Wouldn't it be great it human nature worked that way?
Fact is - some people will turn down a free $20 bill.
Other folks are happy if they get a car but then feel bad if someone else gets a car.
both sides- union and management push worker's buttons.
The union helps workers sometimes- but it may have it's own agenda (stopping tesla) (getting a big fat paycheck for the union bossses).
Management.. well.. let's say there's almost no conflict there. They just use the hell out of workers in every way possible instead of hiring enough workers and paying them a reasonable share of the profits (pay has been stagnant as the power of unions waned but executives do better than ever-- while non-union folks get divorce, have heart attacks, and literally die due to excess hours and unreasonable schedules.
Are executives bad people? I'd like to say no, but in many cases, studies have shown that sociopaths do really well at a lot of companies. So.. yea.. a lot of executives are bad people who lack empathy and are willing to hurt people to better themselves.
But not all executives are bad people. However- I think things are getting worse and have been for a couple generations now.
I think that it will end badly as a result. And I have no solution.
I retired early- and I hope I have a realtively painless death before it all goes completely to hell.
How the American opiate epidemic was started by one pharmaceutical company FROM Mike Mariani (Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle/San Francisco/CORBIS) March 4, 2015
The state of Kentucky may finally get its deliverance. After more than seven years of battling the evasive legal tactics of Purdue Pharma, 2015 may be the year that Kentucky and its attorney general, Jack Conway, are able to move forward with a civil lawsuit alleging that the drugmaker misled doctors and patients about their blockbuster pain pill OxyContin, leading to a vicious addiction epidemic across large swaths of the state.
A pernicious distinction of the first decade of the 21st century was the rise in painkiller abuse, which ultimately led to a catastrophic increase in addicts, fatal overdoses, and blighted communities. But the story of the painkiller epidemic can really be reduced to the story of one powerful, highly addictive drug and its small but ruthlessly enterprising manufacturer.'...
Spoiler: The corporation lied to doctors about how dangerous oxycontin was.
Meanwhile all the executives took huge salaries and bled the businesses dry and kept the money for themselves.
They chose terrible car designs and lobbied congress successfully for protection from progress instead of designing better cars.
Did the unions have problems? Sure.
Did the executives also have a HUGE hand in driving the companies to extinction? Sure.
one difference. The union folks are eating empty promises of pensions while the executive class took a large share of their money in cash at the time (and also in some cases had separately funded pensions and gold plated health care plans).
I think they give employees leverage with businesses.
I also think businesses have had a LOT of laws passed which limits the power of unions today (like industry wide strikes).
That being said... I've *never* known a union person who worked as hard as non-union. And not from fear...
Example
Friend of mine was a non union plumber (yech ! Ptoo!)
He shows up at a job site to install a line which requires a hole in a stud. They tell him, he has to wait until the stud hole driller gets back from lunch. Apparently, no one else can drill a hole in the stud even tho the tools are on a nearby table.
That screams of a lack of professional pride to me.
It's also a big reason non-union folks hate to deal with union people. Because union people stick to their rules when just a *little* bit of give would be much more productive (and so more profitable).
---
In the end, he picked up the drill, drilled the hole, and installed the line. They complained. As this was in texas, absolutely nothing came of it except they were probably angry, surly, and upset for a few days.
I've been a programmer in everything from 6502 assembly language to Java with struts and Ajax. I spent 3 years cleaning almost non-functional programming delivered by young, ignorant IBM college grads into something elegant before I became a project manager and then team lead over 15 developers. And I saved my ass off the entire time. Because I knew my time would come.
And it did- in a company that had never had layoffs before after it tried (against a lot of senior programmers advice) to convert to all six SAP packages at the same time and failed catastrophically (because a lot of young people said it could be done if we just ran at it fast enough and "believed!" it would work. I know so many people who had nice houses, kids in college, and good skill sets who never got programmer jobs again.
I'd seen it before after Y2K as well. Mass layoffs. 40 and under got jobs easily- 55 and over left the field. Even tho they had more knowledge than us younger folks.
Age discrimination among programmers is rife and regularly reported in the industry. It's rife in other fields too. But IT is the worst. 80% of people leave the field by age 40. It is not really a career you can count on.
Anyway...Good luck. I'll leave you these to digest.
Time for bed, I'm retired and I'm helping a young whippersnapper programmer friend of a friend who hasn't got a clue how to remove wet sheetrock and insulation from his flooded house. (It's dead simple- you can find it easily without even requiring google fu- he's just young and lacks confidence and much worse physical condition than I am- but I ski 3-4 weeks a year and exercise regularly). After that, I'll be helping a couple other folks with their flooded houses. Then maybe I'll do something longer term thru a formal group like RC (I don't trust their legal document tho) or Barkley (a united way group with a much friendlier legal document.
He told us, "Sooner or later, your corporation will get rid of you, not because youâ(TM)re old, but because they are concerned what kind of face they put in front of their clients," he said.
"They want to be thought of as youthful, to look progressive, and they won't put a guy out there who is 60 years old. I know it's stupid, but you would be surprised how many people think like that."
"Whatâ(TM)s happening in the tech sector is a general trend toward youth," Dermody tells us.
Facebook, LinkedIn and Salesforce have young work forces. Google's median age based on data from 2014 is the ripe old age of 30. (See chart on median employee age from salary analyst PayScale, below).
"At some Silicon Valley companies, the top executives are explicit in their preference for workers under 35," she says.
https://www.javaworld.com/arti...
A late-1990s study by the National Science Foundation and Census Bureau found that only 19 percent of computer science graduates are still working in programming once they're in their early 40s. This suggests serious attrition among what should be the dominant labor pool in IT.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/a... But in tech, people tell a different story. Programmers in their 40s leave their graduation years off resumes so as not to tip the employer off to their age. Engineers with 15 years of experience canâ(TM)t get a response from potential employers. Hiring managers at companies in Silicon Valley have spoken openly about preferring younger candidates because they will work longer hours for less money and usually don't have certain family or home obligations that older employees with families might have.
42. Still 3 years away from the start of the problem.
If someone has more experience and they give you some advice, it's worth listening to and not dismiss them out of hubris and ignorance. They might be wrong. But they might be talking about something they already saw happening multiple times. Which is true in my case.
The average age for programmers is 13 years younger than that for doctors and lawyers. The field is now over 50 years old. Ask yourself, why is the average age so much lower for programmers if they are working to 60?
I was in tech- and as early as 1985 saw older 45 year old programmers dumped and pushed out of the field.
I saved hard and retired at 51 - when hundreds of co-workers were dumped out on the street (and out of the career).
IT is a nice 20 year career. After that, you are increasingly likely to be age discriminated out of a job regardless of how current you keep your skills.
Save hard and be ready when the end reaches you. Be happy if you are one of the lucky few who makes it into their 60s in IT.
First, like the other guy says, it's not as good an idea as it used to be. Once you have a glut of educated workers, it depresses their wages.
But also, there is a good 50% of the population that isn't suited to education due to poor impulse control and lower than average intelligence, Keep in mind that at many schools currently over half the freshman class drop out before graduation- and those are people who wanted to go.
And UBI isn't a panacea. There are people who given money but nothing to do, will turn to bad activities. The old "Idle hands" problem. Perhaps UBI combined with national contests would be an answer. All kinds of human social activities like dance, writing, painting, sculpting, volunteer work recognized with significant prizes for each age group.
But anyway, yeah, education isn't a panacea either. It's unsuited to many, and with rising productivity there are many fields which would just be destroyed sooner by a glut of labor. Plus the value of a degree in general would drop.
However- I DO support the idea of free vocational and college. Not "grants", not "cheaper" because that will just become cost plus. No, I think you need to set a standard amount that's available only if the school can train the person for free including classes, books, and fees (including parking). Otherwise that money isn't available at all the school. I think about $1,250 in 2017 dollars per 3 credit hours would suffice. And if a student fails to complete a course without an approved cause (illness, national disaster, etc.) then they simply can't go again the following year.
And a reasonable size policing force of undercover students would test that the schools were really teaching (hey- I just created a couple thousand jobs that can't be automated!).
And yup, I'd support automated schooling- including free classes on line too.
I have Amazon Prime but they tried so hard to steer me into non-free content that I stopped using it.
It was really irritating to search, find a show, dig down into the show, sometimes even the 1st episode was free, and then "oh and now it's $2.99 an episode".
I still *have* the subscription for the free shipping. I do NOT use the streaming video (tho I might for the Tick).
I may if they add an easy way to hide content with an additional charge in my search results.
The mention of interactions at intersections lead me to that assumption.
If they are intended for highway use, then yea- I've thought along those lines myself. Robotic long haul trucks that pull into local lots for drivers to drive manually within the city.
AC said: "Bullshit, they have never required a mobile number."
uh... sure you don't want to read the examples going back as far as 2010 and retract that statement? Facebook has required mobile numbers many times. Not of all users.
But facebook has experimented on subsets of it's users without their consent regularly. It's a skeevy, scummy company whose founder has openly mocked people who trusted him.
Facebook says the huge psychological experiment it secretly conducted on its users should have been âoedone differentlyâ and announced a new set of guidelines for how it will approach future research studies.
In a blogpost on Thursday, Mike Schroepfer, chief technology officer, said the company had been âoeunpreparedâ for the negative reactions it received when it published the results of an experiment in June.
Facebook published the results of a 2012 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Unbeknown to users, Facebook had tampered with the news feeds of nearly 700,000 people, showing them an abnormally low number of either positive or negative posts. The experiment aimed to determine whether the company could alter the emotional state of its users.
I just went to Agar.io to pass some time and just as I tried to log in via my Facebook account I was told I wasn't allowed to log in until I fixed some things on Facebook. So off I went to Facebook and I'm told they want my mobile phone number in order to continue using my account!!
So I click the question "Why do I need to verify my identity by providing my phone number?" and it says this:
We want to make sure that this is really you and that youâ(TM)re connecting to Facebook with just one account.
To verify your identity, you'll need to log into Facebook and follow the on-site instructions to add your mobile number. Your phone number will be added to your profile, but you can choose who can see it there.
Note: Maintaining more than one account is a violation of the Facebook Terms. "
Why do you keep asking for phone numbers? Policy Privacy I don't want to give out my personal phone number - Do I have to? Asked about 3 years ago by Judy Short 140 Votes  31 Followers  Seen by 7,390
Good Question
Follow this Question  Share
Featured Answer
Abbe Yoga Herfani 615 answersStar Contributor
Phone number is needed to provide extra layer of security for your account. Also to ensure Facebook that your account is real, reducing possibility of marked as suspicious. You can always hide the phone number from others via about section.
This all, of course optional:)
25 comments  Share  Answered about 3 years ago
View previous comments
STOP ASKING THAT FUCKING PHONE NUMBER !!!!!
Posted about a year ago by Olivier Alves
I got a pink/red screen and it required a validated mobile number to get past. I tried a couple random numbers and I tried a valid google phone number. After several days, I gave up.
>AC replyed..."I suspect it was modded down because they thought it was bullshit. I use Facebook daily and have never given them my phone number."
I can see that. But I got a pink red screen and Facebook wouldn't let me go past it without providing a validated mobile number. This went on for several days in a row.
Facebook does a lot of experiments with treating different users different ways to see how they behave (that's published fact- and here on slashdot too). Maybe I got caught up in one of those.
These days, I just find Facebook generally creepy and won't use it.
I see a time when big automated rigs park trailers at the edge of town and local human drivers take the trailers to their in town destination. Both due to software limits (high way case is easier to solve), liability reasons, and simply fewere assholes messing with automated vehicles outside of cities.
Read upthread of already implemented and successful warehouse automation projects and you'll see humans create more problems (theft, striking at just the perfectly wrong time, violence) than the ones you propose.
The "weak" point becomes the non-automated trucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be great it human nature worked that way?
Fact is - some people will turn down a free $20 bill.
Other folks are happy if they get a car but then feel bad if someone else gets a car.
both sides- union and management push worker's buttons.
The union helps workers sometimes- but it may have it's own agenda (stopping tesla) (getting a big fat paycheck for the union bossses).
Management.. well .. let's say there's almost no conflict there. They just use the hell out of workers in every way possible instead of hiring enough workers and paying them a reasonable share of the profits (pay has been stagnant as the power of unions waned but executives do better than ever-- while non-union folks get divorce, have heart attacks, and literally die due to excess hours and unreasonable schedules.
Are executives bad people? I'd like to say no, but in many cases, studies have shown that sociopaths do really well at a lot of companies. So.. yea.. a lot of executives are bad people who lack empathy and are willing to hurt people to better themselves.
But not all executives are bad people. However- I think things are getting worse and have been for a couple generations now.
I think that it will end badly as a result. And I have no solution.
I retired early- and I hope I have a realtively painless death before it all goes completely to hell.
http://theweek.com/articles/54...
How the American opiate epidemic was started by one pharmaceutical company
FROM
Mike Mariani
(Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle/San Francisco/CORBIS)
March 4, 2015
The state of Kentucky may finally get its deliverance. After more than seven years of battling the evasive legal tactics of Purdue Pharma, 2015 may be the year that Kentucky and its attorney general, Jack Conway, are able to move forward with a civil lawsuit alleging that the drugmaker misled doctors and patients about their blockbuster pain pill OxyContin, leading to a vicious addiction epidemic across large swaths of the state.
A pernicious distinction of the first decade of the 21st century was the rise in painkiller abuse, which ultimately led to a catastrophic increase in addicts, fatal overdoses, and blighted communities. But the story of the painkiller epidemic can really be reduced to the story of one powerful, highly addictive drug and its small but ruthlessly enterprising manufacturer.' ...
Spoiler: The corporation lied to doctors about how dangerous oxycontin was.
Meanwhile all the executives took huge salaries and bled the businesses dry and kept the money for themselves.
They chose terrible car designs and lobbied congress successfully for protection from progress instead of designing better cars.
Did the unions have problems? Sure.
Did the executives also have a HUGE hand in driving the companies to extinction? Sure.
one difference. The union folks are eating empty promises of pensions while the executive class took a large share of their money in cash at the time (and also in some cases had separately funded pensions and gold plated health care plans).
I don't hate unions.
I think they give employees leverage with businesses.
I also think businesses have had a LOT of laws passed which limits the power of unions today (like industry wide strikes).
That being said... I've *never* known a union person who worked as hard as non-union. And not from fear...
Example
Friend of mine was a non union plumber (yech ! Ptoo!)
He shows up at a job site to install a line which requires a hole in a stud. They tell him, he has to wait until the stud hole driller gets back from lunch. Apparently, no one else can drill a hole in the stud even tho the tools are on a nearby table.
That screams of a lack of professional pride to me.
It's also a big reason non-union folks hate to deal with union people. Because union people stick to their rules when just a *little* bit of give would be much more productive (and so more profitable).
---
In the end, he picked up the drill, drilled the hole, and installed the line. They complained. As this was in texas, absolutely nothing came of it except they were probably angry, surly, and upset for a few days.
When dealing with others, I like to play a little game. I ask myself what could be the worst reason why they are acting as they do.
Then I remember my conclusion by tying a string around my little finger.
Next they'll be demanding ONE MILLION dollars from the rest of us.
I've been a programmer in everything from 6502 assembly language to Java with struts and Ajax. I spent 3 years cleaning almost non-functional programming delivered by young, ignorant IBM college grads into something elegant before I became a project manager and then team lead over 15 developers. And I saved my ass off the entire time. Because I knew my time would come.
And it did- in a company that had never had layoffs before after it tried (against a lot of senior programmers advice) to convert to all six SAP packages at the same time and failed catastrophically (because a lot of young people said it could be done if we just ran at it fast enough and "believed!" it would work. I know so many people who had nice houses, kids in college, and good skill sets who never got programmer jobs again.
I'd seen it before after Y2K as well. Mass layoffs. 40 and under got jobs easily- 55 and over left the field. Even tho they had more knowledge than us younger folks.
Age discrimination among programmers is rife and regularly reported in the industry. It's rife in other fields too. But IT is the worst. 80% of people leave the field by age 40. It is not really a career you can count on.
Anyway...Good luck. I'll leave you these to digest.
Time for bed, I'm retired and I'm helping a young whippersnapper programmer friend of a friend who hasn't got a clue how to remove wet sheetrock and insulation from his flooded house. (It's dead simple- you can find it easily without even requiring google fu- he's just young and lacks confidence and much worse physical condition than I am- but I ski 3-4 weeks a year and exercise regularly). After that, I'll be helping a couple other folks with their flooded houses. Then maybe I'll do something longer term thru a formal group like RC (I don't trust their legal document tho) or Barkley (a united way group with a much friendlier legal document.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
He told us, "Sooner or later, your corporation will get rid of you, not because youâ(TM)re old, but because they are concerned what kind of face they put in front of their clients," he said.
"They want to be thought of as youthful, to look progressive, and they won't put a guy out there who is 60 years old. I know it's stupid, but you would be surprised how many people think like that."
"Whatâ(TM)s happening in the tech sector is a general trend toward youth," Dermody tells us.
Facebook, LinkedIn and Salesforce have young work forces. Google's median age based on data from 2014 is the ripe old age of 30. (See chart on median employee age from salary analyst PayScale, below).
"At some Silicon Valley companies, the top executives are explicit in their preference for workers under 35," she says.
https://www.javaworld.com/arti...
A late-1990s study by the National Science Foundation and Census Bureau found that only 19 percent of computer science graduates are still working in programming once they're in their early 40s. This suggests serious attrition among what should be the dominant labor pool in IT.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/a...
But in tech, people tell a different story. Programmers in their 40s leave their graduation years off resumes so as not to tip the employer off to their age. Engineers with 15 years of experience canâ(TM)t get a response from potential employers. Hiring managers at companies in Silicon Valley have spoken openly about preferring younger candidates because they will work longer hours for less money and usually don't have certain family or home obligations that older employees with families might have.
Part of the problem could be that the indus
42. Still 3 years away from the start of the problem.
If someone has more experience and they give you some advice, it's worth listening to and not dismiss them out of hubris and ignorance. They might be wrong. But they might be talking about something they already saw happening multiple times. Which is true in my case.
The average age for programmers is 13 years younger than that for doctors and lawyers. The field is now over 50 years old. Ask yourself, why is the average age so much lower for programmers if they are working to 60?
I was in tech- and as early as 1985 saw older 45 year old programmers dumped and pushed out of the field.
I saved hard and retired at 51 - when hundreds of co-workers were dumped out on the street (and out of the career).
IT is a nice 20 year career. After that, you are increasingly likely to be age discriminated out of a job regardless of how current you keep your skills.
Save hard and be ready when the end reaches you. Be happy if you are one of the lucky few who makes it into their 60s in IT.
First, like the other guy says, it's not as good an idea as it used to be. Once you have a glut of educated workers, it depresses their wages.
But also, there is a good 50% of the population that isn't suited to education due to poor impulse control and lower than average intelligence, Keep in mind that at many schools currently over half the freshman class drop out before graduation- and those are people who wanted to go.
And UBI isn't a panacea. There are people who given money but nothing to do, will turn to bad activities. The old "Idle hands" problem. Perhaps UBI combined with national contests would be an answer. All kinds of human social activities like dance, writing, painting, sculpting, volunteer work recognized with significant prizes for each age group.
But anyway, yeah, education isn't a panacea either. It's unsuited to many, and with rising productivity there are many fields which would just be destroyed sooner by a glut of labor. Plus the value of a degree in general would drop.
However- I DO support the idea of free vocational and college. Not "grants", not "cheaper" because that will just become cost plus. No, I think you need to set a standard amount that's available only if the school can train the person for free including classes, books, and fees (including parking). Otherwise that money isn't available at all the school. I think about $1,250 in 2017 dollars per 3 credit hours would suffice. And if a student fails to complete a course without an approved cause (illness, national disaster, etc.) then they simply can't go again the following year.
And a reasonable size policing force of undercover students would test that the schools were really teaching (hey- I just created a couple thousand jobs that can't be automated!).
And yup, I'd support automated schooling- including free classes on line too.
I use netflix.
I have Amazon Prime but they tried so hard to steer me into non-free content that I stopped using it.
It was really irritating to search, find a show, dig down into the show, sometimes even the 1st episode was free, and then "oh and now it's $2.99 an episode".
I still *have* the subscription for the free shipping. I do NOT use the streaming video (tho I might for the Tick).
I may if they add an easy way to hide content with an additional charge in my search results.
The mention of interactions at intersections lead me to that assumption.
If they are intended for highway use, then yea- I've thought along those lines myself. Robotic long haul trucks that pull into local lots for drivers to drive manually within the city.
Now picture dozens of such convoys. It's not going to fly. One convoy- no big deal. Such convoys all over the city could disrupt traffic flow.
AC said: "Bullshit, they have never required a mobile number."
uh... sure you don't want to read the examples going back as far as 2010 and retract that statement?
Facebook has required mobile numbers many times. Not of all users.
But facebook has experimented on subsets of it's users without their consent regularly. It's a skeevy, scummy company whose founder has openly mocked people who trusted him.
2014
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Facebook says the huge psychological experiment it secretly conducted on its users should have been âoedone differentlyâ and announced a new set of guidelines for how it will approach future research studies.
In a blogpost on Thursday, Mike Schroepfer, chief technology officer, said the company had been âoeunpreparedâ for the negative reactions it received when it published the results of an experiment in June.
Facebook published the results of a 2012 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Unbeknown to users, Facebook had tampered with the news feeds of nearly 700,000 people, showing them an abnormally low number of either positive or negative posts. The experiment aimed to determine whether the company could alter the emotional state of its users.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/th...
" Facebook now requires your mobile phone number
I just went to Agar.io to pass some time and just as I tried to log in via my Facebook account I was told I wasn't allowed to log in until I fixed some things on Facebook. So off I went to Facebook and I'm told they want my mobile phone number in order to continue using my account!!
So I click the question "Why do I need to verify my identity by providing my phone number?" and it says this:
We want to make sure that this is really you and that youâ(TM)re connecting to Facebook with just one account.
To verify your identity, you'll need to log into Facebook and follow the on-site instructions to add your mobile number. Your phone number will be added to your profile, but you can choose who can see it there.
Note: Maintaining more than one account is a violation of the Facebook Terms.
"
https://www.facebook.com/help/...
Why do you keep asking for phone numbers?
Policy
Privacy
I don't want to give out my personal phone number - Do I have to?
Asked about 3 years ago by Judy Short
140 Votes  31 Followers  Seen by 7,390
Good Question
Follow this Question  Share
Featured Answer
Abbe Yoga Herfani 615 answersStar Contributor
Phone number is needed to provide extra layer of security for your account. Also to ensure Facebook that your account is real, reducing possibility of marked as suspicious. You can always hide the phone number from others via about section.
This all, of course optional :)
25 comments  Share  Answered about 3 years ago
View previous comments
STOP ASKING THAT FUCKING PHONE NUMBER !!!!!
Posted about a year ago by Olivier Alves
In my case it wouldn't have worked.
I got a pink/red screen and it required a validated mobile number to get past. I tried a couple random numbers and I tried a valid google phone number. After several days, I gave up.
>AC replyed..."I suspect it was modded down because they thought it was bullshit. I use Facebook daily and have never given them my phone number."
I can see that. But I got a pink red screen and Facebook wouldn't let me go past it without providing a validated mobile number. This went on for several days in a row.
Facebook does a lot of experiments with treating different users different ways to see how they behave (that's published fact- and here on slashdot too). Maybe I got caught up in one of those.
These days, I just find Facebook generally creepy and won't use it.
I said,
"I used it back during farmville days just to play farmville.
Then one day, they required my real mobile number to log in.
And that was it for facebook."
Interesting someone would feel the need to downmod such an innocuous comment.
I think slashdot should start looking if some user's modding history lines up strongly with certain companies and countries.
perhaps it will depress wages to the point that it's not worth it to import indentured servants who are quasi slaves to code.
I see a time when big automated rigs park trailers at the edge of town and local human drivers take the trailers to their in town destination. Both due to software limits (high way case is easier to solve), liability reasons, and simply fewere assholes messing with automated vehicles outside of cities.
You're kidding me! get out of town!
You mean people in poor neighborhoods didn't get 3" water mains while people in rich neighborhoods were served by normal 12" water mains?
And they were not restricted to 5 gallons a day while people in rich neighborhoods got all the water they wanted each day?
That's just crazy talk headw1nd!
I used it back during farmville days just to play farmville.
Then one day, they required my real mobile number to log in.
And that was it for facebook.
God you are dumb.
Lexus wouldn't do that but rental agents, real estate agents, and companies like AT&T (allegedly) do.
That's what the entire case is about.
Jiminey Cricket.
On a related note, I hear Musk has an awesome plan to deal with nuclear waste by storing it on the moon.
Really hasn't been a problem.
Facebook gives me the creeps.
Read upthread of already implemented and successful warehouse automation projects and you'll see humans create more problems (theft, striking at just the perfectly wrong time, violence) than the ones you propose.
The "weak" point becomes the non-automated trucks.