"Age appropriate items" at self service tills

[SD1]

but not alcohol-free lager, despite the fact that the trifle would have more chancep of getting me p!ssed.

It wasn't for me, it was for my father in law, who was driving about on Christmas Day.

Should I have got him p!ssed?

A/ you said you
B/Why would you possibly take that seriously?

 

[Dec66]

A/ you said you
B/Why would you possibly take that seriously?

(1) No, I bought it, but it was for him to consume when he came round to ours on Christmas Day, as he had to be elsewhere in the evening. Maybe I should have said "getting anybody p!ssed".

(2) I didn't

 

[shouldbeinbed]

1) can anyone join in

2) I like lists

3) this is fun

4) I hate the self service tills for their awkwardness and they really are hideously understaffed. The scan your shopping on the way round ones, even more so. Philosophically I dislike the automation as I know it is putting real people out of work (and yes what isn't, where is the life of leisure and all robot workforce we were promised in the 50's?) and one small joy in the hell of the weekly shop is that little bit of human interaction when you get a good till operator to chat to while scanning and packing. I'd hate to lose that completely in a fully automated Tesco (other retail hell's are available)

 

[srw]

4) I hate the self service tills for their awkwardness and they really are hideously understaffed. The scan your shopping on the way round ones, even more so. Philosophically I dislike the automation as I know it is putting real people out of work (and yes what isn't, where is the life of leisure and all robot workforce we were promised in the 50's?) and one small joy in the hell of the weekly shop is that little bit of human interaction when you get a good till operator to chat to while scanning and packing. I'd hate to lose that completely in a fully automated Tesco (other retail hell's are available)

I often choose the automated tills to avoid what passes for human-interaction with a terminally bored checkout person.

 

[Dan B]

Philosophically I dislike the automation as I know it is putting real people out of work (and yes what isn't, where is the life of leisure and all robot workforce we were promised in the 50's?) and one small joy in the hell of the weekly shop is that little bit of human interaction when you get a good till operator to chat to while scanning and packing. I'd hate to lose that completely in a fully automated Tesco (other retail hell's are available)

Don't know if there's a thread discussing this already, but somehing Prof Hawking recently said seems relevant here

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/co...ma_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I often choose the automated tills to avoid what passes for human-interaction with a terminally bored checkout person.

you're not doing it right do you make the effort to engage them and stir them from their terminal boredom, else that or you go to outlets with a very poor recruitment policy.

if you have a regular shop you get to know the good ones and bad ones and gravitate to the right people.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Don't know if there's a thread discussing this already, but somehing Prof Hawking recently said seems relevant here

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/co...ma_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv

Same as it ever was: Hawking is just quoting history from as far back as people have been around. Not every Saxon got buried under a mound in a chariot or boat, For every one Julius Cesar there were millions of slaves and servants of Rome, Feudal overlords had their tied peasant workforce, The industrial revolution was great for a few but meant massive changes for the many - whole villages and town of poverty stricken workers and itinerant weavers etc engaged in a desperate financial race to the bottom to work in a factory or face starvation, offset by the few exceptionally wealthy mill owners and importers/manufacturers - Marx and Engels experiences of Manchester at the height of Cottonopolis and all that.

 

[Dan B]

Same as it ever was: Hawking is just quoting history from as far back as people have been around. Not every Saxon got buried under a mound in a chariot or boat, For every one Julius Cesar there were millions of slaves and servants of Rome, Feudal overlords had their tied peasant workforce, The industrial revolution was great for a few but meant massive changes for the many - whole villages and town of poverty stricken workers and itinerant weavers etc engaged in a desperate financial race to the bottom to work in a factory or face starvation, offset by the few exceptionally wealthy mill owners and importers/manufacturers - Marx and Engels experiences of Manchester at the height of Cottonopolis and all that.

Oh well, that makes it all OK then

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Oh well, that makes it all OK then

*puzzled* my reply wasn't meant to be arsey, sorry if it has come across that way

Just saying that the.idea that the powerful in society or those (marx again) who own the means of production are not generally known for mass acts of philanthropy that elevate the masses to their level of living.

The odd Salt or Cadbury aside who did strive to be good 'landlords' & to educate & improve the lives of their workforce, but who still did significantly better out of the deal themselves.

 

[SD1]

Oh well, that makes it all OK then

Your normal childish remark. It makes it normal. Communism doesn't work EVER communism/socialism makes everyone equally worse off. I think I will go with an unequal distribution of wealth. That way I am better off.

 

[Dan B]

*puzzled* my reply wasn't meant to be arsey, sorry if it has come across that way

Just saying that the.idea that the powerful in society or those (marx again) who own the means of production are not generally known for mass acts of philanthropy that elevate the masses to their level of living.

I grant you all that, and it may be a difference of degree not a difference of kind, but at least the plutocrats of times past still needed some of the plebs to work into an early grave and as a result there was bargaining power or at the very least some prospect for revolt. If the future is that the owners of the means of production won't need any people to operate the means of production, I think this is probably a backward step. Are we still safe as long as we are needed to buy the things produced? How long will that last?

The odd Salt or Cadbury aside who did strive to be good 'landlords' & to educate & improve the lives of their workforce, but who still did significantly better out of the deal themselves.

"Enlightened self-interest", I think they call that. I'm reminded also of Henry Ford who (IIRC) whatever his other deficiencies did come up with the rather good idea that he should pay his employees enough that they could afford to buy one of his cars.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I grant you all that, and it may be a difference of degree not a difference of kind, but at least the plutocrats of times past still needed some of the plebs to work into an early grave and as a result there was bargaining power or at the very least some prospect for revolt. If the future is that the owners of the means of production won't need any people to operate the means of production, I think this is probably a backward step. Are we still safe as long as we are needed to buy the things produced? How long will that last?


"Enlightened self-interest", I think they call that. I'm reminded also of Henry Ford who (IIRC) whatever his other deficiencies did come up with the rather good idea that he should pay his employees enough that they could afford to buy one of his cars.

Dunno about Ford but, not a bad business model for an oligarch to give with the one hand and take back with the other & again not unique in vision or scope of some of the industrial revolutionaries and captains of industry who paid their staff in tokens that could only be spent in guess who's stores. As with the enlightened self interesters there were the odd ones that did it to provide a better quality and value of produce to their workers than they would obtain elsewhere; a healthy worker is a busy worker and all that; but generally that meant the money went out of one pot and immediately flowed back into another - you didn't even have to mint new tokens, just hand the same one back in wages that they'd spent in your shop last payday.

absolutely 100% agree it will be a backward step and could tee up the sort of Dystopian future that plays well in the generic disgruntled cop films set in the near future as a worst case scenario.

anyhow we seem to have diverted the topic almost to SC&P levels of activism & seem to have come full circle quite quickly, it started with my philosophical dislike of big corporations 'employing' machines at the expense of people.

 

[growingvegetables]

I often choose the automated tills to avoid what passes for human-interaction with a terminally bored checkout person.

It could be ......................... the checkout people see you coming and deliberately put you off?

 

[srw]

It could be ......................... the checkout people see you coming and deliberately put you off?

Nah
I don't use any particular shop often enough.

 

[classic33]

I think all DVD barcodes start 50505 and that probably triggers some rule on the tills. No flagging needed.

You've never read the barcodes then.