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

When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

a.wholelottanothing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#91

Post by fortran77 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #5

I was recently at an events center, that has replaced all of their vending machines with machines that require me to install an app(!) to purchase a product. Literally, didn't take cash or credit - just via app. Per the marketing on the side, this is meant to be for my benefit in order to earn "points" and get offered "deals." I don't think I have to tell you that I did NOT install the app, and just walked further to…

How on earth can this be ADA compliant? That may the the best front to fight these abominations.

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#92

Post by fortran77 »

scrps wrote: post #65

Tangential: Can someone more in the know answer this for me? What happened to RFID for things like this? I know it is used elsewhere but it seems like that would be a much faster and lighter weight solution for self-checkout.

RFID still costs several cents per sensor. At suparmarkets, this is a non-starter, but for some retailers, like Uniqlo, it's acceptable.

You would think that overpriced concessions would be a great place for this because it can be very fast and accurate but I think this would require the food handler to make sure to use a different tray or container for each differently priced item, etc. And there may just be enough items that would be hard to affix an RFID to (metal can, etc) that would make it unfeasible.

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#93

Post by ggreer »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #19
svachalek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly. It's like how modern bridges can be built with less materials than old ones, now that we can calculate precisely the minimum we use pretty much exactly that. Things have gone exactly the same way with consumers over the past 30 years, businesses have learned exactly how badly they can treat you and step up to that line at every opportunity.

Bridges are public goods. If the public spends less on material they can afford to build additional bridges and create value for more people.

Bridges are not public goods. Public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Bridges are both excludable (people can be prevented from crossing unless they pay a toll) and rivalrous (only so many people can use a bridge at once). This makes them a private good. Yes bridges are funded by governments with revenues collected from taxes, but that doesn't change their economic classification.

And the main cost of bridges is not materials, it's design, permitting, and construction. For example: Adjusted for inflation, the new San Francisco Bay Bridge span cost $8.6 billion. Its 450,000 cubic yards of concrete weigh around 1.3 million tons, for a cost of around $6,000 per ton. Concrete is $50-75 per ton, so that's 1% of the cost.

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#94

Post by nitwit005 »

1718627440 wrote: post #90
nitwit005 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But of course they do. A big part of those schemes is to track all people's purchases. They also sold that data.

A paper card with a stamp doesn't even have a name on it and the only copy of it existing is owned by the costumer. The only information e.g. the baker has is what names he has in brain.

The cards I was referring to were plastic cards with magnetic strips.

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#95

Post by pants2 »

OptionOfT wrote: post #30
Someone1234 wrote: post #5

I was recently at an events center, that has replaced all of their vending machines with machines that require me to install an app(!) to purchase a product. Literally, didn't take cash or credit - just via app. Per the marketing on the side, this is meant to be for my benefit in order to earn "points" and get offered "deals." I don't think I have to tell you that I did NOT install the app, and just walked further to…

It's all about the pop-ups & tracking. The same reason that McDonald's wants you to install their app.

I recently went into a McDonald's for the first time in years to just order a drink. The guy at the register informed me I couldn't place an order at the front and had to use the kiosk. The kiosk was full of dark patterns to try to get me to install their app. It took me around 5 mins between navigating the kiosk menus and waiting for my number to get called just to give me a medium drink. Something that would have been 20 seconds at the counter. I'll be avoiding McDonald's at all cost from here on out.

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#96

Post by scrps »

fortran77 wrote: post #92
scrps wrote: post #65

Tangential: Can someone more in the know answer this for me? What happened to RFID for things like this? I know it is used elsewhere but it seems like that would be a much faster and lighter weight solution for self-checkout.

RFID still costs several cents per sensor. At suparmarkets, this is a non-starter, but for some retailers, like Uniqlo, it's acceptable. You would think that overpriced concessions would be a great place for this because it can be very fast and accurate but I think this would require the food handler to make sure to use a different tray or container for each differently priced item, etc. And there may just be enough…

I kinda figured it would come down to RFID still probably being pricey, used it a while back when it was newish and pricey but haven't looked in years.

That is a good point with the pricing making it cost effective but they probably look at it from some maximum profit POV.

Honestly something like an Automat diner style system would help with the latency and queuing and way easier to implement technically.

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#97

Post by clan »

ggreer wrote: post #93
throwaway48476 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bridges are public goods. If the public spends less on material they can afford to build additional bridges and create value for more people.

Bridges are not public goods. Public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Bridges are both excludable (people can be prevented from crossing unless they pay a toll) and rivalrous (only so many people can use a bridge at once). This makes them a private good. Yes bridges are funded by governments with revenues collected from taxes, but that doesn't change their economic classification. And the main cost of brid…

That was a very narrow definition of a public good.

Not preventable? (Excludable)

Not limited in supply? (Rivalous)

What can even be defined as a public good. Can air even be a public good by this definition? Even arguing in good faith I cannot wrap my head around this.

A hospital? Limited capacity even with socialized medicine. Not a public good?

Is this just an (to me) alien and extreme libertarian viewpoint I cannot fathom or am I missing something deeper?

The concrete example stands. But a world in which we do not consider bridges a public good seems rather dystopian to me. I grant you that some of those might be private. But considering all to be private and just with a handwave acknowledge that most are publicly funded seems... Odd...

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#98

Post by clan »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #27
_9ptr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. If the minimum amount is actually the minimum and not less than necessary, you don't need to exceed that. What the poster before wanted to imply was that we sacrifice safety or sustainability or some value other than material/money (which may well be true).

Usually something is sacrificed in the name of extractive profit. With public spending it's just less taxes.

I sort of get your point. But it is not a given.

Everybody tries to maximize their budgets.

Less taxes is not the default. You will most likely get something else.

When extractive profits is involved you will never get a cheaper bridge unless there is fierce competition. Tenders are narrowly defined so you do not see the offers that you can build 2 bridges for the price of one.

In good markets governments keep the bridge building market hot enough so you have the supply ready for the next large projects. That is what keeps the price of big infrastructure projects down.

Hence there is a very good argument for not simply returning the tax dollars.

I do believe in Free markets. But I do believe in good governance as well.

A good example around here is that the knowledge and lessons learned from building the Storebælt Link[0] made the Oresund bridge[1] get in pretty much on budget. Whereas German political fuckery delayed the Fehmarn belt project[2] and will go hugely over budget both due to missing momentum but also due to inflation

[0] https://sundogbaelt.dk/en/about-us/finance-economics/constru... [1] https://sundogbaelt.dk/en/about-us/finance-economics/constru... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link

Re: When a stadium adds AI to everything, it's worse experience for everyone

#99

Post by ggreer »

clan wrote: post #97
ggreer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bridges are not public goods. Public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Bridges are both excludable (people can be prevented from crossing unless they pay a toll) and rivalrous (only so many people can use a bridge at once). This makes them a private good. Yes bridges are funded by governments with revenues collected from taxes, but that doesn't change their economic classification. And the main cost of brid…

That was a very narrow definition of a public good. Not preventable? (Excludable) Not limited in supply? (Rivalous) What can even be defined as a public good. Can air even be a public good by this definition? Even arguing in good faith I cannot wrap my head around this. A hospital? Limited capacity even with socialized medicine. Not a public good? Is this just an (to me) alien and extreme libertarian viewpoint I cann…

I am using the Econ 101 definition.[1] Examples of public goods include lighthouses, knowledge, a common language, and national defense.

The reason for the different classification is because public goods obey different economic laws. For example: because public goods are non-excludable, they have the free rider problem.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Post reply on HN