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

Amazon Go

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon Go

#521

Post by LyndsySimon »

anonbanker wrote: post #468

Are you saying that someone's homework was incorrect? perhaps you should break out your red pen and correct the mistakes you've found. There are few things more amusing than when people ask for evidence for the sole purpose of discounting it at any cost. Thanks for being that person. Do you think Wal-Mart will pay you for your downvotes? I know CTR paid $0.10 per comment, but that was for an election. What is the goi…

> Are you saying that someone's homework was incorrect?

I'm saying that I asked for evidence and got opinion. Grading an assignment is not my responsibility.

> There are few things more amusing than when people ask for evidence for the sole purpose of discounting it at any cost. Thanks for being that person.

My purpose in asking for evidence was to examine it. I didn't "discredit" it, most of it wasn't relevant, while some of it made assertions that were counter to the ones you were asked to support. I read the links you posted, and even tracked down the paper that one of them referenced and verified the authenticity of the academic publisher that printed it. I quoted it in my comment, which you failed to address.

To be honest, I'm not convinced that you read the links you posted.

> Do you think Wal-Mart will pay you for your downvotes?

I didn't downvote you - I'm not sure I've ever downvoted a comment on HN.

> I know CTR paid $0.10 per comment, but that was for an election. What is the going rate for defending megacorporations on social media?

Where is my defense? You assertions struck me as improbable on their face, so I asked for evidence of them.

Re: Amazon Go

#522

Post by rescripting »

mikeash wrote: post #489
Ph0X wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).

It might be worthwhile to re-frame it. Rather than say "10 fewer jobs," say "10 people are no longer forced to spend eight hours a day sitting in front of a cash register." That assumes we can find something better for them to do, of course. But man, we have to try! Forcing people to do things a machine can do is inhumane.

I'm a bit worried that most of us here on HN are feverishly working on ways to automate away jobs, and there is quite a strong economic incentive for us to do so, but there is hardly any effort and no incentive for policy makers to catch those affected. Who is building and planning for this new social utopia once people no longer have to bag groceries? Right now it looks like a lot of misery and poverty on the horizon before things get better.

Re: Amazon Go

#523

Post by gnopgnip »

CrLf wrote: post #450
crazypyro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to save jobs that are no longer the most efficient way of solving a problem is not the way to promote the value of humanity, in my opinion. People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. They don't go to the grocery store for social interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay extra for something that only the minority get value out of is not a competitive strategy. If humanity were to take your…

I am unsure we are evolving. We have evolved in many areas that solve real problems, like healthcare and such, but I'm not sure today's society is any better for all the technology that allows us to save a couple of minutes in a queue. To improve the efficiency of a particular group, we create problems elsewhere. The result may not be net positive. In fact, I think it isn't, since those saved "couple of minutes" will…

Think about how many bodegas, convenience stores, and small grocery stores are in large cities across the world. Now if all of those stores only had to be restocked for a few hours a day, instead of watching the till 12+ hours a day, the storekeepers would have more time to spend with their families.

Re: Amazon Go

#524

Post by flinty »

iNate2000 wrote: post #466
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolve as a society, yet remove the social experience of shopping. Interesting. I don't believe I want us to evolve in that direction.

Couldn't we just have more "greeters" and fewer cashiers?

welcome to costco, i love you

Re: Amazon Go

#525

Post by OJFord »

subdane wrote: post #473
crazypyro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to save jobs that are no longer the most efficient way of solving a problem is not the way to promote the value of humanity, in my opinion. People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. They don't go to the grocery store for social interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay extra for something that only the minority get value out of is not a competitive strategy. If humanity were to take your…

This makes sense from a suburban, car-based perspective. From a walking, city-based lens, neighborhoods and social interactions make a lot of sense. It's why coffee shops haven't been made obsolete by vending machines - at least here in New York. Point is, it depends on your perspective.

    > This makes sense from a suburban, car-based perspective.
    > From a walking, city-based lens, ...
Funny, I'd have said if there was a distinction between driven-to and walked-to locations, it would be the opposite: if I've already taken the time to drive there I'm likely not in that much of a hurry.

Someone else points out the security benefit of a cashless store, which again I'd have thought is more of an advantage to the high street shop than the suburban warehouse-like supermarket.

Re: Amazon Go

#526

Post by kirykl »

DashRattlesnake wrote: post #171
kirykl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding getting charged is an incentive to put it back in the right place that doesn't exist currently. Maybe not even where you picked up just a discard area

Honestly, that's an "incentive" that should be illegal. You should only get charged for something if you actually take it home or use it. Anything else is a cop out to push the costs of a deficient system onto the user/customer.

if the costs of the products are reduced along with the operating and spoilage costs then its a net + to the customer, which aligns with Amazon's basic value propisition

Re: Amazon Go

#527

Post by mikeash »

zepto wrote: post #499
mikeash wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true, then you have nothing to fear. People will pay extra to shop at stores with human cashiers, and the machine-driven stores will not be able to compete. However, I suspect that when presented with the choice, people will take the machine store in exchange for lower prices. And I suspect that you suspect the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned.

Your logic doesn't hold. The unstated assumption is that the people using the stores have sufficient capital to value interaction with people over lower prices. You can imagine that if the shoppers also worked in jobs where their humanity was valued, they might have this capital, but that's not the case for most of us because we work in systems that trade humanity for efficiency and the value extracted is captured by…

Well, they have sufficient capital to use those stores now. Are you proposing that the problem with improved efficiency is that it gives the elite more room to take from the population, so you end up worse off than before? I can see where you're coming from if so, just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Re: Amazon Go

#528

Post by flinty »

mikeash wrote: post #423
delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

If that's true, then you have nothing to fear. People will pay extra to shop at stores with human cashiers, and the machine-driven stores will not be able to compete. However, I suspect that when presented with the choice, people will take the machine store in exchange for lower prices. And I suspect that you suspect the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned.

Walmartification continues, except with Amazon. Amazonification I guess

Re: Amazon Go

#529

Post by tekklloneer »

subdane wrote: post #473
crazypyro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to save jobs that are no longer the most efficient way of solving a problem is not the way to promote the value of humanity, in my opinion. People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. They don't go to the grocery store for social interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay extra for something that only the minority get value out of is not a competitive strategy. If humanity were to take your…

This makes sense from a suburban, car-based perspective. From a walking, city-based lens, neighborhoods and social interactions make a lot of sense. It's why coffee shops haven't been made obsolete by vending machines - at least here in New York. Point is, it depends on your perspective.

> It's why coffee shops haven't been made obsolete by vending machines

I really don't think that's why. Vending machines can't compete with humans still for freshly produced goods. There have been a few shots across the bow, but producing food that requires adjustment is still beyond the range of our sensors.

I can't imagine a robot "dialing in" an espresso machine based on taste like a barista would, at least for another decade.

Re: Amazon Go

#530

Post by [deleted] »

OJFord wrote: post #512
crazypyro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to save jobs that are no longer the most efficient way of solving a problem is not the way to promote the value of humanity, in my opinion. People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. They don't go to the grocery store for social interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay extra for something that only the minority get value out of is not a competitive strategy. If humanity were to take your…

> People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. > They don't go to the grocery store for social > interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay > extra for something that only the minority get value out > of is not a competitive strategy. Spoken like a true New Yorker. (... or some other big American city, but it's more impressive if that's right.) The parent commenter describes something I immediately…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN