Make normies obsolete!

Any other cynics happy to be working towards, or watching technology replace normies?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-13/minimum-wage-blowback-wendys-employ-self-service-kiosks-6000-locations

I can't wait until normies are starving in the streets and cannibalizing each other.

I've just misread "Eurovision" as EUROINVASION.

>>2
That Eurovision show reminds me of old russian government produced music shows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbxw-d4YYkU

EU sweepingly becomes USSR 2.0 - scary, ugly and evil cancer. Only World War 3 to fix that.

>>3
No war is needed with the EU as it has no armies to speak of. Just an economic meltdown is all. It will all go back to normal, with white birthrates rising and all.

>>3
EU is like USSR but with gay rights and immigration. In the USSR, gayness was a criminal offense and there was emigration instead of immigration.

>>5
USSR had gay rights too, until Stalin banned gays during purges, because they pose danger to his rule, like conspiring to seize power and spying for the capitalists. That had nothing to do with homophobia thought, gays just bet on the wrong leaders, like Trotsky.

>>1
The burger flippers deserve what they get. They should have known that they weren't worth $15/h.

>>7
maybe $15/h is the singularity, where it is cheaper to buy a robot, than employ a nigger. Then robots gets cheaper and mass produced, and there is suddenly no niggers anymore.

When more than half human workers will be replaced by robots, humanity will reach communism.

That had nothing to do with homophobia thought

It had to do with boosting birthrates because Stalin wanted world domination. Homosexual tolerance hurts demographics like we can see in today's West.

>>9
1. homosexuals dont affects birthrates;
2. birthrates don't provide instant effect to affect government decision-making. That is why government loves illegal immigrants.

>>10
1. They do
2. Real tyrants don't think in terms of instant effects, they're thinking strategically.

>>10
Besides, I said "homosexual tolerance" not homosexuals themselves.

In Country I, boys and girls are conditioned into healthy gender roles from childhood, i.e. every man knows he has to find a woman and make children, otherwise he won't be a real man. Even the homosexuals marry and have kids just to have a cover for their homosexuality.

In Country II, boys and girls are conditioned from childhood that it's OK to be gay, that family and kids are useless, that gender is evil and they should all be sexless uniform drones.

Which country do you think will have higher birthrates? Compare the fertility of the Muslim world with that of the West if you're not sure of the right answer.

>>11
1. They don't.
2. Real tyrants care only about momentary ways to maintain their power and keeping people shackled. To do that tyrants initiate purges, to clean out "the enemies of the people". Gays here are just too dangerous to keep alive.

TLDR: if Europe ever moves to authoritarianism, gays will get a free tickets to Auschwitz and Gulag. So getting out of the closet could be considered suicide.

>>13
1. Gays can't have children with each other. Learn elementary biology.
2. There is no more immediate danger from homosexuals to the tyrant, than from any other group. So purging them wouldn't make sense unless the tyrant was playing the long game.

only about momentary ways to maintain their power and keeping people shackled

Alexander the Great didn't think about momentary power maintenance, he thought long-term global domination.
Genghis Khan didn't think about momentary power maintenance, he thought long-term global domination.
Hitler didn't think about momentary power maintenance, he thought long-term global domination.
Stalin didn't think about momentary power maintenance, he thought long-term global domination.
Mao didn't think about momentary power maintenance, he thought long-term global domination.

If by "real tyrants" you mean the pigeon stains on the face of history like Pinochet or what's that North Korean guy's name, you don't know what the word "real" means in this context.

>>14
1. If gays dont have children they dont affect birthrate. Killing a gay wont make him have children. But a lot of gays are bisexual and do have children.
2. Homosexuals cant be easily detected and form closet communities. As a matter of fact, most dictators are paranoid and want to root out any potential threat. The do have reasons to be: for example power of Catholic Church grows out of homosexuality of its members. These stories about priests loving young boys are simple just a joke.

>>15
1. They affect the average birthrate negatively because they are included into the denominator in the fraction. Learn some elementary arithmetics.

Killing a gay wont make him have children

That's why I was talking about homosexual tolerance. A culture and a general spirit of unacceptance of faggotry forces people into healthy gender roles.

2. Only if homosexuality is frowned upon to begin with. Instill a culture of tolerance and they all go open. So if rooting out potential threats was the goal, then outlawing sodomy would be a stupid thing to do.

power of Catholic Church grows out of homosexuality of its members

It is known from antiquity that in militant male groups homosexuality acts as a strengthener. Spartan warriors fucked each other in the ass massively, samurai made sodomy part of their moral code etc.

>>8
$15/hour minimum wage is the singularity's event horizon.

>>10

1. homosexuals dont affects birthrates;

Wrong, the more homosexuality is tolerated by a society, the more children there are who are indoctrinated into a homosexual lifestyle by faggot teachers, the more the birth rate continues to to plummet.

>>18
You cant "indoctrinated" anyone to be gay. Homosexuality is not communism or christianity.

>>19
Yes you can, they are doing it in European schools today with their homosexuality lessons.

>>20
then they will have a lot of school dropouts.

>>19
The only reason homosexuality has been accepted in the West is because of Marxism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y

You can't justify your degeneracy no matter how you cut it, you faggot.

>>20,21
Indeed, there are homosexuality lessons, and kids are rebelling as best they can, but it's also creating more faggots like >>19.

I was promised loli android by now, Kurzweil.

>>9

Homosexual tolerance hurts demographics like we can see in today's West.

Homosexuals aren't enough of a population to make a real difference. Even if we replaced all our homosexuals with straight people, it wouldn't outweigh the fact that technological, industrial societies by their nature don't incentivize large families. Population growth is high in primitive societies because agricultural labor is very heavily dependent on unskilled labor, and without modern healthcare you need to have lots of kids to ensure the family's survival. But now, unskilled labor isn't worth much, so having more kids than you can afford to send to college doesn't make sense. And furthermore, refusing to tolerate homosexuality won't turn them straight. They'll just keep being gay in secret or go celibate. So the effect on birth rates is effectively 0.

>>16

A culture and a general spirit of unacceptance of faggotry forces people into healthy gender roles.

As mentioned above, they'll mostly just go celibate rather than pretending to be straight. There's literally no benefit for gays to have straight sex, what's more likely is lesbians and gays marrying each other and pretending to be straight. Really the only benefit to refusing to tolerate homosexuality is that it will reduce the spread of things like AIDS.

>>20,22

muh ghey agenduh

nice meme

Forcing fags to procreate is exactly what allowed their retarded genes to spread. Better to let them impregnate each other with their hot POZ seed and maybe raise orphans or something.

>>25

If homosexuality is genetic, it's likely a recessive trait, so that there are plenty of straight carriers.

All I know is that when society collapses, faggots will be the first to go.

Do you think fags are having an easy time right now in Venezeula, for example?

They're being butchered.

>>27
This pleases me.

>>24

reduce the spread of things like AIDS.

for that you have to ban niggers.

>>27
Venezuela was always a crappy african-style dictatorship, with Chavezes being succeeded by Maduros.

They did this to themselves. Most of them waste their money on weed they can't afford or have to pay child support to three kids (that aren't theirs probably, if they are white).

>>23
Kurzweil is a crackpot and a Jew coward. We're also supposed to have computers as powerful as the human brain in three years. What the fuck does that even mean? My point is that we're going to have to assemble our own lolibots, and they'll use danmaku and spellcards to fight and wear frilly dresses with silly hats. We're going to have to put all the feminists to the rope the day afterward, or they and their white knights in the militaries around the world will crush us, so we have to strike first with deadly precision. After that, when mass production begins, we can pacify the men and finally put the queers, then the Jews and niggers to death too. With no bullshit like sexism in algebra to deal with, we can focus research on longevity and space travel. We shall send out five hundred million men and their lolibots in groups of one hundred to distant stars on ships and conquer the galaxy!

No, "technology" won't replace a disruptive amount of the low-skilled workforce.

Replacing a cashier monkey with an iPad is all very well, except that most people are simply too stupid to use them efficiently. You can see it in action with self-checkout machines at the super markets. They take forever because people are dumb and become helpless retards when confronted with even the slightest complexity; using a human checkout operator always gets you out of the store faster.

Now, you may say "omg lol but what about the UI designer who will make it easier tbh fam?" But you are missing the point. People turn into helpless retards when confronted with complexity. Stores that rely on touchscreens and other self-service machines also need a bunch of trained humans to constantly clean up the messes that idiots make when trying to operate a machine no matter what the UI looks like.

Now you are probably saying "smh kek but what about when we make robots to replace those humans?" And this is the root of your misunderstanding. There is literally zero chance that a robot that could perform the same functions that Monkeyshia does in the packaging warehouse or fast food chain can be developed for less cost than it takes to create 100 adult humans who will do the job for a low wage.

Do you know how hard it is to recreate even a simple hand gesture using technology? And I don't mean the programing side of it, I mean manufacturing an imitation hand that can perform functions comparable to a human. Robots will not replace monkey workers. Educated people understand that and it is the reason the only countries blathering on about "tolerance" and how noble it is to import millions of savages are those with declining birth rates.

The fact is, physical work will never be done primarily by machines. It is simply too expensive to develop machines that can operate with even the efficiency of a down's baby. The job in the most danger of being phased out by machines is doctors, since it is cost-effective to develop massively expensive machines to perform medical work since 1) doctors are overpaid and 2) people are willing to pay millions for their health but not for a hamburger.

>>32

Replacing a cashier monkey with an iPad is all very well, except that most people are simply too stupid to use them efficiently. You can see it in action with self-checkout machines at the super markets.

Don't go to places frequented by subhumans then.

Stores that rely on touchscreens and other self-service machines also need a bunch of trained humans to constantly clean up the messes that idiots make when trying to operate a machine no matter what the UI looks like.

Then don't have a UI. Have the little RFID stickers they use to check out library books and a sensor in the floor that totals up the amount when you push the shopping cart over it. Move coupons to a smartphone app and put a QR code reader on the machine where they swipe their credit card. Have two employees on call to help retards instead of ten. Doesn't even matter if it sometimes misses a banana, since it will still cost less than paying $20K a year for a human to do it. Fast food can cut down the menu and options and just have a vending machine-esque interface. Order goes to the teenager in the back who tosses a burger in the microwave for five minutes and carries it out.

Now you are probably saying "smh kek but what about when we make robots to replace those humans?" And this is the root of your misunderstanding. There is literally zero chance that a robot that could perform the same functions that Monkeyshia does in the packaging warehouse or fast food chain can be developed for less cost than it takes to create 100 adult humans who will do the job for a low wage.

Amazon has already had great success at automating warehouses, and it's not too hard to pack a box. The cost to develop the system that does such things doesn't have to be cheaper than a hundred humans; it would be developed by a company that sells the same systems to several business to spread the fixed cost around. The only reason why it's not done until now is because under GAAP, research and development costs are expensed and not capitalized even when successful, causing a high, fixed cost that isn't assignable to any common allocation base.

Do you know how hard it is to recreate even a simple hand gesture using technology? And I don't mean the programing side of it, I mean manufacturing an imitation hand that can perform functions comparable to a human. Robots will not replace monkey workers.

There was thirty five years between the Wright Flyer and the B-17 Bomber. Putting a hundred million transistors on a chip was hard, but you can buy that for a few dollars. Natural language processing is hard, but Jewgle just open sourced their software to do so. There is nothing special about how humans operate, and worst-case scenario, just record the hand movements that humans use and play them back with the machine. You don't have enough faith in capitalism. Hundreds of billions have spent researching completely worthless shit that never paid off and yet, people still invest. The company that is first to move advanced robotics will make hundreds of billions, and investors will take the risk for that if they know that they have customers. Kick out the shitskins and raising the minimum wage is a definite way to get more investor money involved.

More importantly, you can just change the process to accommodate machines. You are too hung up on the idea that things must be designed with a human being in mind.

Also, the entire workforce does not need to be put out of work all at once you buffoon. Starting with the easy shit. Things don't have to be perfect. Real boats rock, and everyone important knows that. Cowards get killed first in business.

The fact is, physical work will never be done primarily by machines. It is simply too expensive to develop machines that can operate with even the efficiency of a down's baby. The job in the most danger of being phased out by machines is doctors, since it is cost-effective to develop massively expensive machines to perform medical work since 1) doctors are overpaid and 2) people are willing to pay millions for their health but not for a hamburger.

And human computers didn't think that they were in trouble when electromechanical computers showed up on the scene, because, after all, the machine didn't have the intuition to correct mistakes in the data and had to be reprogrammed for every different tabulation format and they didn't. Where are they now? Only a retard would so that so matter-of-factly. The matter of fact is that the world doesn't need you and that you should have gotten an education and learned a skill while you had the chance.

Educated people understand that and it is the reason the only countries blathering on about "tolerance" and how noble it is to import millions of savages are those with declining birth rates.

They need millions of shitskins because they work for cheap. Want to see automation blossom? Give amnesty and raise and enforce the minimum wage. The reason why ancient Rome didn't have an industrial revolution was because they could just get slaves to do everything they needed. Machines will outperform any human at any repetitive task, but it is hard to escape that local extreme to get to it.

>>33

Then don't have a UI. Have the little RFID [...]

Even your theoretical examples couldn't get away from the fact that you still needs lots of human beings to keep things operating. My point is that technology will not come close to replacing humans at monkey work, not that it won't replace certain functions currently done by humans

Amazon has already had great success at automating warehouses

No they have not. They had great success with automating the process of choosing which warehouse to stock items and how many to stock and what shipping provider to use in any given moment. But that is data analysis, not monkey work that pays min. wage.

Amazon warehouses are teeming with people. In fact, Amazon chooses locations where its new FBA warehouses are to be opened based on where there is lots of unemployment - ie. lots of desperate workers who are willing to work in a hell hole warehouse with no AC. Why would they do that if they were on the cusp of developing affordable machines to pack their boxes?

it's not too hard to pack a box

That depends. It is very hard to pack a box (in the highly-variable way a B2C fulfillment warehouse needs to do it) if you don't have hands. Making machines that replicate a human hand is incredibly difficult and expensive and has continued to be for a long time. Not everything simply requires an "epiphany" and suddenly it can magically be made cheaply and easily. It is likely it will never be cost effective to develop machines that can perform tasks that a human hand can.

You are too hung up on the idea that things must be designed with a human being in mind

No, I am hung up on the idea that many functions we perform without conscious thought are extremely complex and there is no evidence that machines can perform these functions at a cost that is less than paying a human min. wage.

Kick out the shitskins and raising the minimum wage is a definite way to get more investor money involved

Again, this is economics, not fantasy. Shitskins were let into the West due to dropping birth rates among the locals. The reason it needed to happen is that experts looked at the facts and realized it simply isn't feasible to build machines that can replace humans for monkey work due to the massive resources and other costs required. Thus, if there wasn't a steady supply of humans willing to clean toilets and pack boxes capitalism would collapse.

Hundreds of billions have spent researching completely worthless shit that never paid off

Examples? That is a laughable statement. Most R&D investment is related to war, the rest is because there is a reasonable possibility of it paying off. Nobody is going to invest in replacing monkey-work humans with robots because the reward isn't worth the massive risk. Humans are so damn complex yet it costs most businesses nothing to make a human, other people do it for free and then the person is willing to work on zero hour contracts with no benefits. Yet you think businesses will invest trillions in hard resources to replace this essentially free labor? Why? Why would governments do it? Because they hate tax revenue?

And human computers didn't think that they were in trouble when electromechanical computers showed up on the scene, because, after all, the machine didn't have the intuition to correct mistakes in the data and had to be reprogrammed for every different tabulation format and they didn't

What you are missing is that there is a difference between developing software and hardware. If you read my post past the truncate, I stated that doctors are going to be huge victims of technological advancement. It is building the kind of machines that can replace min. wage workers that is a ridiculous concept. It simply won't happen because it is so much cheaper to make a human than a comparably complex machine.

Want to see automation blossom? Give amnesty and raise and enforce the minimum wage

You're just guessing. Again, you don't understand how damn complex the human body is. Not the mind, the BODY. Building machines that can perform similar tasks to any nigger is cost-prohibitive.

Let's not forget that the manufacturing "costs" of replacing min. wage workers with machines isn't measured in imaginary "currency" it is measured in the use of energy and non-renewable resources. Yet the "cost" of a min. wage worker is supposedly going to be $15 of imaginary currency, no need for energy or rare minerals (ie. actual wealth) to be invested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_support_scam

primarily originate from call centers in India.

never understood why so many people want to eat at restaurants and order fast food anyway. I understand occasionally if you don't have time or maybe if you're traveling, but it's just amazing to me that restaurants and retail chains are some of the highest employers.

Who are all these people who have so much discretionary income? Why do they not know the joy of a home cooked meal?

>>32

There is literally zero chance that a robot that could perform the same functions that Monkeyshia does in the packaging warehouse or fast food chain can be developed for less cost

Robots have high development costs but the replication costs can be drived down, and the upkeep is just negligible. Especially considering the advances of socialism around the world where everyone's pushing for higher minimum wages and trade unions gain power.

less cost than it takes to create 100 adult humans who will do the job for a low wage

Low wages will be made illegal by socialists. And upkeep costs for humans will rise with various insurance, health programs, multi-million lawsuits filed by employees etc.

>>27

They're being butchered.

I'd love to see some video footage or at least news reports.

"my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr".....!jk387e
two days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month's payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day...with weekly payouts..it's realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars...

>>40

robots are getting paid 17k and driving maclarens
you cant even get a job at wendy's so you have to go stand in line for the biometric scan and put in your vote for hillary to get your hillarybux

The future they said

>>38

Robots have high development costs

Computers once had very high costs too, but today microcontroller costs less than a potato.

>>42
Exactly. Mass production is a huge cost-saver. Maintenance is going to be dirt-cheap too. Robotics research is the only bottleneck here but there has been so much ground covered there that it's not going to hold for long especially since the market for robots is only going to grow.

>>42

Wrong. Huge amounts of money were invested in computer development because nature did not spit out billions of ultra-complex supercomputers for free. If nature did, nobody would invest in artificial computers. There is no incentive for the massive amounts of risk required to develop machines that can replace monkey work that humans do.

No, socialism and min. wage will not compel companies to develop those machines. Min. wage is just currency, producing machines to replace humans costs real things like energy and rare minerals. Further, all that increased wage leads to is an underground community of slaves working under the table. Even with legal threats like fines (lol) companies would much rather simply hire people illegally than invest the untold trillions into replacing them with machines.

>>43

Robotics research is the only bottleneck here

No, the bottleneck is manufacturing. Do you think things are manufactured by magic?

>>44
quite possible that there will be some kind of drone food delivery services though, and the min wage hike will cause more people to want to shop / buy food online / not eat out as much

>>45
Maybe, but the desire to socialize in those settings is quite deep-seated in your average pleb.

>>44
You forget that DARPA funds robotics, because humans are cowards and cant be trusted on the battlefield, while robot will happily go on a suicide task. NASA also needs robots, because sending human being to mars is too costly.

>>47
You forgot that no government is about to invest untold trillions of wealth it doesn't have into replacing its tax base with machines that don't pay tax.

>>48
Why not? They spend billions a year maintaining nuclear weapons for the sole purpose to never have to use them. It's the Red Queen's race, dude. Capitalism is the natural extension of evolution, and those that don't do absolutely everything they can to advance will get left behind. The first country to get this technology will be able to sell it to everyone else and reap the reward, that's the first mover advantage. Everyone knows this and will take actions that may seem irrational to you, but you are not looking at the long term, and you are looking at it from a political perspective, when it is a economic and game-theory problem.

>>48
taxes are paid by businesses not by goyim cattle.

>>50
and government needs strong army to enforce taxes.

>>49
What you appear to be saying is that the technology will be developed for war-related reasons and then trickle down to business, eliminating the massive original R&D investment from business. But what you are missing is that it isn't about "technology" -- it is about the resources required to make the technology ubiquitous enough to replace human labor. It would simply cost too much, and there is no point since there are so many humans. In fact, all it will do is tie up nonrenewable resources and create huge instability due to all the bored retards.

If you're going to waste nonrenewable resources replacing human labor when there are billions of human laborers already available, that must be because you are planning to genocide the majority of humans. That is very plausible, and under that scenario economics would no longer be at play. But otherwise there is simply no economic incentive to manufacturer the kind of complex machines that can replace basic human labor.

>>52
A lot of oil dictatorships have no need for humans, because humans demand a share of oil profits. So leaders like Vladimir Putin will be the first to employ robots to control population.

>>53
The most elite of humans are doubly degenerate, and need to keep a massive population of surplus humans so creativity and entertainment can develop. Otherwise no gay elite shit like Broadway or even a Super Boal would be possible.

These dubs are anti commie