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 buy one from a vendor.
There is a massive arrogance problem within tech. Everyone thinks their product should be the center of everyone else's universe. The best products are invisible/get out of the way.
The arrogance is not that they think they're the center of the universe. It is much worse.
I hear a lot of talk about how much pain you can inflict on people and how to extract the most value from that. Last I heard it was from a couple of media types discussing radio commercials. No care for their actual product for the end user - but an evaluation of how much people would suffer before tuning away.
Actual professional pride and care is sooo last century.
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.
>If the public spends less on material they can afford to build additional bridges
Except what happens is that now that we can build them cheaply they waste the same amount of money by turning what could have been simple I beams into a mirror finish exercise in "art" nobody asks for and was bike-shed into oblivion until the whole budget and more was used up. So the public doesn't actually reap any benefit. It just makes work for more parties on the dole. We don't actually get more bridges. We get a bigger racket.
Its not the fault of the engineers, they just did a job. The parasites come from elsewhere. I read that in order to build a reactor in the UK they spent 350 pages in the plan discussing how jobs would be given to various minority groups. Everything government touches is a racket now.
Who even reads all of that? Is it just all in there so someone who says "I really care about <extremely rare ethnic minority>, so I want to make sure they're represented", or is someone actually sitting down and reading 350 pages of job allocations??? I can't imagine a worse punishment, honestly.
Some poor fucking secretary has to read all that shit so that their boss can be advised whether the application is compliant. It won't actually be analyzed unless those sections are sub-par at which point bickering over them becomes a lever the government can pull to extract more flesh. The applicant is forced to go back and say "well we'll hire a minority" or whatever to shore up that section.
On a society level I think everyone realizes the ship is sinking and just looting everything they can before running for the lifeboats.
Bureaucracies became a spoils system. In the 60s the civil rights movement would boycott companies and then demand favors. Minority groups realized the moral weakness of western society and are just in it to loot whatever they can. For them the 350 pages of spoils are very important.
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.
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...
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.
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).
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
Those two discussing it probably felt a great deal of professional pride they can get the volume to within a tenth of a decibel of the maximum tolerable volume before someone changes the channel
I think of a friend who worked at a bank, and a colleage decided to show him "how the world really worked"
He got out a big printout and started showing the different demographics and their habits.
"<ethnic> woman, with a little bit of college" - she will get a credit card, charge it up to the limit, then make the minimum payment... forever.
"<ethnic> man, no college" - he will get a credit card, charge it up to the limit, might make one payment, never make another payment ever.
Then he went on to say, corporations will slant their advertising to target demographic #1 with credit card advertisements. They will make their advertisements disappear from view from demographic #2.
I kind of wonder if the whole vending system is slanted around these kinds of things. Sports fan, uses phone indiscriminately for everything, sell him an impulse snickers bar with an app, then load him down with ads for payday loans.
Nothing against sports fans, but your comment made me wonder if all the grocery stores hopping on the “game day” wave for advertising campaigns are doing so bc their data shows that sports fans are easier to sell to.
In Japan they are also pushing an app for vending machines, but you immediately get three free drinks (then nothing after). It got me to sign up anyway.
We had a card for earning points across multiple brands of supermarkets and other kinds of consumer shops.
One of those chains, Rewe, decided they didn't want to share the points with the others and went ahead, creating their own mobile app for consumer points.
The remaining chains, not wanting to stay behind, decided to do exactly the same.
Now almost every chain has withdrawn from the card program, moved into their own little app, and expect every customer to install all their apps.
I refuse to follow along, and get into interesting discussions, because employees naturally following orders that they have to nag everyone, cannot understand that I rather pay more than installing and giving my data to every chain in exchange for a few euros in discounts.
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.
It's not tech related. Previously, they all did this with various cards. People were walking around with a giant stack of loyalty or store credit cards in their wallet with a rubber band wrapped around it.
There is a store I shop at where every purchase, they ask every single customer if they "have a phone number with them", which they can type in on the point of sale device. I've waited behind people trying to remember their old phone number.
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.
Lumen Field in Seattle just installed some Amazon Just Walk Out vendors this year. I'm happy to report you don't need to be logged into Amazon or have an app. I double clicked my phone to swipe my Apple Pay before I walked in, grabbed a beer and walked out.
The big issue I have with this experience is that you don't get a clear charge price before you leave. So you have to check a page either some minutes or hours later and hope that the total is correct. Like the article said, I don't love the idea of being charged for 3 overpriced bottles of water when I only took two. I'd rather just settle my transactions in the moment than try to remember what my total was and dispute things later from memory on the occasional times it's wrong.
> you don't get a clear charge price before you leave. So you have to check a page either some minutes or hours later and hope that the total is correct
Oh, I’m very much sure this is a feature. Because, you see, only some percentage of people will actually look at the receipt. Some fraction of them will notice the error. Some fraction of those people will actually be motivated to spend their time on the phone clawing back an extra $8 water. The complement of that small percentage is a lucrative chance to sell the same overpriced water more than once.
Amazon had used roughly 1,000 humans in India, according to some news reports, to help monitor accurate checkouts. The company told CNN it’s “reducing the number of human reviews” while developing the “Just Walk Out” technology. Amazon said besides data associates’ main role in working on the underlying technology, they also “validate a small minority” of shopping visits.
At the very least the is how it should be done. Having to download and install an app, then login, then connect payment info, etc... Sounds like such a pain I wouldn't even bother.
I agree with the arrogance. I am just so tired of poor software consuming hours to troubleshoot. technology was supposed to makes things easier, not turn every interaction into a chore or a debug session.
> You place all your items on the white shelf with some space between them. Although they were clearly designed to be a self-checkout experience, the stadium had a staff member rearrange your items, then for about 30 seconds the kiosk would be thinking. After, it would pop up all items on the menu, and the staff member would have to tap to confirm what each item was.
Maybe we're just calling all forms of automation and computer vision "AI" these days because it's sexy. Anyway: any automation that requires a human staff member to intervene to complete every run is not automation: It's just adding unnecessary technology and making the process worse. Imagine if each grocery store self-checkout required a human staff member to scan items, re-arrange things, and confirm checkout.
> Maybe we're just calling all forms of automation and computer vision "AI" these days because it's sexy.
Funny thing is, at first it was the other way around! 'Computer Vision' has always been a sub-field of AI, but the term was more widely used by academics during a previous AI winter as a way to avoid the tainted 'AI' label.
They do that at Circle K[0] today using the same tech from Mashgin. It's meant to be a self-checkout, but you literally have one employee standing and watching this one checkout (sometimes 2-3, but usually 1-2). It's not always accurate, requires some hand-holding at times, and slows down the already slow lines at Circle K. It's a bit faster than the article implies and does not require a staff member, but still slower than a human would be.
Meanwhile over at QuikTrip, there's one person checking out two people at a time. Suffice to say, if both stores are available, I will always choose the QT.
I use circle-K because it's like 3 blocks from me. The self-checkout seems to work fine. I buy alcohol on the rare occasion I drink, and even then the cashier just steps to the side for one moment to check my ID, presses a button, and then goes back to what he's doing with someone/something else. It never overcharges me, at least, and it always seems to pick things up in just a couple moments. I suppose I take the time to space them out a bit, but I always seem to have a perfectly reasonable experience.
That being said, I see the same one-person-two-registers thing at 7-eleven, and it's very, very fast.
> any automation that requires a human staff member to intervene to complete every run is not automation
Not strictly true. Barcode readers are used by humans and are definitely automation. The ironic part though is that the automation going on here is literally object classification, which humans are good at.
The play may be to collect data and make their system better.
I came here to paste that quote. It sounds like a disaster of poor HCI around not-ready-for-prime-time tech implementation. That's not even a great PoC demo to get funding, much less deploy into production.
Maybe they were emboldened because many companies still can't even do decades-old UPC barcode scanner self-checkouts well?
The closest self-checkout to working reasonably well I see regularly would be at Whole Foods Market, at least just using the low-tech UPC and scale. I only have a few nits about it.
(Though, within the last week, the usual duct-taped-on off-the-shelf hand scanner apparently saw the wrong barcode on the front of the product label (yes, some brand did that), which wedged the station, and the employee who came over seemed like they might think I was trying to defraud the store. I've coded for a few of those scanners before, and they provide a mix of automagical easy high-value behavior and major pitfalls. There are a few kinds of interfaces, and a large fleet of settings, and you really have to wrestle the device to the ground, to make every scenario bulletproof. If the integrator wasn't careful, for some of them, you can even reprogram or brick them with an in-band barcode, and disabling this feature is buried among the numerous settings.)
The worst self-checkout I'm currently exposed to is the dumpster-fire of a major chain, which goes out of its way to fill the UI with garbage, and then doesn't do even basic sensing and state flow right. They really need to look at WFM design, and then go even further in that direction, and get the state model right. While making sure that no one's bonus is tied to garbage and dark patterns on the screen.
(Also, for return customers who nope right out of the self-checkout headache, and go to the human checkout, or get directed to it by the attendant who's glaring at all the self-checkouts, they need clean their CC terminal keypad that's visibly caked with crud, like maybe it hasn't been disinfected in a year. Especially since they mandate repeated use of it when it should default to working with just a card tap/swipe, for a high-traffic location for many sick people.)
> Imagine if each grocery store self-checkout required a human staff member to scan items, re-arrange things, and confirm checkout.
They always have at least one person going between each self-checkout kiosk helping confused and upset customers. Meanwhile, 1 traditional checkout lane is open with a long line. Self checkout is great to use if you know how and have a handful of items, but it sucks with a full cart due to space constraints and the bag scales being finicky.
I wish. The Wal-Mart near me no longer has staffed checkouts between 6am (opening time) and 8am. That's two hours in the morning of robots-only. I don't know about in the evenings.
traditional checkout lane is open with a long line.
I use the traditional check-out line whenever I can because where I live, the self-check line is almost always longer. It's not hard to keep an eye on the last person in the self-check line when you go to a real register to see which is faster.
I'm not a fireman on call. I'm OK spending an extra 45 seconds in a traditional line to keep a low-skilled human being employed.
I don't even think it's about going faster. In my experience, a traditional checkout staff is much faster than the self-check out. First of all, it's fantastically batched and pipelined. While the person in front of me is being checked out, I load all of my groceries onto the conveyer. Then, when it's my turn, the clerk does one motion over and over very quickly, and puts it on another conveyer that whisks it out of the way. When there's dedicated bagging staff, it's even more parallel.
Contrast that with self-checkout: There is no conveyer. You have to reach into your cart, grab one item, run it across the scanner, and place that item in a bag, then reach back over into the cart, grab one item, and so on. No pipelining at all.
I go the traditional staffed checkout route for the speed.
This probably doesn't work for groceries, but Uniqlo (a clothing retailer) tags all their items with RFID. You put all your items in the "checkout box" at the same time and just pay, no scanning required.
Australia has had self-checkout in supermarkets and larger retailers for nearly 2 decades now.
Usually you will have a single staff member responsible for 4-10 checkouts to override the machine when your product doesn't register a weight, or you move items off the scale too quickly, and it wants them to check it.
It generally just works and is a lot quicker if you're just scanning a few items; surprised it hasn't really taken off in the US.
Most of the issues these days are when they introduce new features like less tolerance on the weight (sometimes adjusting already scanned items trips an error) or auto-scanning fruit and vegetables.
I think the major difference is whether or not the machine weighs the bagging area. When it's not weighing it, you can scan fast and any weirdness is ignored. If it does check the weight, you have to not only deal with wrong weights in the system but also moving anything around or very light items will trip the alert. Generally the nicer the neighborhood, the better chances you'll have finding a non-weighing self-checkout.
I'm not stupid, I know why these measures exist but there's likely a smarter way to let the small things go. Find a way to add percentages to the alerts so that it won't trigger if I rearrange the bags. Factor in the price of an item as well so that it's triggering on meat that doesn't weigh right versus a can of beans.
> The person in front of me bought two items and saw she got charged for three. Since there were no paper receipts, she took a photo of the machine before going to the guest services to complain. I missed ten minutes of the game getting water.
I wish payment processors / consumer protection would have a significant penalty for sloppy overcharges. I've had to deal with sloppy overcharges like this (one for over $1,000) and you lose a lot of time and the outcome is just 'oppsies, my bad'. There's very little repercussion for sloppy overcharges so it's easy for them to perpetuate.
Back in the olden times overcharging like that would be dealt with the same way as theft would. I'm not entirely convinced it's the wrong way to go about things. It's how the concept of a bakers dozen came to be. Better give everyone 13 in a dozen, just in case you ever miscount.
Once you enter the stadium or a concert, you become a part of the captive market. There exists an incentive to limit your choices and extract as much value out of you as possible. The limit to that is mostly defined by the organizer decency and the amount of pushback.
The experience is usually better at the smaller venues that aren't a part of strong fandom and more sensitive to the customer sentiment: indie cinemas, comedy clubs, etc.
I was at a ballpark and they had self checkout everywhere, except they were usually manned by staff. So I picked out my item, put it on the scanner, and then the staff member would select the checkout button on the screen. Literally that was all they did. And then the screen asked for a tip and the person stared at me expectantly like they had just carried my luggage up two flights of stairs.
And that wasn't really AI, it was more like automation.
Was hoping the article would be about stadium experiences like the announcer, jumbotron, etc. all being AI-driven. When I judge the experience of gameday, concessions are like third on that list. Disappointed with the content.
This isn't just enshittification, it's hostile software [0]. When you dominate a space, for example being the only vendor in the stadium, you can impose whatever you want on customers. There are no options, you can tell customers to select between yes or ok, this is the only way to pay for hotdogs now. As an LA resident, the rate at which we implement these broken and invasive services is alarming.
People overestimate computer vision and other AI capabilities. A few days ago I had a relative struggle to open some fancy cosmetics box. Another relative decided it would be helpful to photograph it and send it to ChatGPT for help. Coincidentally, not that long ago I also heard someone telling about the recent AI advances on the radio and talking how they send photos of things and ChatGPT helps them figure out how to use them instead of reading those boring manuals.
I guess that's what marketing does to the people. But also it doesn't take many failures and broken expectations until those people decide that it's not worth the effort and stop using these tools entirely.
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.
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.
Circle K has had these rolled out in Arizona for several years now, and honestly they're pretty flawless there. I've used the self checkout hundreds of times at this point, and Circle K has a pretty huge selection of products. When it's 2AM and you're waiting to buy a monster, it's nice not having to wait 45 seconds for the one clerk to finish that they're doing so they can ring you up.
I'm not sure why the performance at this stadium was so vastly different.
Circle K in Chicago has them too. Employees are constantly needed to monitor things at checkout. If items aren't clearly separated (which is easy to do out of haste, not malice) it will under-count. The same cashiers at the same store were much faster at checkout than these machines are.
The owners see you as just another rube to be fleeced, and well, they have no reason to change their behavior. You still bought the tickets and you still bought their concessions. The team is not a gang of hometown heroes offering a slice of Americana, they are a faceless corporation whose sole purpose is maximum revenue extraction. The only thing that will ever send them a clear message is voting with your feet.
Maybe they can only sell 30% as much stuff because it's so slow, but it sounds like they probably laid off at least 50% of their previous staff -- so everybody wins!
>On the bright side, the billionaire stadium owners probably got to reduce their staff in the process while maybe increasing profits.
This is the root problem. When you take people out of the economy, what's the point of having such an economy? Such an economy cannot last indefinitely and will eventually be replaced by one that will.
Author went on to claim smaller portions as the closing line of the article but only pictured 2024 meals and 2025 machines and lineups for said machines.
An opportunity to post facts was lost, and for now until it won't, remains anecdotal.
Isn't this the purpose of a lot of AI? To provide "good enough" alternatives to human labor. Why would anyone expect AI to make things better rather than cheaper or more profitable?
In this particular case, it seems mostly use cases that were solved some decades ago with _barcodes_, so it's not even cheaper or more profitable. There's already an alternative to human labour which works for better for this sort of application.
The article starts by blaming AI for the reduced food menu, a speculative claim which the author made no attempt to validate and which is almost certainly incorrect. I stopped reading right there.
In reality, when getting out first to market, it might be difficult for "AI" to decipher if a user added 1 of 5 available sauces to their chicken wings, so to reduce the likelihood of this error, you remove it until the technology is more mature. Speculative sure, but a strong assumption, and I doubt Mashgin would confirm this.
Its definitely wrong - I've used these exact checkout systems at places with way longer menus than any stadium has ever or will ever have. Even if that wasn't the case, it would still be way too speculative of premise to be worth seriously discussing, especially when the Occam's Razor "they reduced the menu size because its easier, they have a captive market, and why try to make good food when you can just charge $20 for a beer" explanation is right there in front of you.
When the menu reduction coincides with the introduction of vision-based checkout, I don't think it's an obvious overreach to link the two together. It may be right, it may be wrong, but this wasn't journalism, just a guy's experience, and the root cause of that decision doesn't change what the article is actually trying to communication.
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 buy one from a vendor.
There is a massive arrogance problem within tech. Everyone thinks their product should be the center of everyone else's universe. The best products are invisible/get out of the way.
reply