Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 397 posts

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#371

Post by lamp_book »

sonofhans wrote: post #82
lamp_book wrote: post #5

A boring dystopia indeed. One day someone will be hunched over on a sidewalk, dying of thirst, and a patrolling Nestle®-branded drone senses (using state-of-the-art machine learning "customer needs" technology) his predicament. The drone hovers there projecting a holo-ad about Nestles hot product "Nectar of Life" which is just water from the region's last remaining aquifer cut with brackish water from the coast. The…

Shades of both Philip K Dick and Frank Herbert here. This is one of the best SF short stories I've read for a while.

Wow, thanks!

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#372

Post by disqard »

mixedmath wrote: post #149
readams wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part where it refuses to toast your unlicensed bread.

For those unaware, this is exactly the main point of the story "Unauthorized Bread" by Cory Doctorow. I liked the story and would recommend it.

Thank you for sharing this!

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#373

Post by jodrellblank »

pcstl wrote: post #151

I think part of the reasoning behind this is also that people are less likely to buy from a half-empty shelf. That's why markets put so much effort into constant restocking. This way, the shelf can always look full while needing less restocking.

> "people are less likely to buy from a half-empty shelf."

? Then why is "Only two left! A thousand people are looking at this item! Quick quick buy now!" such a thing?

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#375

Post by [deleted] »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #247
failwhaleshark wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personalization so they can never be returned, right? --- Pepperidge Farms.... D: NOOOOOO https://www.heb.com/product-detail/pepperidge-farm-original-... My grandmother made those in her Sunbeam toaster before loading them with room-temperature butter and Laura Scudder's smooth peanut butter. (Yes, my grandmother kept butter at room temperature but refrigerated the eggs. Go figure... grandmothers.)

How you gonna spread cold butter? :)

[deleted]

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#376

Post by easrng »

npteljes wrote: post #306
burnt_toast wrote: post #127

The year is 2050 and your dingy old toaster has finally given up it's last crumbs. You hop onto Amazon in hopes of finding a suitable replacement as there's no longer any box stores you can travel to. Dumb appliances have been phased out and newer internet connected appliances have taken over. It's better for the consumer they claim. Not wanting an overtly fancy contraption you pick a no frills unit that includes a t…

I'll put this up in my favorite short stories section, along with the Verification Can and the Libertarian Police Department[0]. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...

Avoid the loginwall at https://archive.is/j65k3

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#377

Post by notacoward »

foxfired wrote: post #26

I do not blame cooler screen for selling this technology to anyone. But I want everyone to consider how much it takes to bring about a technology like this to a grocery store. If this is any of the big chain groceries, the manager doesn't even have the authority to put a sticker on the glass door. This was vetted by hundreds of people and none of them thought... glass? Business class tickets were purchased, hotels we…

> Any surface where eyes may fall on, will be replaced with an ad.

With AR you don't even need surfaces.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#378

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

unholythree wrote: post #220
xaduha wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it what you want, I just called it future because it's already reality for some, clearly. I don't know about you, but for me the amount of ads I see decreased compared to some points in the past. I don't watch TV, I listen to music using a streaming service with a paid subscription, I actively look for interesting stuff to buy, but not because I've seen an ad. Probably because I haven't seen any recently, becaus…

Then why is it that influencers are raking in the dough? Is Madison Avenue just desperately seeking any product placement? Someone's definitely spending ad revenue on TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook. My media consumption is similar to yours, but I think we're the outliers, or maybe we just slipped between the generational cracks of an evolving but still very consumerist society.

If you're not the type to buy shit, at some point they'll figure out to stop making ads for your type.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#379

Post by jodrellblank »

jollybean wrote: post #240
kazoomonger wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generates more attention Fuck you. That's really all I have to say about that. I'm sorry this comment doesn't pass the general HN guidelines, but I hope someday you realize why you should feel ashamed for even thinking that this is a good idea.

Ad-hominem aside, I don't even know what you're getting at. You realize that 100% of the packaging in the store is designed for that reason? And it's why everything isn't in brown paper bags?

I suspect they're getting at the idea that taking people's attention by abusing the fact that people involuntarily look at distracting flashy moving things is bad, not good.

If 100% of the packaging in the store was animated and flashing, would you think that was a worse experience, at the same time as being more attention grabbing?

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#380

Post by jollybean »

tomcooks wrote: post #277
jollybean wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The shoppers are already in the store, presumably to buy from their list. " This isn't really how it works. If it worked that way then lighting, music, display organization, cleanliness, shelf space, brand, packaging etc. 'would not matter'. All of those things matter, immensely, at any real scale. The kinds of comments I'm seeing here are a little bit uncomfortable in this regard, indicate a kind of lack of self-aw…

Don't know about the other regions where LIDL opened shop, but in southern Europe they've made a killing by avoiding all these optimization rules. Turns out there's a huge chunk of the population who cannot waste a single cent on what marketing dept has to say

The practices I described above generally improve sales, not reduce them.

The notion of 'consumers can't afford' doesn't really make a lot of sense.

The marginal cost of most of these things is very small.

In places where people are super price sensitive, maybe, but most people are not that.

Most people have some marginal flexibility which means an openness to buy things that can provide them more value.

Post reply on HN