There is no difference from the customer perspective so the store failed for reasons that have nothing to do with the "just walk out" technology or lack thereof. Why spend lots of money doing R&D only to find out that the concept doesn't sell? Wait for the product to be successful before spending the money to scale it up. Same as anything else.
I think the idea could work well but the execution in the field was consistently very poor. There were a few of these at airports with just an intimidating gate and generally non-engaging human standing there.
It was as if they expected everyone to know what to do, but when I’d watch 99% of people just sort of looked at the store, saw the odd gate things, and then just shrugged and walked off. The stores were almost always completely empty amidst a busy concourse.
Even if the tech worked (reports say it didn’t work well) they completely missed the boat on creating a clear customer experience that navigated the new tech.
I agree, it needed a better hook to get people in the 'gates' so to speak. I don't think I've ever waited behind like maybe a single transaction at an airport convenience store, so it's not like having to fiddle with my phone to get in beats tapping a card or phone or watch at checkout. Either way most people are buying 1-3 things so it's not like it saved time scanning.
As for the big Amazon Fresh grocery stores, I only have one out of my way so I only visited once or twice, but the big things I noticed were that it had a small selection and very average prices. Not that surprising because even after buying Whole Foods, Amazon itself has terrible prices on dry goods (meaning supermarket items besides fresh food), and relies heavily on random third-party sellers with big markups for a ton of it.
If they really wanted to get people to buy into Amazon Fresh it would have taken a lot more money (and thus pretty unprofitable for a long while): Probably one way to do that would have been making it as attractive as Costco for Prime members.
> The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids.
The limits were instituted after discovering a plot to smuggle acetone and hydrogen peroxide (and ice presumably) on board to make acetone peroxide in the lavatory. TATP is not a liquid and it is not stable.
This illustrates a point though. TATP you could synthesize on a plane is entirely inadequate to bring down a plane. It also requires a bit more than acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Pan Am 103 required around half a kilo of RDX and TATP is very, very far from RDX.
The idea of synthesizing a proper high-explosive in an airplane lavatory is generally comical. The chemistry isn’t too complex but you won’t be doing it in an airplane lavatory.
A small fire in the right place (like a wiring loom) can definitely bring down a plane, but generally attackers don't have the specialist knowledge to achieve that, and those places are not easily accessible between meal services.
> I believe this country will need massive investigations and criminal trials to heal. I am concerned with what happens in between, but this is reality as I see it.
Trump learned his lesson and pardoned every Jan 6 terrorist. If he leaves office, he is going to pardon every single person in his administration for anything they did from 2025-2029. There will be no investigations and no criminal trials. They all know this to be true.
> Abortion was legal until it became a political issue in the 1800s.
Not according to Dobbs, which goes into this extensively.
"At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, and the remaining States would soon follow."
> the next administration needs to very publicly make an example of the current administration
There is no chance of that happening. Trump will pardon every single person in his administration and anyone else who carried water for him. The next President will say "we have to move on" and Trump himself will ride off into the sunset with the billions he made for himself and his family.
Scala 3 is an excellent language. My only issue is the compiler is slow, especially on my weak ARM laptop. I don't have a legacy Scala 2 codebase to maintain though, and I use mill instead of sbt.
Its the most popular functional programming language. Comparable languages like Haskell or Ocaml are even less popular.
Personal injury lawyers are free. Literally anyone could be their client so relatively untargeted mass advertisements like freeway billboards pay off. Omnipresence of advertising signals that the firm is good at extracting money for their clients.
I've wondered for a while if simple interaction systems would be good enough to fend these things off without building up walls like logins. Things like Anubis do system checks, but I'm wondering if it would be even easier to do something like the oldschool Captchas where you just have a single interactive element that requires user input to redirect to another page. Like you hit a landing page and drag a slider or click and hold to go to the page proper, things that aren't as annoying as modern Captchas and are like a fun little interactive way to enter.
As I'm writing this I'm reminded of Flash based homepages. And it really makes it apparent that Flash would be perfect for impeding these LLM crawlers.
"Do things that don't scale."
reply