Only one item can be delivered at a time. It can’t weigh more than 5 pounds. It can’t be too big. It can’t be something breakable, since the drone drops it from 12 feet. The drones can’t fly when it is too hot or too windy or too rainy.
You need to be home to put out the landing target and to make sure that a porch pirate doesn’t make off with your item or that it doesn’t roll into the street (which happened once to Lord and Silverman). But your car can’t be in the driveway. Letting the drone land in the backyard would avoid some of these problems, but not if there are trees.
Amazon has also warned customers that drone delivery is unavailable during periods of high demand for drone delivery.
And what is your evidence that delivery trucks are the optimal method of delivery?
“Optimal” only matters to Amazon’s accountants. The trucks work fine. They keep thousands of people employed.
I have no idea why so many people are trying to justify Amazon putting profits over people.
That’s where you’re wrong. The “optimal” method of delivery matters to every stakeholder in the current system. Yes, Amazon would make more money. Probably too much more. Delivery would also likely be cheaper for customers. And delivery trucks in cities would finally stop blocking the fucking road whenever they feel like it.
Finally, have you considered the possibility that delivery trucks are suboptimal for delivery drivers? It’s no secret that the lifestyle of a delivery driver is extremely unhealthy, and I can’t imagine it’s particularly mentally stimulating.
This is the same rhetoric I hear about AI, and it’s very disheartening. The fact that corporations are gearing up these tools to further exploit the population isn’t an argument against the tools, it’s an argument against the corporations.
Yes, as I said, you and others are justifying Amazon putting profit over people.
I have asked this multiple times: What exactly are those thousands of delivery drivers supposed to do when Amazon fires them all for not being “optimal?”
I think that UBI is an obvious place to start, and I think it should give them the freedom to pursue something they actually want to do. Automation is coming for all of our jobs, but you seem to be fixated on irrationally protecting those jobs instead of taking steps to ensure that automation actually benefits all of us.
In your ideal world, are there really still delivery drivers?
Shouldn’t we maybe implement the UBI first, then fire all the delivery drivers? Because otherwise, I’m seeing a huge increase in the homelessness crisis.
Yes, we should. I just think that only happens when enough of us won’t shut up about UBI, not when we won’t shut up about how we shouldn’t use drones for delivery drivers even if they’re superior. The latter will always be a losing argument when it comes to the general populace because the word they care most about in that sentence is “superior”.
I would think avoiding mass unemployment before UBI is implemented because Amazon wants to save money is “optimal.”
You and I think it is, but most people aren’t delivery drivers, and most of those people frankly don’t have the time to even think about it.
The fact of the matter is that industry protectionism will always look silly to the average person while simultaneously being offered a better solution. On the other hand, being loud about our belief that former members of the industry shouldn’t be absolutely fucked over by automation may actually convince some people to support UBI.