|
Pollyanna posted:Yikes. This sounds kinda dystopic. Kanban. The goal is to reduce inventories at all parts of the supply chain. The metaphor used to explain it is a boat on a lake. With high inventory the water level in the lake is high, it's easy to sail from one side to the other. When inventory is eliminated the water is low. One had to actively sail around the large rocks that were previously on the bottom under water. When they say flexibility, it's basically that ability to sail around the rocks is what they are referring to. And it is loving awful to work in that situation. And there is no going back. Firms make a poo poo load more money with lower inventories. They also act this way to survive the extreme shortening product life cycles, that is driven by consumer demand now.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
rscott posted:Apparently it's cheaper to hire a guy or a gal for $10/hr to load blocks and push the start button and have a real machinist for every 20 or so operators to solve problems with the mills and hope your inspection department catches the poo poo parts. And there is the real question. Just asking "Can it be automated?" is a waste of time. "Is it cheaper or does it produce more when it is automated?" That's what matters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
It's happening on the paperwork office side of transportation too. Most shipping documents and even touchy things like hazardous declarations ate becoming automated.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:so... a freight train passing a container to a truck at a yard? Drayage is the word. All the short stuff, things moved around inside a intermodal terminal, from the terminal to a warehouse or facility, etc. All the short trips in traffic or hectic places. That is the hard stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
I think some automation has been lagging in its implementation because of the integration if the technology with the preexisting systems and employees and that's already been touched on. Another thing that is going away is communication. An example here. On the west coast if I wanted to find a specific container in a terminal or on a ship I have to call or email somebody. In savannah all I had to do was look it up on the Internet. The transmission of information isn't going to need people eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Increasing automation does not equal the singularity. Singularity is just the rapture/kingdom for the irreligious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And this thread is just the millennials version of the fear of the "robot apocalypse' but mashed into a weird place where instead of robots rising up to kill everyone as a civil rights metaphor or using nuclear bombs on us in a MAD metaphor now the robots are going to raise unemployment in a housing crash metaphor. This thread is tame compared to what I'm being told about automaton in my transportation management masters. Just saying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Apparent amazon go works very well and can't easily be fooled. Got to talk to someone who just got to check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:For example, take autonomous vehicles. Roads are not designed for robots, they are designed for people. And it's not like we haven't changed what the system was designed for in the past. At one point roads were for pedestrians and horse drawn vehicles and cars were those things the rich drove like maniacs and ran over babies with. Conceptually change what a road is for, (from human drivers to autonomous vehicles) and some of the autonomous vehicle problems become much easier to solve.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:they've been trying to make self driving cars for more than 60 years. the earliest attempts involved radio control and signals embedded into the road itself, literally "changing who a road is for, from human drivers to autonomous vehicles". it doesn't work, because there's a shitload of road in this country and you can't update all of it to provide sufficient coverage for automated vehicles. also, we already have a means of constructing right of way that's perfect for automated control of a vehicle - it's called a "railroad track" In one paragraph we have: it won't work with an example of why it's a solved problem. To me that means it isn't a question of if it is possible. It's a question of the crossover point for the cost and public (and industry's) desire for it. The position of that crossover point changes as the technology improves. Look at it this way, tech companies design tech kits for business with preexisting systems. Every now and then they create a technology that doesn't work with the preexisting systems but that would work if a new system ( a new business) was designed around it. Now the roads are a massive sunk capital cost so the bar is very high for the whole design a new system around it thing. But it's certainly not impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:what the gently caress The question is not "Can it be done?" It's almost always do we want to do it at associated cost X? I'm telling you companies like Schneider are going to be pushing hard for trucks without drivers when they think the crossover point cost is close enough. A Wizard of Goatse posted:gimmick cars for the idle rich work right, and in the meantime none of those things better get a dirty lens and hit a stroller. State of GA "Automobiles are to be classed with ferocious animals and … the law relating to the duty of owners of such animals is to be applied " "In the 1920s, 60 percent of automobile fatalities nationwide were children under age 9. One gruesome Detroit article described an Italian family whose 18-month-old son was hit and wedged in the wheel well of a car. As the hysterical father and police pried out the child's dead body, the mother went into the house and committed suicide." http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan-history/2015/04/26/auto-traffic-history-detroit/26312107/ The same thing as cars at all at one point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:are you drunk? the solved problem is "use a train". i dont know how else you could have read that statement Any technology is part of a larger system and user case. One (of many) solution is to change the larger system and user case. We did those things to adopt cars in the first place at some point it may make sense to do it to adopt self driving vehicles. That type of conceptual change can take decades after it starts and could either lag a technology or preceed it. In fact changing the system and user cases may even be harder than solving the tech problem. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:uh, roads already existed before the mass adoption of automobiles. roads changed very little in comparison to the way people used roads. Roads built as cars become ubiquitous and roads built as part of the interstate highway system are very different things than pre car roads. There is a poo poo load of design that goes into allowing a cars to safely drive at speed on roads. It is a reasonable thing to eventually expect the same types of considerations that allow for safe use be designed into roads for autonomous vehicles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The majority of the regulations we follow designing, building or maintaining our products were made because someone died. And this is especially true for anything transportation related. It usually takes pretty horrific large scale accidents to get regulation put in place. Any time some one bitches about onerous regulation they should be reminded where regulations come from.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
We brute force map the ocean bottom for navigation and one arm of our nuclear deterrent at a global scale.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:we know very little about the ocean bottom, like 98% of it is irrelevant for navigation of any kind You know that "drone " the Chinese captured and released, what are the dual purposes of the ships that deploy those? We have very good maps of the bottom for all the areas of the ocean that matter and continually update them for one leg of the nuclear traid at a global scale. We do this in a confrontational environment harassed by other navies. Again the point being is, "is X possible?" is almost never the real question.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i wonder what quirk in human psychology makes you completely impenetrable to the fact that congestion is simply more demand than supply and no amount of gadgets can change that The efficency of of a mode of transportation can be changed. An example would be container follow through marine terminals. But usually those changes involve systems level changes and not just individual technologies. More can be done with existing capacity but usually it must come with changes to how the particular transportation system is organized.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Tei posted:Steam stuff There are a bunch of us on SA with maritime backgrounds. A group of posters (mostly outside of d&d) have licenses relating to these steam systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Another thing about the steam stuff, it's where systems thinking and controls theory comes from. You have to have to understand a diagram of the cycle to really run a steam plant with pneumatic controls. The same control valves, how they are used to affect the system that's where controls really gets its start. Later the rocket and aerospace industries really run with controls. But if you model just about anything you use those concepts. Edit : I hate autocorrect Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:How well do steamships using the pneumatic operation actually run? I have only sailed with full electronic automation, which had things like "bridge throttle control" and a literal big button that said "start plant". With engineers who know all the things the automation would otherwise take care of. Basically they're all gone though. I did some of my cadet time on the last steamship built in the US, it had full automation and it was constructed in 83 I think. Outside of some very old RRF stuff I don't think they are around anymore. Even the steam vessels built in the time period before automation (eg a couple of lakers) that are still sailing have had their engine rooms updated with automation. I've talked to older engineers, who sailed on old steam ships and it sounded like a pain in the rear end. Imagine changing burners and turning valves everytime the bridge wanted to change RPMs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
As the parent of a three and a half year old I can confirm that going through checkout is valuable socialization for teaching them how to interact with society. As the parent of a three and half year old I also occasionally thank God for Amazon Fresh. As the child of someone who worked front line retail grocery and liquor from my conception to now, i can say with certainty, god it sucks so much. The corporate absurdities, chains buying each other, and fraction of customers that are terrible, it's rough. My father is more is more stressed in his retail job than I am by my job. If I gently caress up it will kill people and make the news. I regularly make desicions that will cost a party very large amounts of money unexpectedly. Retail is much worse. There has to be a human way to deal with the growing automation of our systems, that is better than now, and not dystopic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Just read up on the foundations of cybernetics. Good lord.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yes, but it's presumably a lot easier to identify and eliminate biases like that when you're using essentially a single model across thousands of software deployments vs trying to identify and eliminate biases across thousands of individual brains. Discussion is one of the best ways to identify and eliminate those biases. So the best tool is out for the model.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Discussion is one of the best tools for the human mind, because conducting testing/inspecting/'debugging' are all somewhere between difficult to impossible there. This is not true for a computer model. Even neural nets, which are relatively opaque in their decision-making as far as computer programs go, are still easier to inspect and adjust than a human brain. I disagree. It's even more true for complicated models. Complicated models are systematics. Lets say one uses the differential equations paradigm to make a stock and flow model of a business cycle in the oil and gas industry. Jesus there is a lot of subjectivity in that model. That model by design might have blind spots, massive, gently caress you in rear end if you use it to plan, blind spots. Those biases are best spotted through discussion between diverse people. Now take the deep learning paradigm, there are biases, human biases hidden in the data it uses to build itself. As you point out, humans have to identify and tweak the data to eliminate these. Discussion by humans is still the tool by which these models are corrected. The experience and education of human professionals is still nesissary, but the wide and quick spread of the sucessful models undermine that base of education (by making it redundant and expensive). We tend to trust these models more as they improve, meaning we are less likely to look critically for thier biases while becoming less able to. Critical discussion is as nesissary as it has ever been. All models suffer from one risk of forgetting: "that what I do not know, in no way I think I know." Discussion remains the only way to address that risk, and it is the deadliest sort of pride to write its nessesity off. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Planet money ran a show on retraining programs, the cause of displacement was trade, but I think it's still relevant. Displaced workers want what TB is talking about, and retraining programs have exactly the issues she describes. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...87BH0f0zL6G_DJw
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I keep saying this, even if us regular people see it as impossible, there is a growing number of movers and shakers who really do envision a world where multi-national corporations only employ a few high-ranking, extremely well-paid executives each, and are pouring tons of money to make it a reality as fast as possible. This is related to how they justify thier pay too. They see the value creation in business as mostly done at the top. I'll post a diagram that shows how this works later if I still have it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
 All that stuff with the large "cost of resource" yeah that's all what they'd like automated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Logistics is ground zero for a lot of automation at the moment, so there's plenty of stuff like this out there. The thing to understand is that if a task is difficult for robots then we can just change the task to make it easier. As long as the end result is the same (ie, unloading and storing something in a warehouse for later retrieval) it doesn't matter if we drastically change the steps to make automation easier. If you're building your warehouse from the ground up to be automated then you can build the workflow entirely around the automated systems that you're using. It's not just the warehouses, it's everything. The marine terminals, the ships, the cranes, gates, clerking, trucking, the paperwork, the load planning, all of it. There is a heavy emphasis on systems level thought, in the education of the next set of transportation managers. We are being trained to design the logistics systems around the anticipated technologies. Now this is going to take forever of course, most of these people getting this education don't have a background that lends itself to systems design thought. The industry is also entrenchedly conservative (in the sense of let's do it in the way that has always worked). But it's coming, the sheer scope of money to be saved and made will ensure that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:Nah, agvs have been driving around containers for 25 years now. Unmanned cranes are already a thing. Port automation is already here. It is not a conservative industry. They aren't a thing in most of the US. Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are a world ahead. I can talk specifics about a large number of the most important US terminals if you'd like?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
And to illustrate how the us is a different world, on the bulk side of things I've been to grain terminals where the spouts were controlled by teams of men with ropes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:Please tell me they sing sea shanties as well. No, but they will throw wrenches (big goddamn ones think over 2" sized) if they think one is a scab. I on the other hand will sing sea shanties. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...szZItnzQt4fcrqQ Here's the short explanation of what is going on on some of these old bulk terminals. You have a piece of capital equipment. It's long ago been paid off, has fully depriciated on the books, can't be sold for anything other than scrap (it might actually cost a great deal of money to scrap, maybe asbestos or something else). But the maintenance is not horrific yet, you have labor that might keep it running indefinately. Every now and then markets workout where you can gouge the hell out of someone by firing it up. Alternately everything else around you has failed and you're the only reasonable place to pickup a backhaul load. On the container side, I think it is mostly that we don't have strong port authorities in most places in the us. The carriers have the upper hand in negotiations. Terminals don't like to spend money on automation if an alliance will gently caress them over come contract negotiations. They then blame this on labor, because you know it can't possibly be our fault. The places in the US where it's less terrible and there is actual progress have well run, state run, port authorities. Oddly enough that's often in deeply red areas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If I heard some baker found out a new trick to bake a cake in 1 hour instead of 2I'd think about how big that business would be. Not that it would be the end of it for most of the staff. Let's assume demand stays constant. There are other bakeries. Think about thier staff is they don't automate in the same way. Then once they all do, think about the staffing. Now if bread gets cheaper because of all this, demand will probably rise for it. But likely not enough to keep the same staffing level in the whole industry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Also supply and demand doesn't work that way. It'll be cheaper relative to other goods one might eat as a starch, that's going to change demand for bread? Edit let's put it this way, did the industrial production of soy beans eventually affect demand for soybeans?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
You're right my brain isn't spitting out good answers today.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
The deep learning algorithms still need to be integrated into a larger system. Systems thinking is still going to be the determining discipline.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Nah it won't be on the moon. East side burbs of Seattle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Bespoke Automated Terminal would be a good user name.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What's the new job gonna be? Robo-wrangler? Expert who points out when automated systems are being dumb or physically verify thier results in the field , good luck getting that job. It does pay well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Youporn model I expect servants to become a thing again. An example is nanny-ing in tech areas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean sometimes unions do stand in the way of automation to preserve jobs, and while it's somewhat understandable, it's not a great thing. This normally back fires too. The big example for me is west coast port clerking and gates compared to clerking and gates in the south at marine terminals. (The south had the additional advantage of having state run terminals)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 19:47
|
|