Only about one-third of surveyed retailers plan to invest in self-checkout technology this year, significantly fewer than in 2025, according to an annual retail industry report. While...
“and if it doesnt thats a win for people and a loss for the shop.” This case is not a win for people. The people did not ask the shop to automate services better rendered by humans. Half the time shops have to have a human on hand to help the self checkouts when they fail or reader errors plague the customers. I personally have had those machines stall out or stop working and waste my time and that of one of the few workers still around the store which slows up service somewhere else cause of understaffing. These things are specifically not an advancement if you’ll turn your attention to the article that started this post.
“Your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs is dumb.” How? Why is humans losing jobs dumb?
You want to vaguely gesture to all technology being good just by virtue of being new, but these things end up being terrible busienss decisions all the fucking time, too. Some work, some don’t, and almost all aren’t done for the benefit of anybody but the bottom line of the owners. You write like you have no point of reference or understanding of working life, or ability to connect to other people in society given the way you just handwave human replacement. It’s embarassing frankly, you want to call nuance brain rot to avoid engaging with it because you’re developmentally challenged.
People dont need to ask. The shop can add them and compare what people choose and determine that way. Its obvious people prefer these even though they are actually less efficient.
Why is humans losing jobs dumb?
I didnt say losing jobs was dumb i said your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs was done. The reason its dumb is because everything a lot of the things we make as humans eliminates jobs and still there is so much work to be done. We are no where near a point where we’ve eliminated a significant portion of the jobs. Your logic is that we shouldnt be going forward with a lot of improvements because they eliminate jobs but thats a terrible point. Your point had no nuance and it was brain rotten.
“and if it doesnt thats a win for people and a loss for the shop.” This case is not a win for people. The people did not ask the shop to automate services better rendered by humans. Half the time shops have to have a human on hand to help the self checkouts when they fail or reader errors plague the customers. I personally have had those machines stall out or stop working and waste my time and that of one of the few workers still around the store which slows up service somewhere else cause of understaffing. These things are specifically not an advancement if you’ll turn your attention to the article that started this post.
“Your point about this being applied broadly and eliminating jobs is dumb.” How? Why is humans losing jobs dumb?
You want to vaguely gesture to all technology being good just by virtue of being new, but these things end up being terrible busienss decisions all the fucking time, too. Some work, some don’t, and almost all aren’t done for the benefit of anybody but the bottom line of the owners. You write like you have no point of reference or understanding of working life, or ability to connect to other people in society given the way you just handwave human replacement. It’s embarassing frankly, you want to call nuance brain rot to avoid engaging with it because you’re developmentally challenged.
People dont need to ask. The shop can add them and compare what people choose and determine that way. Its obvious people prefer these even though they are actually less efficient.