Manicure robot in San Francisco is now painting nails in 10 minutes for just $8
ktla.com
ktla.com
Carefully scraping old nail polish, treating skin around the nail and nail shape are probably most labor-intensive tasks that many women want to offload to a paid specialist.
Painting already prepared nail is the easy part, AFAIK.
On a scale from Tesla Autopilot (A) to Juicero (J) I would give it G.
It honestly took me a bit to figure out which end of that scale was supposed to be which. I had to remember what Juicero was first, because IMO Tesla Autopilot is a weird thing to use for the high end of the scale given all the problems it has.
The people who have "died" using AP, have bought defeater devices on eBay and ignored the warnings. No different than putting a rock on your gas pedal and being sad if something bad happens.
Personal responsibility is a thing. You can't just read the name of something and decide how it works, without reading the manual or the warnings.
None of this is meant as an attack. If you really haven't read he Tesla manual, give it a read. AP starts on page 89: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_y_owners_man...
To me, it is clear on what it can and cannot do, and how to act.
> This caused people to die; similar stories don't seem to happen with other car brands with similar features (automatic braking, and automatic steering in traffic).
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/do-you-need-to-worry-...
Mortality rate is 20%-40%, climbing with delay in treatment. In my above comment, I note that Autopilot has been involved in six deaths total, which is extremely low compared to other causes of death over the same number of years it’s been available to drivers. Another example is E Coli from contaminated lettuce has killed the same number of people (and sickened thousands more) than Autopilot use over a similar amount of time. Sharks kill 50~ people per year.
Also this robot probably can't give you recommendations or have a conversation with you as a human would do.
So I found a place in the print dialog where you could add different watermarks and chose the one saying "PERSONAL".
I thought that any type of salon was meant as a congregation point for gossip vectors to intersect and the manicurist was more of a surrogate therapist whose services must be conducted physically closer (opportunity for optional hushed tone) because the client's hand must be held thus setting the conditions for more personal conversation (mostly attentive listening) and accountability in a public location? Grooming-as-a-service is the commercialized intimate connection made as a reprieve from the cold robotic touch felt everywhere else in "civilized" society.
Afterwards, the "prepared" cuticles of a person's readily visible hand in any social situation is supposed to be an indicator (trophy? Cash to spare on something without surface level utility) that this social grooming session has occurred (and consequential fresh gossip fodder behind a tongue poised and rearing). Simultaneous (or primary) announcement that "these hands do not labor" (if she breaks one of these "expensive" nails, she can then draw attention to her role in a situation). This is similar to ancient Chinese foot binding that made it "beautiful" to be immobile and thus vulnerable - social status announcement that a wife with sufficiently warped feet cannot go anywhere on her own without service labor.
The offensive odor of nail polish solvent fumes is just as "necessary" a pain as the restriction of a corset, wrapped foot, elongated neck, or "temporary" hormonal disruption of birth control.
Perhaps the robot is meant to liberate the manicurist from an entire shift of toxic air.
It says a robot that paints nails
Aside from women, alot of men don’t go to nail salons either but paint their nails or would be open to it
There is a big enough audience
The best example I can think of, of an automation device that has done this, is a smartphone. There are now something like 3.5 billion people that have one, and it won't be long before nearly every one on Earth does.
Smartphones enable numerous tasks that people once had to hire another person to do for them, to be done automatically. The result is people's tastes expanding, as the global population becomes capable of providing more goods/services than ever before.
I agree, I'm sick of marketing speak and PR omitting news because it might be hard to hear. If we're just honest about what's happening, we can fix it or at least mediate it.
The nail technicians meanwhile will find work in industries created as a consequence of consumers having more disposable income with which to spend on new goods/services, from having to spend less on nail work:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddit...
It is always those goods/services that are the least automatable that cost the most. If getting one's nails done becomes automated, we may see consumer spending shift to the next most valuable service that can't be automated, like home cleaning, caretaking of the elderly, massage therapy, childcare, tutoring, or barrista work. Automation allows us to enjoy a higher standard of living.
Looking at the environment/climate/resources, we may not know where the cliff lies, but we do know there is one and also that we are accelerating towards it without having good ideas as to how to stop.
The idealistic/utopianist ideas about humanity's potential are actually correct in this case I believe.
Then we will be at the mercy of AI or the authoritarian state.
This seems a bit like a Faustian bargain.
Putting people out of work is not pushing anyone up a ladder. As one person gets more productive with automation their peers lose jobs.
From an economic perspective, if a factory owner replaces people with automation it's because it costs less. Hiring an automation expert and all the associated costs is a net win for them. But those jobs are higher paying, so we know it takes fewer people at the higher rate to achieve the owners lower cost.
>> Smartphones enable numerous tasks that people once had to hire another person to do for them, to be done automatically.
So first the automation put people out of work making smart phones. You try to counter that negative effect by pointing out how the phones help people but... Now the smart phones are making people more efficient, which as you say will eliminate more jobs.
Automation always eliminates jobs. The only time it frees up people to do other things is when those things are lower market value than what they were already doing - almost by definition.
I'm not against automation BTW, just against the common fiction that it's economically good for the working class.
>>I'm not against automation BTW, just against the common fiction that it's economically good for the working class.
Wages in the West have grown 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 1820, and that's all due to automation. Automation is practically synonynous with per capita productivity growth, and that's almost entirely positive for every one.
Pushing this narrative without considering the obvious facts is a simple minded view.
Cheaper products are good for the working class because it means they can afford more products. Automation leads to cheaper products. Common sense.
That is the good side of automation for the working class.
So the answer is far more complicated then the simpleton answer you came up with here. The more you automate things the cheaper things get but the less jobs are available.
The gradient is somewhere in the middle you can't completely have no automation otherwise every product will be custom made and expensive as hell.
You can't have 100 percent automation either otherwise there's no one around to have jobs and make money to buy the product.
So economically speaking automation is both good and bad for the working class and only a cost benefite analysis can find the right amount automation that is best.
There free education for you. A lesson in basic math (see my other replies to your misguided views on quaternions) and economics in one day. I'm not so bold Like you as to run around offering paid consulting work for these trivial lessons.
Meh, I'm not in your target audience anyway.
Actually don't bother, there is almost nothing to see.
After enacting a set of EU specific rules, it feels a little entitled to expect that not only all foreign websites must follow them, but that they must also make their content available for free.
It's totally reasonable for me to negotiate with you on things you do that affect me. Same goes for regulatory bodies. GDPR is about data protection and the right to privacy. I won't argue with you if those things are a good idea, but you probably realise that saying that those aren't reasonable demands puts you in a minority.
Now, it makes sense for multinational corporations to have GDPR-related functionality since some of their assets are under EU jurisdiction and for them it's probably safer (if lazy) to do it across the board. But if you're not in the EU and you run a one-person SaaS app or something, you have zero reason to jump through any GDPR hurdles if you don't want to. The EU doesn't suddenly gain jurisdiction over your business processes because an EU citizen types your address into the URL bar.