The problem isn’t the robots, robots increase productivity and make life easier for humans. The problem is the corporations, which hoard the benefits of the robots to make life harder for humans.
You’re angry at the wrong thing. Few people aspire to be delivery drivers.
The company’s dedication to retro authenticity goes far beyond creating desirable gaming hardware.
Sure, Analogue also caters to scalpers, to a point.
Somewhat /s, I guess?
I love my Analogue Pocket, which I’ve had for a little over a year, and Dock, which I’ve gotten maybe a week ago but has already surpassed my (fairly mild) expectations. I’ve also had a Super Nt for over a year and have a pre-order in for the Duo, so I tend to appreciate what Analogue comes out with, but their recent strategy with limited edition Pockets feels a bit ill-intentioned.
They had seemingly finally caught up to production issues and were able to deliver everyone’s orders towards the end of August and suddenly made both regular editions of the Pocket unavailable to then “drop” limited editions a few weeks later.
Those are once again hard to get, unsurprisingly slightly more expensive than the “regular” variant and generate a significant amount of demand for very limited quantities.
I might be reading too much into it, but it feels like they’re still trying to cultivate a constant feeling of FOMO and/or limited supply around the Pocket, all the while being finally able to catch up with demand (I fully understand production was not at scale compared to how much demand there was for it back in 2021/2022).
For anyone unaware, you can get a Slate kit for the GBA SP for about $100 less (provided you have an SP lying around), and it can play GBA, GBC, and original Gameboy carts. If all you’re looking for is the form factor and general retro gaming, there’s other options out there.
Yeah, I see them as the Teenage Engineering for retro hw. They both have an Apple flavor to them: create a unique, highly polished designed, and use scarcity to sell the product.
As a small batch hw company, that’s definitely the safer route to go, vs over-producing your niche product and then not being able to sell them all.
They let you get in line with a very clear delivery date when they can't meet demand, compared to basically everyone else who just has stock drops on and off.
I’m thinking apple from 15 years ago when they were first establishing this marketing strategy. The first few iphones were hard to get your hands on at launch, which is why people started lining up.
These days Apple has their manufacturing pipeline down and can accurately estimate, and mass produce to meet demand. Analogue and TE will probably never have enough demand to justify mass production of any of their products. So it behooves them to err on the side of scarcity.
If you are too lazy to pickup your own food and need someone to deliver it to you, then yeah it is your job to pay those people. You expect someone to want to bring you food for free?
No, I think he expects their employer to pay them through the fees they collect. If the tip is mandatory, it’s not a tip, it’s a fee and it should be included in the up front costs with payroll taxes etc deducted.
Instead of a bribe, I call it a Bid. I’ll give a tip for good service, somebody waiting around an extra 10 minutes at the restaurant because they’re giving us BOTH the runaround? Absolutely, have an extra bit of cash, you didn’t have to do that for me and I want to compensate that extra effort so they’re more likely to go that extra mile in the future without fear of it hurting potential profits they would have made by dropping me and picking up another order.
Invalids and disabled people use these services too. The problem isn’t they expect it for free, the problem is the people who do the work are not being paid a living wage to do it.
There is a deeper problem that doesn't get discussed enough: namely, that customer may not actually value delivery enough to pay workers a livable wage. Delivery companies are bleeding money left and right, and none of them are meaningfully profitable. They were riding the money tap from low interest rates for a while, but now that that's dried up and people are starting to hit their limit of how much they'll pay in fees for delivery, we're gonna hit a breaking point, especially as governments start to tighten the rules like this.
Either customers will actually pay enough for this to be a financially viable business, or they won't. Pretty much every sign has pointed in the negative so far, and the companies are eventually going to run out of money to throw at this. From a teeny bit of research, it seems like the average delivery worker gets somewhere around 3-4 trips per hour. To hit $20 a hour, which isn't exactly a high wage, each person ordering delivery is going to have to accept adding at least five more bucks or so on top of the cost of their food, and on top of a fee to actually keep the platform itself running, and those engineers aren't exactly cheap, and even more fees to start paying down the company's debt (Uber has about 9 billion dollars of debt right now), and even more fees to pay shareholders.
There's simply quite of lot of cost built into a single delivery trip, and I don't think the average consumer is really willing to pay it just to save a bit of time and effort getting food. But hey, we'll see.
Pizza delivery is generally handled by each individual restaurant with some dedicated employees, so it's a pretty different model than something like Uber Eats. Pizza is also fast, cheap, and simple, so that helps to drive down costs. It's also generally a complete meal for at least two people, if not a whole group, and so the delivery cost gets split across more people.
I get the comparison, but I don't think they're really as analogous as they seem. One is a pizza place hiring a delivery person or two to drive some pizza around; the other is a large tech company settled with debt and inventor obligations paying very expensive engineers to manage incredibly complicated logistics networks and deal with tens of thousands of distinct parties.
This is really kinda my point. Why is pizza delivery so much cheaper? Because it doesn't have to deal with all these extra costs that a massive delivery network like Uber inherently has to manage. I imagine we'll eventually hit some kind of equilibrium where a lot of restaurants that can manage it have their own in-house delivery people, while the large networks will have to dramatically downsize or die.
It’s similar in some ways but overall a very different business model which doesn’t work out nearly as efficiently.
When you’re delivering pizza, you generally just work out of one location. You have a relationship with the business you’re working at which includes an area set aside for deliveries where drivers can both plan the orders into batches of ones that work well together, considering when they’ll come out of the oven, their destinations, and what the other drivers are doing. When it’s busy, drivers can go in, look over all the current orders (ready or not), and take deliveries to their cars without needing to interact with employees at all. In some locations, they might also be considered kitchen staff and can also do things like pick orders or cook items that aren’t yet ready, allowing them to both provide value to the business (further justifying a wage) and get deliveries out the door sooner.
A lot of that isn’t the case for delivery services. The food pickup can be anywhere, so you can’t just go back to the restaurant and wait, and the pickups need to be optimized just like the dropoffs (if the service even allows you to batch deliveries together). You don’t have that relationship with the business; you’re basically just another customer, so no going to the back to see what’s up or helping the employees when they are swamped.
I’ve done pizza delivery in the past. I didn’t mind it. I don’t think I would like delivering for one of these apps, it sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
If I take everything you say as true at face value. Then the business was a shitty idea. The owners of the company who have gambled away the VC money should be the ones on hook for it, not the customers.
It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure their workers get paid. Period.
That's precisely my point. It's ultimately a shitty business idea, and will probably eventually fail.
I don't really understand what you mean by being on the hook for it. Investors will ultimately lose quite a lot of money, workers will lose their jobs, and customers will endure the horror of walking or driving a bit to grab food.
A tip is merely subsidizing a company’s inability to pay its employees appropriately. I really could care less seeing Stanley Tang (door dash founder/ owner) gamble (and lose) hundreds of thousands of dollars on hustler casino live playing poker while simultaneously claiming his company can’t pay a living wage.
Don’t worry the drivers will just refuse to pick up your order. Basically the way it works given the companies show the tip to drivers. Especially door dash. Which create an extremely toxic problem where drivers can decide what they think is worth their time or pick something up and fuck with someone’s food cuz they didn’t get “tipped”
In this specific case, I’d unironically agree, though it’s more the free market than something that would be specific to capitalism. Users put out offers of “pick up this food for me and I will pay you x”, and drivers have the option of taking or leaving any of the offers. If none of them think your order is worth their time, I don’t think forcing any of them to do it anyways is the right thing to do.
Lmao L take. I seriously have to bid on a delivery service? What if I have a cash tip? Which is better cause it don’t technically need to be taxed for them. I am happy to render a tip after service is delivered. But the thought of bidding for something is ridiculous. And it already creates an extremely toxic environment and makes it even more toxic.
In an ideal world perhaps one managed by a federated system sure. But the companies they work for take part of their profit should they not be obligated to then treat these people as employees?
I think we are likely moving in the direction of a surveillance state, but not in the way that the UK or China do it. The State won’t spend billions on an extensive network of cameras and sensors, they will merely write laws that require private companies to hand over any footage deemed relevant.
This is already happening with companies like Ring. It makes sense when I think about it, because it saves billions of dollars and offloads all the infrastructure management onto the private sector while still reaping the benifits.
I hadn’t really thought about it like that until now. It is like a distributed surveillance network with almost zero cost and overhead, scary.
It’s been the strategy for decades. Facebook is also very useful to determine someone’s social graph, whereabouts, interests, etc. You don’t even have to have a Facebook account, if someone uploads a picture of you, they’ll create a ghost profile.
Isn’t it funny how they observe the streets with their cameras 100% continually and everything gets stored on their servers, and at the same time they celebrate their alledged policies of never doing exactly that.
We have more energy consuming stuff than ever. But do you ever see NEW substations being built? NEW long range power lines? I don’t.
Around here, the utility has a deal- they will sell you a top of the line $400 color touchscreen WiFi thermostat that talks to Alexa and displays the weather report and does a bunch of other shit, for $10 (not a typo). In exchange, you let them remotely shut off your AC if the grid gets overloaded.
Why do they do this? Because a few truckloads of thermostats (with a bulk discount) are a fuckton cheaper than actually upgrading the grid.
And so we hear about grid overload days and possible brownouts and incentives to shut stuff off as if this is the way it’s supposed to be. But the reality is these problems only exist because utilities don’t keep ahead of necessary upgrades. After all, why spend the money when there’s shareholders to answer to?
This is not a remotely accurate assessment of demand side management programs. Such programs are overwhelmingly required of IOUs by states since they tend to be cheaper than infrastructure upgrades for everyone. Utilities on the other hand tend to prefer infrastructure upgrades because they get a guaranteed rate of return typically. You have this completely backwards.
Interesting. Do you have any sources on this or more reading material behind it? I have yet to really see any things suggesting utilities are asking to do CapEx on infrastructure improvements but are being told no.
I think I gave off the wrong impression that these are more linked than they are, sorry. Many states require cost effective EE because it’s generally good policy (benefits outweigh costs), and some of those benefits include not having to build new capacity. PUCs generally also support infrastructure investments, and with guaranteed rates of return on most T&D for example, it’s a no brainer. So states are often doing both, and there are varying options about the merits of each. To your question though, one notable recent example is the gas pipeline that Gov Cuomo vetoed, which led to more gas efficiency programs in downstate NY.
I’m also embarrassed to report I can’t think of a good source for you since I’m in the industry, other than primary sources like utility financial statements, rate cases, state regulations, etc. Hope this was helpful - it’s a fascinating industry.
If you’re asking that then you first need to ask what the distinction between the two is. and further does it even make sense for one to spin and not the other
Even if there is heterogeneity inside the system, that does not indicate severability or that the whole system is made up of smaller constituent systems.
The black hole and the stuff outside it constitute a single system, and within that system, angular momentum is conserved. So as objects cross the event horizon, their angular momentum is transferred to the black hole.
That would be a general method, if we were close enough to observe the shape of the event horizon (which we aren’t).
The article is describing another way, which only works in this case because the black hole is precessing so extremely that the changing axis of rotation is frame-dragging the polar jets along with it.
I thought nothing actually crossed the event horizon and was essentially frozen approaching a complete stop in time in a kind of 2f representation of 3d reality until it slowly leaked out trillions of years later as hawking radiation?
From an outsider’s perspective, you would see an object approach and then freeze. It would red-shift dimmer until it disappeared. From an in-falling perspective, I don’t think you’d notice anything at all.
Isn’t most everything spinning? Seems like having zero angular momentum would be rare and remarkable. I’m not even sure how exactly to define zero momentum in terms of reference frames.
Honest question to the lemmy users here, but do people believe the solution to the affordability crisis in the US is to raise the salaries of every single job out there (menial or skilled)?
Looking to have a real conversation and not just a ‘fuck capitalism’ one (and yes, I know it sucks, but I’m looking for a real conversation).
I dont think raising minimum wage will help. It just forces the service to raise the cost of the delivery fee. I don’t know the answer to the affordability crisis, but it ain’t that!
I come in peace, because you wanted an honest answer/real conversation. .
Very good points. I hadn’t thought of the downfall of delivery to be an option, but I can understand that. The inflation stuff is a little over my head but if we constantly target higher inflation, what is the end game? We can’t raise all salaries realistically and have a loaf of bread cost $20 in the end. Is the future meant to have less humans?
aaaand THAT is the real fucking issue here. All these low wages are completely unnecessary but the C-suite needs their bonuses to increase YoY!!!
Yes, it comes out of worker compensation, what’s your point?? If wages go up we will have to raise prices instead of cutting (or even limiting increases) into our poor leadership’s bonuses and compensation /s
Yes @missveeronica, love peace, love discussion! I am curious what other alternatives we have or what people can think of. It’s obviously a very tough problem since the US government can’t seem to (agree to) fix it. Things that pop in my mind:
I understand this is a basic overstatement, but in general, people work so that they can afford a house. I think housing prices have gone bonkers in recent years, partially due to foreign investors and the flipping houses/Airbnb craze. One thing that pops into my mind is to impose a flip tax, where unless the owner personally lives in a house for 4-5 years, they pay a large tax when selling the home. This of course applies to corporations as well but with the added spice of larger tax if the inventory was empty the entire time. If we can make housing affordable again, I think the need for higher salaries is less of an issue.
Revamp the food stamp system and make it universal to everyone. This ties into universal basic income, but I think if everyone was part of a food stamp program, it would make it less stigmatized and there would be a wider offering of choices available. This could be very cool.
Aside from the usual tax billionaires/term limits/socialize healthcare ideas, it seems that we have an issue where things can get out of hand from people who are greedy. I don’t know how to solve this problem, but I feel like if there was some website that showed what companies are owned by who, we could vote with our dollars and level the playing field. I hate that I found out after years the gym I belong to is owned by some nutjob and I’ve been patronizing him. If there was some visibility into where my money was going, it might educate people where their money is going.
No, the optimal solution is to have a society where all the blood and sweat equity that has been put into the system by workers is finally repaid, and the capitalist leeches of the world are knocked off their thrones. Workers created the abundance that allowed the billionaires of the world to get fat while they let others starve, and only once that misappropriation of resources is ended can we fix the issues that the oligarchs have created.
I agree. I’m having a hard time understanding how raising the salary of delivery workers to what an entry level doctor, engineers or lawyer is going to solve the problem. There are two things that might happen, either all the other salaries in the world will then also increase (and thus services too), keeping the wealth disparity the same, or, since these delivery companies already operate on such thin margins (GrubHub net profit for past years have been negative $millions), they are going to pass the cost to the consumer. It creates an interesting problem where then it’s too expensive to get delivery so you don’t order food, which means less delivery jobs are needed so people are laid off, preventing people from making money. Also, from what I’ve seen, most of the workers seems to be immigrants. While I’m not saying we take advantage of immigrants, but these low barrier to entry jobs have always been helpful for those who have complicated statuses.
I’m not bashing any delivery worker (I used to work at a wings shop in my youth), but the amount of interaction you spend with a delivery worker is usually minimal. It doesn’t require any formal training and neither being a bad one is going to affect whether you are in the mood for Thai food.
The federal minimal wage is still the same. $18 an hour is still low in New York. If anything, the law just gets rid of jobs people should not have been going for in the first place.
I don’t think it’s the wrong question. Profits exists in every society and many countries are capitalist or have their own flavor of capitalism. If the idea is to create a system where those who excel are rewarded, then profits need and should exist. In a capitalist economy, this drives better products, better services, etc. Additionally, the opposite of profit (loss), serves as a great metric to determine whether something is worth doing. If the customer wants a pure gold toilet, but only has $50 to spend, your going to offer them spray paint instead of the real thing.
There are some bad apples that abuse profits, and disproportionately hoard all the value, but I’m looking to discuss my original question.
I’d argue a meritocracy is impossible. how does one determine the best person at writing marketing copy, or mowing lawns, or cleaning gutters? You end up creating a race to the bottom of speed, price and lack of safety or security. Only the most ruthless, manipulative, careless end up winning.
Profit is excess — so it’s not a natural byproduct. No one ever lowers prices, but you can, no one ever splits out excess wealth to workers but you can. It’s not impossible.
I’d ask you does captialism create a better product? We’re here on Lemmy, so its especially pertinent to ask whether reddit was better as a free product for the benefit of everyone, or is it better as a for-profit model with ads, gold, awards, data vending, paid tiers etc?
Same for privatization of railroads, water, power. When is an example of (long term) improvement of private ownership?
Same for Healthcare, why is it better to have more expensive service, less access, more barriers but a better paid middleman?
The current way we determine those things are clickthroughs for marketing copy, ratings or repeat clients for landscapers and gutter cleaners. I’ve definitely hired someone before and said, damn they did a good job, I’d have paid more for that.
I’d disagree profit is excess. At most companies, if a product or job is profitable, the extra money is used for R&D, taking risk on new things and giving bonuses to people who really stood out. Profit is required for products in services so then you can reinvest and provide more value to users.
I think that capitalism generally does create the best product. In the US we are leaders in technology, research, aerospace and infrastructure. I’m not saying we are #1 in everything, but the process does work and time and time again companies and countries use products developed from the US.
The most talented people in their fields come here because they have the ability to earn money for their talents. While it’s not a perfect meritocracy, generally the best in their field stand out.
Regarding healthcare, railroads or other private services. The best thing is that they are private, and if something comes to disrupt the status quo you are free to take your dollars elsewhere. Same thing with lemmy; while I’d argue reddit (at the moment) has a lot more engaging and varied content because of it’s user base, I chose to stick with lemmy because I like it’s value propositions.
Privatisation isn’t terrible, look at what SpaceX has done, completely turned the space industry sideways. For healthcare you have new companies like Oscar, which have given people immediate access to telemedicine. In Japan, the Japan Railways (JR) is a massive private railway organization that provides bullet trains and local trains across the country: it can be done.
This part I haven’t figured out. Seems chicken and egg to me. If we keep raising wages to match inflation, the costs of good measured to match inflation will also go up and we end up with higher inflation right?
are you really questioning if people deserve a competitive wage in which they can actually live on?
Do you believe the solution is instead to limit which jobs get paid a wage you can survive on? I’m not saying all jobs, but you better believe higher wages to the workers and less to the C-suite is 1000000000000% a better solution.
Do you have ANY idea how much wealth has been transferred from the workers to the elite since just 2020?? Open your fucking eyes
According to Forbes, the 10 richest people, as of 30 November 2021, have seen their fortunes grow by $821 billion dollars since March 2020.
The wealth of the world’s 10 richest men has doubled since the pandemic began. The incomes of 99% of humanity are worse off because of (and following) COVID-19. Widening economic, gender, and racial inequalities—as well as the inequality that exists between countries—are tearing our world apart. This is not by chance, but choice: “economic violence” is perpetrated when structural policy choices are made for the richest and most powerful people. This causes direct harm to us all, and to the poorest people, women and girls, and racialized groups most.
I am not saying people don’t deserve a living wage. Raising the minimum wage helps solve short term problems, but from what I see, doesn’t help fix the high cost of living. The cost of living needs to be lowered somehow, and I was curious what people thought on this. I don’t think the money to subsidize the workers are going to come from the CEOs salaries…
engadget.com
Active