21–30 of 277 posts
[flagged]
What a ridiculous article. Why is this on HN Not sure why you find it ridiculous. The part you quote, taken on its own, seems valid, reasonable, sensible. You ridicule it, but I don't see why.
[flagged]
What a ridiculous article. Why is this on HN Not sure why you find it ridiculous. The part you quote, taken on its own, seems valid, reasonable, sensible. You ridicule it, but I don't see why.
It’s the same with the tipping that seems almost everywhere these days. Instead of the workers being paid properly by the company the customer gets guilt tripped to tip and when you don’t tip the worker is angry at the customer, not the company.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/decisions/administrativ...
It’s the same with the tipping that seems almost everywhere these days. Instead of the workers being paid properly by the company the customer gets guilt tripped to tip and when you don’t tip the worker is angry at the customer, not the company.
[flagged]
I have had good experiences at bars and restaurants where I input my orders online whenever I want, perhaps multiple times throughout the meal, and the waitstaff bring them out promptly. I obviously don't have data, but it feels twice as fast since I never have to wave people down just to relay my orders.
This isn't for everyone, and it's not for every situation. But for the right circumstances applications, this is really quite convenient and pleasant.
[flagged]
> What a ridiculous article. Why is this on HN
This on the other hand is sentence completely devoid of potatoes, let alone meat. Would you care to expand on why you find it ridiculous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a ridiculous article. Why is this on HN Not sure why you find it ridiculous. The part you quote, taken on its own, seems valid, reasonable, sensible. You ridicule it, but I don't see why.
At restaurants with menus that don't require explanation, manually taking an order is more error-prone and distracts wait staff from providing higher value services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a ridiculous article. Why is this on HN Not sure why you find it ridiculous. The part you quote, taken on its own, seems valid, reasonable, sensible. You ridicule it, but I don't see why.
For starters, what does this have to do with the Southwest meltdown, which seems to have been caused in large part by a lack of automation?
I recommend this paper to everyone: https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica...
Southwest's meltdown was about computer systems that coordinate "offline" based on assumptions instead of online based on passing information back and forth on a regular basis.
Southwest was a very reliable airline, it didn't have some sort of day-to-day understaffing problem, they executed an unorthodox business strategy [0] in the last year or so that has degraded their performance, and bad weather exacerbated the problem.
0: https://www.inc.com/kelly-main/southwest-becomes-one-of-amer...
But pointing to automation as a problem is misguided. Automation is great. I look forward to a future when we don't subject humans to "time off task" in an Amazon warehouse. We automate a bunch of things now that were horrible for the people who originally did them.
The problem is systemic: how do we distribute the fruits of that labor? The current capitalist organization of the economy exploits labor and concentrates all the wealth in the hands of a small handful of people.
The US has and produces enough wealth such that every citizen could have enough to eat, a house to live in, access to healthcare and otherwise have all their basic needs met. We, as a society, have decided we'd rather have people die in the streets, starve and use state violence in the form of withholding basic healthcare like insulin.
Automation should mean that we only need to work 10-20 hours of work a week. But no. Instead we just cut the amount of workers (to the point of having no redundancy like the railroad companies) and suppress real wage increases in the name of increased profits.
It really doesn't have to be this way.