This month, Walmart became the latest retailer to announce it’s replacing the price stickers in its aisles with electronic shelf labels. The new labels allow employees to change prices as often as every ten seconds.
“If it’s hot outside, we can raise the price of water and ice cream. If there's something that’s close to the expiration date, we can lower the price — that’s the good news,” said Phil Lempert, a grocery industry analyst.
Jesus, I can’t imagine just coming out and saying this like it’s not fucking deranged to charge people more for WATER during a heat wave.
Also, the first time the price of something rises in the 5 minutes it takes for me to get my shopping done and get to the checkout, I’m taking a shit on the floor.
Also, the first time the price of something rises in the 5 minutes it takes for me to get my shopping done and get to the checkout, I’m taking a shit on the floor.
I'm with you I'm saving my dump truck load for the conveyor belt at the register.
It helps that it's an "industry analyst" and not someone from Walmart.
I can tell you, working in retail, there's no way they'd jack up prices during a heatwave for water. They still gotta compete with other stores, and charging more would cause shoppers to go to where it's cheaper.
Now if there's shortages all over town and even the followers can't keep up, I can see them fucking with prices. But they could do that right now if they wanted to. It's not hard to adjust prices.
The real advantage of electronic labels is not having a crew to replace stacks and stacks of labels all over the store. The cost of labor and cost of the actual label sheets and printer maintenance to keep all that up to date, I'm guessing, is getting to the point where it's cheaper to use electronics.
You say that like people would stop at multiple locations just to compare prices before buying water. Most people will just go wherever is most convenient, such as their usual supermarket. They're not going to spend the time and money driving around to each supermarket in town.
Also, I'm pretty sure that jacking up prices for water string a heat wave is basically the definition of price gouging.
I won’t say never, but my company has these and the tags aren’t able to be centrally updated meaning it would require manual intervention to reprice those items at all locations (and incorrect pricing is grounds for shutdown in some states) furthermore our software only does a pricebook load once a day so I can’t see that in our near future. I’m inclined to believe Walmart execs may be regurgitating a sales pitch more than what they’re capable of doing. That being said never say never and out techno dystopian future will be upon us soon.
In my country we've had these electronic labels for many years, using them was part of my first real job a decade ago. And here they definitely can be updated centrally, and in near real time.
I am sure, I’m just speaking about the ones my company uses. I don’t know much about them other than they aren’t able to be updated centrally. I worded the update part poorly, since the tag can update instantly but our registers don’t update pricing save for once a day.
100% this. It would also prevent them from changing prices based on predictive analytics of the individual customer standing in front of the label — they will do this sooner or later, I guarantee it.
I'd love an NFC tag embedded in them that I could scan and see X weeks/months of history! But that level of transparency would only ever happen with regulation, and in my country (Canada) the grocer oligarchs own the politicians these days...
We've been seeing these electronic tags on sale items at Walmart for the past few years. It's been a few months since the last time we were in the store, but last weekend we noticed ALL items now had small two-color OLED price tags on them. I don't know if that means we're just lucky enough to be one of the first to get the new tech, or that the chain had already started rolling them out well before the article, but they're definitely out there. I'd actually love to get ahold of some just to play with them, although seeing the prices of OLEDs on ebay makes me wonder how any store is saving money by using them.
The first time the price of a good changes between the time I put it in my cart/basket and checkout, I will be starting a class-action lawsuit against corporate fraud.
Well, this'll throw a spanner in the works. To be clear: it's the ulta-orthodox that have been responsible for the worst of the so called "settlers" (displacement of Palestinian people's from their homes) and are rabid supporters of the rightwing Government. They are always in favour of military intervention regardless of outcomes, probably because none of them have to serve in the military.
Traditionally, the Haredim have voted for their own center-right Haredi parties, but a minority (especially the younger generation) are now drifting further rightward towards the nationalist Religious Zionist party of Ben Gvir and Smotrich that is particularly popular amongst the settlers. Despite this recent trend, though, the majority of Haredim remain Anti-Zionist.
It's this stance, combined with the facts that Haredi men have been able to avoid military service and have relied heavily on social security to fund their living costs, that has caused a lot of resentment towards them from the majority of Israeli society. As the article above notes, this removal of their military service exemption has overwhelming support amongst the general population.
But you're definitely right in saying that this throws a spanner in the works, albeit mostly for Netanyahu. His brittle coalition relies heavily on support from the two main Haredi parties in the Knesset. This new policy could backfire on him.
"I'll never forget the sweet romantic words he said to me last night: 'As a learning language model, I am unable to comprehend what the feeling love is. Here is a list of love songs from Wikipedia.'"
We’re not “trying to make every episode real”. Technology’s direction and human foibles are predictable. Black Mirror writers just aren’t blind and have a good sense of what’s coming down the pipeline.
That’s why it’s called Mirror. It’s about showing us who we are.
Sorry if that’s too horrifying for you, but this goes way beyond imitating the last person to mention these problems.
So, if these prices can be so easily updated, surely the retailers can now include tax in the listed price. It's very simple automated math of course...
And how about price comparison, is it mandatory for US supermarkets to display the price per unit based on a standard unit of measurement (such as per pound or per ounce or whatever metrics are used)?
Depends, generally no. Some supermarkets do as a company policy though and I choose to shop at those that do show per-unit pricing (and are also locally/employee owned)
While the labels give retailers the ability to increase prices suddenly, Gallino doubts companies like Walmart will take advantage of the technology in that way. “To be honest, I don’t think that’s the underlying main driver of this,” Gallino said. “These are companies that tend to have a long-term relationship with their customers and I think the risk of frustrating them could be too risky, so I would be surprised if they try to do that.”
How to tell if an academic doesn’t get out enough.
I mean there are clear savings advantages to switching to electronic tags. It takes like 30 to 100 man hours every week to swap out labels depending on store size. Thats like 20 to 50k a year you can save on labor by just having them automatically update each week.
Plus the tags/price strips right now aren't free. Probably another 5k you save a year
Inflation is largely not a problem, corporate price gouging accounts for the bulk of increases. Price gouging increases are an enormous fucking problem for people. Calling it inflation is their script, don't adopt their language.
Consolidation or competitors that has been allowed almost unabated the last 25 years exacerbates the effects.
Yeah every store values client loyalty, but pretending companies (e.g. Walmart for crissakes) want to be loyal to their customers should disqualify you from being called an "industry analyst".
the last few seasons of Discovery have been a bit bogged down by the stuff that has always made it a tough sell as a Trek series: overly ambitious, serialized storylines that aren’t compelling; new characters and environments that don’t impress; plot twists which can be maddening in their lack of logic; big storytelling swings which can be confusing and predictable at once.
Yeah, it's not "underappreciated". It's just not very good for what many of us are expecting. I still haven't gotten through season 3.
I just watched a scene where Michael and Mol were working together, then suddenly Michael decides to attack Mol, then they have a kung fu fight and finally Michael asks Mol stop and says she needs to trust her, as if Michael hadn't just violently assaulted her. The writing is nonsensical.
Unfortunately that is symptomatic of the show as a whole and just one of many problems.
Also the constant deus ex machina, with the characters having a conversations where everyone finishes each others sentences. Its tiresome to watch. I really wanted to like the show but never could.
My wife is fortunately still alive so maybe that colours my view. However when I've lost other people the blessed anaesthesia of forgetting has been essential in being able to function.
From the short quote it seems like she maybe has a healthy-ish attitude but idk... I feel like this would be a shallow simulacrum that prolongs grief.
I don’t believe humans are meant to manage loss in this way — stretching out an imitation of our loved one. As painful as it is, I personally believe humans need to say goodbye. I feel this gets in the way of feeling and truly accepting the loss so that a person can move forward.
Loss is truly heavy, but I do not believe this is better or healthy.
People who can't get over someone losing will sorrow for the rest of the life, or until they get over it. And AI won't help to get over it. Death is part of our life and as soon as you don't accept it, it becomes pain.
It's last year I think when I read someone created the lost son (or some other family member, I forgot) of a mother, in a VR environment. And she could see him/her again in the VR. Absolutely madness! What does this do to the person? Now couple that with an AI... man the future is grim...
I had this conversation with my wife once. I let her know that it is my advance wish that you must allow me to complete the cycle of life. Anything else, any reconstruction of me that technology allows, is to me, an abomination. Keep the pictures, keep the memories, but don’t keep me here when I am gone.
I refrain from judging the decisions of others where possible, but this is my personal wish.
Yeah. I am not a Buddhist but I've always found something rings true in the reflections on impermanence. When we bond with someone we accept the pain of loss, and when we feel it most people seem to describe relief once able to "let go" an accept it being over.
It seems to me that encouraging clinging and reminiscening stunts you a bit and only really provides temporary relief of the loss while drawing out the time it takes to process it.
Idk though, maybe I'll have the misfortune to feel differently some day. It's hard to judge someone hanging out with their spouse watching death creep closer each day. I have approximately zero idea what my opinions would be in the face of that.
I don't believe humans are "meant" to do anything. We are a result of evolution, not intentional design. So I believe humans should do whatever they personally want to do in a situation like this.
If you have a loved one who does this and you don't feel comfortable interacting with their AI version, then don't interact with their AI version. That's on you. But don't belittle them for having preferences different from your own. Different people want different things and deal with death in different ways.
Meant, in this context, refers to the conditions that humans have faced over a long period of time and may be more suited to coping with from a survival point of view. I'm an atheist, so I find it strange that you chose to read my comment as highlighting intentional design. Certainly, AI has existed for a much shorter time than the phenomenon on a human encountering the death of a loved one. Indeed, death has been quite a common theme throughout history, and the tools and support available to cope with it and relate to other human experiences far exceed those for coping with the potential issues that come with AI.
I think one can absolutely speak of needs and adaptation for something as common a human experience as death. If you find something belittling about that opinion, I'm not sure how to address you further. I may simply have to be wrong.
Just gonna say that I agree with you on this. Humans have evolved over millions of years to emotionally respond to their environment. There's certainly evidence that many of the mental health problems we see today, particularly at the scale we see, is in part due to the fact that we evolved to live in a very different way to our present lifestyles. And that's not about living in cities rather than caves, but more to do with the amount of work we do each day, the availability and accessability of essential resources, the sense of community and connectedness with small social groups, and so on.
We know that death has been a constant of our existence for as long as life has existed, so it logically follows that dealing with death and grief is something we've evolved to do. Namely, we evolved to grieve for a member of our "tribe", and then move on. We can't let go immediately, because we need to be able to maintain relationships across brief separations, but holding on forever to a relationship that can never be continued would make any creature unable to focus on the needs of the present and future.
AI simulacrums of the deceased give the illusion of maintaining the relationship with the deceased. It is certainly well within the possibility that this will prolong the grieving process artificially, when the natural cycle of grieving is to eventually reach a point of acceptance. I don't know for sure that's what would happen... but I would want to be absolutely sure it's not going to cause harm before unleashing this AI on the general public, particularly vulnerable people (which grieving people are.)
Although I say that about all AI, so maybe I'm biased by the ridiculous ideology that new technologies should be tested and regulated before vulnerable people are experimented on.
There may not have been any intentional design, but humans are still meant to eat food, drink water, and breathe oxygen, and going against that won't lead to a good end.
Even with that, being absolutist about this sort of thing is wrong. People undergoing surgery have spent time on heart/lung machines that breathe for them. People sometimes fast for good reasons, or get IV fluids or nutrients provided to them. You don't see protestors outside of hospitals decrying how humans aren't meant to be kept alive with such things, though, at least not in most cases (as always there are exceptions, the Terri Schiavo case for example).
If I want to create an AI substitute for myself it is not anyone's right to tell me I can't because they don't think I was meant to do that.
Sure, you should be free to make one. But when you die and an AI company contacts all your grieving friends and family to offer them access to an AI based on you (for a low, low fee!), there are valid questions about whether that will cause them harm rather than help - and grieving people do not always make the most rational decisions. They can very easily be convinced that interacting with AI-you would be good for them, but it actually prolongs their grief and makes them feel worse. Grieving people are vulnerable, and I don't think AI companies should be free to prey on the vulnerable, which is a very, very realistic outcome of this technology. Because that is what companies do.
So I think you need to ask yourself not whether you should have the right to make an AI version of yourself for those who survive your death... but whether you're comfortable with the very likely outcome that an abusive company will use their memories of you to exploit their grief and prolong their suffering. Do you want to do that to people you care about?
This is speculation of corporate action completely divorced from the specifics of this technology and particulars of this story. The result of this could be a simple purchase either of hardware or software to be used as chosen by the person owning it. And the person commissioning it can specify exactly who such a simulacrum is presented to. None of this has to be under the power of the company that builds the simulacrums, and if it is structured that way, then that's the problem that should be rejected or disallowed, not that this particular form of memento exists.
It could still be a bad idea even if the profit motive isn’t involved.
One might be trying to help with the big surprise stash of heroin they leave to their widow, and she might embrace it fully, but that doesn’t make it a good idea or good for her.
Sure, and that point is being made in multiple other places in these comments. I find it patronizing, but that's neither here nor there as it's not what this comment thread is about.
My sister has hundreds of YouTube videos she used to help her students learn between music lessons. It will be two years soon since she died, I haven't been able to watch even one.
I like to remember her in my mind, it hurts less than seeing her when she was alive.
I tried things like character AI to play with talking to "celebrities". It was novel, it was fun. For about 15 minutes. Then... Eh. It's not the person, and your brain knows it's not them. It's always an imitation. I got bored talking with people I've always wanted to talk to.
I can't imagine it being a lived one who has passed. It would feel hollow, empty, and wouldn't make the pain leave. Idk, it just wouldn't be good at all
One of my colleagues has something along the lines of superior autobiographical recall. He remembers in great detail major and minor events from childhood to today. It's difficult for him to forget.
I myself have forgotten long stretches of my life, and even looking at pictures of myself from those times it feels unfamiliar.
There are some things that I wish I could remember better, but overall I prefer my forgetful brain to his never forget brain.
I’ve got that biographical detail and it’s kind of weird being able to remember times with my friends that they can’t remember.
Just feels lonely. Like imagine being the only person who can remember more than an hour ago. How your life would feel different than those living within that 1-hour window.
Of cause that is a BS reason. But they should have stopped using fax machines 20 years ago. How can any reason they give why they have to stop now be any other than BS.
It reads to me more just as a statement of contrast, as in 'we're in a world of incredibly high-tech new technology, we shouldn't still be using something from the Victorian era!'
Of course not. It lets their office or even corporate computers change the prices in real time whenever they feel like it. Hypothetically, you could pick something off a shelf where the digital signset $3, and by the time you walked it up to a register, it cost $4. It's like changing the price of something in a shop simulation video game after the customer has picked it up, and now they have to pay $9,999.99 for a bag of potato chips.
And my country has price laws where tagged prices have to be honoured (I forget all the technicalities of the policy) - so if something scans up wrong, what stops the employee at service from changing the shelf price to reflect the wrong one while another employee walks over to verify with me? It would need a nefarious intent, which most minimum wage shop employees could care less about, but it's a theoretical that could happen, especially on higher price items.
That would be illegal. I worked on the software deployment of these devices in a store. If we increased the price, we'd automatically give the customer the lowest price in the last several hours.
The other problem was they were extremely low powered and low bandwidth and it would have killed the battery to update more than a few times a day.
[2,600 men and women, with an average age of 64 years old] were surveyed about their physical activity over their lifetime. As part of the study, researchers took X-ray images to evaluate signs of arthritis in their knee joints.
The study can not prove cause and effect, given it was an observational study that assessed osteoarthritis at one point in time.
Credit where it's due, the editor has written a headline which actually comports with the merits of the study, not overstating the benefits of cycling on elderly knee arthritis. And the author takes care to do the same. The article also discusses the risks specific to elderly cyclists, and identifies the aspects of cycling which are low-impact.
Imagine training your whole life for one Olympics where you're at peak performance, then having it fucked up because organisers decided to do this performative nonsense.
Yeah, but we're talking about an underfloor cooling system here. They don't really have a way to distribute the cold air like air-conditioning systems do. So in the Olympic village's case, a fan should be needed.
It's not exactly hot either though, after being in 35+c sun, it's pretty chill.
For reference, my aircon is set to 27c in summer (still comfortable, but cost effective) and 18c in winter (WHO minimum recommended house temp, any less is a health hazard - also for cost effectiveness - electricity is expensive)
I hear you, but 79 is "hot" if you are used to be in 70 degree ac. They will get used to it of course but athletes don't want to have to get used to it.
npr.org
Top