Just like how it was bad to have kids crawling around in the textile factories back in the day.
I agree with you. And yet, the people who are working those jobs are doing so because they need them to get by, not for funsies. They will not be better off if they lose that job and there's no income stream to replace it. The two must go hand in hand or you're just ruining people's lives.
Henry Ford famously wanted his workers to be able to afford his cars. When Bezos replaces everyone with robots, who will be left to buy his junk?
This seems insane. We're trying to teach Longshoreman's Tetris to machines, instead of using the system of standard containerization that almost completely replaced longshoremen, despite lower packing densities.
The containerization is at a higher level: the rack of yellow bins is a four-sided tower that is robotically driven in and out of tightly packed uniform rows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sounds like you are saying that "people should just" stop making that argument and that "people should just" pass legislation. Most of what you said can be applied reflexively. Humans will and agency is the foundation of society. It is required to pass legislation or taxes as well.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I was suggesting that people "promote the right to repair" more and not necessarily "pass legislation". While I agree that it's a good goal to buy less plastic junk, the subject probably needs more of a positive narrative behind it to gain traction. Repairability is a positive way to look at our stuff (eg speed queens and Toyotas last forever!). Plastic junk is a negative.
What I do think is powerful is cultivating anti-consumerism or selective consumption behavior and belief. The desire for reparability falls within within this.
Henry Ford famously wanted his workers to be able to afford his cars. When Bezos replaces everyone with robots, who will be left to buy his junk?
Henry Ford just wanted to be rich and said something that sounded good and inspired people to work for him. Bezos does similar things for his workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat is very important for consistent performance. A restaurant can improve performance during the "lunch rush" by letting neat slip, but that carelessness is already costing them performance at the end of the lunch rush - this works because just as this catches up they get several hours in the afternoon to clean things up. Then supper crowd where they do it again - then they have the rest of the night to clean up fr…
Slow is fast is a saying for a reason. It is just as true for a human as it is for a robot.
The saying I do believe has a difference between robots and humans. The idea largely being that human inaccuracy increases exponentially relative to speed. Ergo, slowing down can lead to dramatically bette accuracy and throughput. Though, robots don't necessarily lose accuracy because they are moving more quickly. Though, I'd agree it is likely that both humans and robots need "smooth" in order to be fast. The key difference is robots do not always lose smooth when moving at high speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luddites were asking that question long before socialism was a thing. However we now have more people than ever working, and standard of living is higher. I'm not worried.
I mean there is an argument that the robber-barons during the Gilded Age were a net negative, in that they exerted way too much control and a lot of people needlessly suffered in the process. Generally, though, I'm against the arguments of "automation is bad cuz less jobs". I think that might be true in the very short term, but we're never going to have a case where "all possible work is done", because that's a compl…
The short term matters. It's zero comfort to a factory worker who has lost his job if there will be another, better job for him in a year or two. He still needs to eat between now and then, and he can't buy food with pie in the sky promises of future employment.
Henry Ford famously wanted his workers to be able to afford his cars. When Bezos replaces everyone with robots, who will be left to buy his junk?
He routinely would keep dialing it up and up and up until too many people rage quit and then dial it down just a notch.
One of the first things unions negotiated for when they stated was control of that knob.