TithonusSyndrome wrote:So the solution to a system designed to funnel surplus value to the 1% is less efficient practices and systems. Brilliant. Break out the steam locomotives, Broomstick has found a way to stick it to the wealthy.
No, the solution is to come up with a system that doesn't
stick it to everyone BUT the wealthy. Or do you have the illusion that you will be part of the 1%? If you're posting here you aren't, those sorts aren't slumming down here with us.
What you are blustering incoherently about is finding an alternative to capitalism. This is outside the scope of the current topic, which is not my problem, unlike you and your tendency to move the goalposts like the dementia-riddled fool you are.
Yeah, that must be why I was advocating walking in parks and woods?
Yeah, that's great - if you can get access
to those parks and woods. That's what you seem too obtuse to understand.
"I can't get to the woods" isn't a rebuttal to me clarifying that I clearly don't want a future of indefinite indoor hermitage, you bleating invalid.
I didn't realize that self-driving cars and drones were part of the labor market in the 1980s? It didn't take off then so it can't take off in the near-future when the right tech is properly implemented, is that the argument?
No, you fucking ignoramus - in the old days I was taken seriously by my peers and not such a laughingstock who alienated everyone around me
Long story short; Broomstick is an illiterate retard who didn't take into account the fact that the whole reason this model of grocery delivery is being revisited in the first place is because automation makes the economics viable enough to reexamine, and like the dotty old cow she is, she somehow thinks that recounting the minutiae of the prior incarnation of this system qualifies as a rebuttal of some kind... or at least some variety of the social supplement she evidently craves so badly, even if she does reduce herself to the piteous cliche of the "old person recounting pointless stories" in the process.
"And if they don't" they'll support a shrinking market for brick-and-mortar locations for as long as their demographic still exists, which will disappear when they do in a gradual manner, possibly over two decades at the very most. Your "YOU WANNA KILL GRANDMA" histrionics are boilerplate SDN moral outrage pantomime that is around a decade or so past due even if it wasn't so far off the mark.
You mean like farmer's markets are a thing of the past... oh wait, if anything there are more now than 30 years ago.
Classic "here's a statistically irrelevant exception to the rule" Broomstick. Pair it with some meandering anecdotes about the time in 1987 she bought a crepe from a farmer's market in Indiana and the package will be complete.
Like I said - your experience with life is short. There are many many things that started to disappear but then came back because people missed them, or saw value in them. You haven't lived long enough to see this. You're like someone in the 1950's screaming food pills are the future! while completely lacking an understanding that food is more than just supplying nutrients.
Yes, I am pulling the I'm older and I know better line on you because in this case it's true - I'm older and I know better.
You're a miserable self-hating old loser who wants to pantomime the appearance of wisdom in front of an audience in a setting she is relatively certain she has some assurances of not being universally laughed at. After over a decade of residence on a forum where phrases like "the plural of anecdote is not data" were in common currency, and probably more than one article posted to the site about the malleability of individual human memory in the form of phenomena like the Rashomon Effect, she still thinks the "life experience" card is anything other than a gimmick that merits nothing past puzzled looks of concern and alarm.
Sure, grocery delivery with drones will become an OPTION, it will not wholly replace the grocery store any more than grocery stores eliminated farmer's markets or even the gas-station type quickie-mart. The downside is that the poorer folks likely will have fewer or no options.
The earth is flat because chocolate tastes delicious.
Hey, as long as we're making non-sequitur fiat claims...
I'm not that upset, to be honest; more than anything I'm sort of bewildered at your whole "shocked 1920's dowager" shtick in response to a model of business that would relieve said infirm and elderly from the tiring and difficult obligation of having to retrieve their groceries at an age where said obligation is not a casual undertaking, and casting it as some kind of campaign to terrorize them.
Right, because it's better to give the elderly and infirm NO option, just leave them isolated in little cubes and leave some food at the door so they don't starve.
Perhaps one fine day you will explain this malady of the mind that causes you to arrive at the non-sequitur that eliminating grocery stores will somehow forbid the elderly from departing their residences for other social engagements. That's the problem with putting "life experience" on a pedestal, particularly in lieu of other forms of acquiring knowledge; the limits of your personal experience become your entire world.
"Oh, wait", this is just Broomstick's incipient dementia coming into bloom.
Oh, look - someone has no argument so let's engage in ad hominem
Next time, try a valid debating tactic.
That statement was issued in tandem with no less than two valid arguments. You intentionally parsed them out because you don't have the intellectual accountability or courage to confront them and hoped with some clumsy editing to feign victimhood.
Well, I would wager that in "the past", people bought their groceries at brick and mortar locations because urban crowding hadn't escalated to the specific proportions it has now and because the introduction of new technology hadn't made revising the grocery delivery model a possibility.
What, you think urban crowding is a new thing? Really? Aren't you precious - you think we were all living on farms 50 years ago?
urban crowding hadn't escalated to THE SPECIFIC PROPORTIONS IT HAS NOW
Broomstick; illiterate retard, twice proven.
This is your favorite thing to do in these arguments; rattle off every possible counteracting factor without any regard for their magnitude, statistical likelihood or significance.
Uh... yeah. I thought coming up with opposing arguments was the whole point
of having a debate.
Listing nickel-and-dime non-arguments isn't debate. It's padding, which you resort to quite often.
Tell you what; you come up with some sources indicating that it's possible to defraud a grocery delivering website in similar proportion to the combined costs of shoplifting and employee theft, and I'll take this line of argument seriously.
Since I'm not a hacker I don't have a bunch of hacker buddies to clue me in on technique, but it was well broadcast last Christmas that package thefts are on the rise, with people watching for deliveries then stealing them off porches. I don't see why employees of a company that does home delivers - even with drones - couldn't be involved in theft. Granted there would be fewer such employees to have an opportunity, but you don't need a small army to steal packages.
Here's another one for Meandering Old Lady Bingo: "Oh, I heard a story some time ago in passing in a non-technical medium, and I kind of got the gist of it, but not really, but anyways I'm going to assume it reinforces my beliefs."
Thank goodness nobody of consequences uses your math-averse approach to cost-benefit analyses, or otherwise nothing would ever get done.
Yeah about that - do you know what "dowager" means?
In contemporary use, "dowager" is commonly used as a shorthand to refer to supercillious and histronic older women, in the model of turn of the 20th century east coast socialites (Florence Foster Jenkins, etc) who would engage in generous performative pearl-clutching to supplement the paucity of their arguments which were typically based on little more than appeals to social convention. I guess if you don't know this, maybe you could benefit from some more life experience.