Report it for what?

Seems unwise. They're bartenders, not therapists. There's professionals for therapy. You're better off using telehealth.

I think you underestimate the power of capitalism and a manufacturer's willingness to reach untapped market segments or the advantages a bar with lower costs due to automation has over one with greater costs due to human capital.

The question is whether machines will EVER replace a bartender, not whether it will happen in the next 5 years. Let's revisit in 30 years once the tech is far into maturity.

Bar that cleans itself is pretty easy. Change deposited right to your order station if you're one of the few people that still pay with cash is a thing lots of basic machines do now. Chairs that move themselves is not crazy. We see very early examples of machines cleaning stores at the end of the day now.

People are expensive and less reliable. They get sick, need leave and vacations, and to not work too many hours. They need managers to manage them, usually on site.

Really, you don't even need real AI to do this. Just good automation. None of this requires you to completely rebuild the building and will absolutely be cheaper in the long run...not even that long, likely.

Nothing a bartender does is something a relatively simple series of machines can't do better and cheaper.

A good bartender to me is one that makes my drinks quickly, correctly, and consistently. Perhaps they even suggest something I may also like based upon what I order.

That sounds like a job for AI to me. What are your bartenders doing other than that?

Eh? No it doesn't. We didn't have to rebuild our home to make it robot vacuum friendly. You don't need to rebuild a bar to have a machine that can pour drinks and move them down to you.

Hell, you don't even need voice recognition. My local taco bells switched to no counter service. There's no one to take your order. You go to the giant screen, punch in what you want, pay, and one of the two employees in the whole store will put your bag of food on the shelf for you to get. My order accuracy has improved dramatically, they move through orders far more quickly, and subjectively it's a much better experience. All with less than half the staff they used to have.

We will change the physical world to accommodate them.

For example, we have robot vacuums in our house. There's certain floor layouts and things we owned that didn't work well with the robots.

So faced with the choice of sweeping ourselves every night or changing the rooms to be more robot friendly, we changed the rooms.

I agree with the post you're responding to.

A misleading info graphic that explains that it's misleading is still misleading.

Putting these events together in a visualization is suggesting to your consumer that they're comparable, even if you point out why they're not in four different places.

A zoomed in line graph that grossly overestimates changes in the Y axis is still misleading even if the Y axis is clearly labeled. Even if the title of the graph is "Zoomed in Line Graph"

To the dead person?

If you're talking about the difference between a person and the government, I assure you, if the government wants you dead, they don't need murderbots.

I have full faith and confidence in the ability of the US government to end my life if they wanted to. Don't you?

I mean, if someone really wants you dead you're as good as dead. That's just Joe Shmo able to walk down to a Sporting Goods store and buy a gun.

My counterpoint is that, at least in my case, technology has caused me to forget that education. I lack the ability to navigate far without the tech because those skills are no longer used. In theory, I could spend the time and effort to educate myself but with the tech so reliable, my chances of getting a benefit from doing so are very small. Even if I spent the time, the tech performs the task better than I could. Maps has access to life traffic data, for example.

So, to OP's point, what other skills will we lose once technology makes them defunct?

If I'm in a car, I have something to plug my phone into. I then have Google Maps.

If I didn't have my phone, where would I even get a map? They don't sell them at gas stations anymore and I certainly don't keep a map book in the car. Being able to read road signs isn't remarkably useful for navigating somewhere you don't know how to get to. That requires an understanding of the layout of the streets and freeway system, the former of which doesn't even necessarily have a logic to it.

That understanding is only useful in a nearly catastrophic situation. One neither I nor anyone I know has run into in recent memory.

Counterpoint:

Now that my cars and phones have had nav for years, I know how to get to most places within 5 square miles of my house, and that's it.

This is theoretically a problem when I don't have access to the tech.

This has never happened and would take a near apocalypse event to happen.

Yeah, my cost per kW h is 11 cents.

Energy is pretty cheap in the US.

So I'm curious, let's see.

My car averages about 30mpg times 7.64 pence is 2.29 GBP per gallon which is $2.77 in freedom money.

So $2.77 per gallon. My local corner store is $3.03 right now.

So more or less functionally the same as we pay here in car fuel.

And as I said, it's not a criticism of your post specifically but the larger idea that "gaming" means competitive FPS.

Big screen monitors are great for story driven games that you play with a mouse and keyboard. See Mass Effect or Horizon Zero Dawn. Or Red Dead 2 which is best (in my experience) with a mouse and keyboard for everything but horse riding where I pick up my controller.

It's $999 for a halo tier gaming monitor.

I remember paying $1500 for my 34" ultrawide back in 2016. Hell, it might have been $2000. The truly expensive gaming monitors push well over $2000 these days.

No 4K QD-OLED in anything under 55" :(

This isn't a criticism of your comment specifically....but when did "gaming" start to mean competitive shooters?

These days anything that media, social or otherwise, claims is good for "gaming" is talking about Battle Royal 2023: This Time with Jetpacks.

I play cinematic, story-driven single player games and those are video games too.

Why would I need a mouse? As you pointed out, joysticks work fine.
Just off the top of my head, I'd pit this HP against the steam deck. Especially at the deck's resolution.
At the $650 I paid for my deck it's even easier.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09G8SK2KK/

I also have controllers that are going to be better than the deck's sticks and buttons. They're small and portable.

​

>As for the parts difference, you really can't think of a reason why anything extraneous in a laptop not needing to be present for a mobile device would allow for a budget to be different?

Can you be specific what you think is missing that's significantly detracting from the price? What is the deck missing that prevents it from having the functionality of a laptop?

Playing on the Steam Deck's trackpad is a pain in the ass.

As Valve points out, the steam deck is just a PC. It doesn't have special, cheaper "gaming" parts.

So by that measure, anything is the undisputed price and performance leader...which means the comment I responded to was meaningless. So why respond to my comment?

So, if some people really can't enjoy gaming without simulated 3D, would that mean the 3DS is the undisputed leader in price and performance? Because some people need simulated 3D? Do you think that's relevant?

Note that the comment I responded to didn't say "for playing in bed".

Great!

How does this relate to the comment I was responding to regarding price and performance?