2021 - Retailer woe & retail sector chat

[Gecko1978]

snuffy said:

Murph7355 said:

Maybe.

Though expecting zero incidents before adoption is allowed is folly. All they have to be is demonstrably better than human equivalents.

May still be decades away, but look how fast things are progressing. I wouldn't bet on more than 2 decades max. Quite possibly 1.

Logically you are correct, but that's not how the world works anymore.

c.f. Covid vaccine. 1 in million "may" die of a blood clot, and that 1 in a million change is enough to get it stopped.

3000 deaths a year caused by driver error is acceptable, but just 1 caused by software is not. That's how the world thinks now.

This is one of the reasons perhaps delivery by driverless vehicles is closer than driverless passenger cars. Your package from amazon might get damaged in a crash but no driver will. I wonder what % of road deaths for the driver are delivery drivers. They could be 0 with this tech.

[snuffy]

Gecko1978 said:

This is one of the reasons perhaps delivery by driverless vehicles is closer than driverless passenger cars. Your package from amazon might get damaged in a crash but no driver will. I wonder what % of road deaths for the driver are delivery drivers. They could be 0 with this tech.

But the delivery vehicle could hit someone and kill them.

[Gecko1978]

snuffy said:

Gecko1978 said:

This is one of the reasons perhaps delivery by driverless vehicles is closer than driverless passenger cars. Your package from amazon might get damaged in a crash but no driver will. I wonder what % of road deaths for the driver are delivery drivers. They could be 0 with this tech.

But the delivery vehicle could hit someone and kill them.

As could a van driven by a person...what's your point

[snuffy]

Gecko1978 said:

snuffy said:

Gecko1978 said:

This is one of the reasons perhaps delivery by driverless vehicles is closer than driverless passenger cars. Your package from amazon might get damaged in a crash but no driver will. I wonder what % of road deaths for the driver are delivery drivers. They could be 0 with this tech.

But the delivery vehicle could hit someone and kill them.

As could a van driven by a person...what's your point

But society views those two events differently. They are no different, but that is not how they are viewed.

a) If a vehicle driven by a person is involved in a crash, then society accepts it.

b) But if a vehicle not being driven by a person is involved in crash, then society does not accept it

If, for example, I had a small bump with another car today, all I would do is claim on my insurance. There's no requirement to inform, say, the police. But if I had a small bump with a driverless Amazon car, it would be world-wide news, with endless calls for driverless cars to be banned.

[BurtonLazars]

snuffy said:

But the delivery vehicle could hit someone and kill them.

Braking is easy. Computer vision systems aren’t tired, emotional or on drugs. They analyse multiple 2K+ cameras at 60+ fps, and ballistics calculation is trivial. To compound that, delivery bots are most likely in urban areas where streets are better marked and the speed limit is lower.

I fully believe exactly these types of conversations were had by horse owners when the model T ramped production.

[snuffy]

For the avoidance of doubt;

I am not arguing against the use of driverless vehicles.

What I am saying is that society as a whole views them differently; Say 3000 deaths a year when someone is driving v 1 death a year by a driverless vehicle. It could be 3000 times as safe, but society will not accept that. Society will scream its' not safe because of 1 death a year, whilst ignoring the other 3000 deaths.

c.f. Ecigs : Generally accepted that they are way better for your health than normal cigarettes. And yet, because they are not 100% safe, people argue they should be banned.

[b0rk]

Society as a whole has a difficulty with perception of risk vs the actuality of risk.

If you where to invent/discover alcohol today it would likely be banned as the perceived risk would be to high. Ecigs are a case in point much safer than cigs yet not perceived as such.

[eldar]

b0rk said:

Society as a whole has a difficulty with perception of risk vs the actuality of risk.

If you where to invent/discover alcohol today it would likely be banned as the perceived risk would be to high. Ecigs are a case in point much safer than cigs yet not perceived as such.

I think reality has changed regarding ecigs. The NHS recommends ecigs if you must smoke rather than real cigarettes, but not smoking at all is best. This is the advice posters in my local hospitals.

I like the micromort and microlife as simple indicators of risk.

[Gecko1978]

snuffy said:

For the avoidance of doubt;

I am not arguing against the use of driverless vehicles.

What I am saying is that society as a whole views them differently; Say 3000 deaths a year when someone is driving v 1 death a year by a driverless vehicle. It could be 3000 times as safe, but society will not accept that. Society will scream its' not safe because of 1 death a year, whilst ignoring the other 3000 deaths.

c.f. Ecigs : Generally accepted that they are way better for your health than normal cigarettes. And yet, because they are not 100% safe, people argue they should be banned.

If we had 1 v 3000 road deaths sure we would hear about it as 1 would be very rare i.e. only 1 day in any year. But how about this accidents where driver error is fault stay same but where the driver is a computer and it only delivers goods then no deaths in that car and its never the cause of the accident, I can see that taking off.

Also say your amazon, what % of your drivers are unreliable, what % of your driverless vans break down % gap will give you a value.

We went from horses to driving cars we are now not driving them we used type writers now we use computers, AI means we won't need to in some cases.

[snuffy]

Gecko1978 said:

If we had 1 v 3000 road deaths sure we would hear about it as 1 would be very rare i.e. only 1 day in any year. But how about this accidents where driver error is fault stay same but where the driver is a computer and it only delivers goods then no deaths in that car and its never the cause of the accident, I can see that taking off.

Also say your amazon, what % of your drivers are unreliable, what % of your driverless vans break down % gap will give you a value.

We went from horses to driving cars we are now not driving them we used type writers now we use computers, AI means we won't need to in some cases.

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about your view or my view, or any statistical view, I'm talking about society in general.

Again, look at CV vaccines. There was a suggestion that maybe 1 in a million people were affected by a blood clot and possibly die. And as a result, certain countries suspended there use. They would rather not protect 999,999 out of 1,000,000 people if just 1 person in 1,000,000 were to die.

[Thankyou4calling]

Some people just don’t get what you’re saying snuffy. I see it all the time.

60,000 at a football match, bit of handbags, 8 arrested.

“The public” see a full scale riot.

One ready meal found with a chip of glass, 3 million that haven’t. The public won’t buy that ready meal.

It’s how it is.

[BurtonLazars]

In my case, it’s not that I don’t understand your point, it’s that I don’t agree with it. I’ve had the self-driving car conversation in real life with tens of people and they’re all pretty pragmatic about it. It’s only on forums and Twitter that it’s a weaponised topic.

[ambuletz]

So apparently asda are to start selling 2nd hand clothes in some stores.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56916414

https://www.prelovedkilo.com/asda

surely that will have a knock on effect for charity shops then?

[anonymous-user]

ambuletz said:

So apparently asda are to start selling 2nd hand clothes in some stores.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56916414

https://www.prelovedkilo.com/asda

surely that will have a knock on effect for charity shops then?

Purely anecdotal, but in my experience, pre Covid, quite a few charity shops had stock coming out of their ears and didn't want any more.

There's only so many scarfs, 2001 AA Road Atlas Pubs of Great Britain and Billy Joel CDs a man can buy before.you shout 'enough!'.

[ambuletz]

what i mean is.. if people who buy their used clothes from asda what reason would they have to go to go out of there way to charity shop?

[CalNaughtonJnr]

ambuletz said:

So apparently asda are to start selling 2nd hand clothes in some stores.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56916414

https://www.prelovedkilo.com/asda

surely that will have a knock on effect for charity shops then?

I think I have seen recently that Nike are also selling 'pre-loved' trainers in their outlet stores now - as well as the environmental aspect it is also a lot to do with the reseller market

[anonymoususer]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Purely anecdotal, but in my experience, pre Covid, quite a few charity shops had stock coming out of their ears and didn't want any more.

There's only so many scarfs, 2001 AA Road Atlas Pubs of Great Britain and Billy Joel CDs a man can buy before.you shout 'enough!'.

You forgot digital photo frames
I once slipped a copy of Ben Dover Booty Bandit DVD onto the DVD shelf of the RSPCA charity shop
I would have liked to have seen the outcome

[hyphen]

Margins on new clothes are thin. Might be more profit in good quality used?

[anonymous-user]

Apparently one of the big used electronics retailers is going to trial a format with Durex to retail purchased but unused condoms. It's going to be called SafeCex.

[tangerine_sedge]

It's more likely to be in response to online sales. Returned clothes that might have been tried on for size but rejected (not really been worn) probably can't be sold as new anymore.