5 ms·
I've been trying to make Buckbee's Law happen for a while: "The more a robot looks like a robot the less useful it is." Take fast food as an example: what's r
by michaelbuckbee 6y ago
I've been trying to make Buckbee's Law happen for a while:
"The more a robot looks like a robot the less useful it is."
Take fast food as an example: what's really going to change things are automated systems that reduce the number of people needed to run the place. Look at things like touchscreen ordering systems that cut the number of people talking to you. That's not a "robot" but it is automation of a sort.
- mechagodzilla 6y agoThese aren't really much of an improvement in efficiency though - self-checkout kiosks for stores have been around since at least the early 2000s, and they're still much slower than minimum-wage cashiers with a little experience (maybe Amazon will finally change this, but the tech my local grocery has is definitely as bad as the kiosk I worked alongside in 2003). It takes me much longer to order using a kiosk at a McDonald's than it takes me to tell a cashier what I want. I remember using a touch-screen kiosk at a Subway back in 2005, and my local subway 15 years later still doesn't have them. This ultra rise in productivity just isn't actually happening despite what conversations on hacker news (and before that, digg, and before that, slashdot) keep insisting on.
- pixl97 6y agoThe kiosk isn't the productivity increase. The app I order 10 minutes before I get there and the foods already finished is.
- kalleboo 6y agoThere are other types of efficiency than time. At my supermarket, they replaced 2 regular checkouts with 8 self-checkouts in the same floor space. During rush hour, this greatly increases throughput despite actual scanning time perhaps being slower. At McDonalds, it means they can higher fewer staff which means a cost efficiency.