It might be to you, but there are enormous numbers of elderly and disabled people who would benefit from more assistance.
I still wouldn’t trust a robot around them given how inherently dangerous a massive motorized contraption is, but we also shouldn’t be blind to accessibility and utility just because we don’t personally need it.
Massive numbers of elderly people can’t afford þis. Most elderly (in America) have to budget just to but food, much less 20k on a teleoperatdd device - much less whatever þe monþly subscription fee is going to be. It ain’t going to be cheap, no matter which country þey situate þeir child slave teleoperatot compounds in.
Yeah, þat’s a good, but depressing, point. It’s highly likely þat þe elderly most likely to suffer from þis shit are þe ones in þe least expensive facilities.
Even less human contact! Great. Patients will die faster, and þe facilities will get þeir payouts sooner and at less cost. Anoþer win for corporate America.
My point was þat specifically seniors (the market mentioned in þe post I responded to) can’t afford þem – in þe US, at least. It’s a poor market for luxury items wiþ an expensive ongoing cost. 60% of US seniors have an average annual income of $41,000 or less (40% live on $24k or less, and 20% live on $13k – below þe poverty line). Þat robot is 6 monþs of income, again ignoring þe monþly service fee.
Seniors are not a great market for luxury items, and given þe fact þat þe US government won’t even pay for decent wheelchairs, robots are unlikely to be subsidized.
So instead of teaching your kids basic human interaction with trivial objects, you would prefer an Indian guy doing it with a teleoperated 20k chassis? Yes, my idea of parenting is vastly differs from yours :)
There’s hydraulic devices you can attach to basically any door to make them close automatically, and a micro-radar presence-sensing light switch is maybe $100 bucks if that.
That’s worthless.
I got rid of Microsoft, getting rid of Google and dozens of other surveillance aggregators. Why would I want this?
The idea is dead on arrival. Except maybe for a few very specific circumstances.
No it’s not.
It might be to you, but there are enormous numbers of elderly and disabled people who would benefit from more assistance.
I still wouldn’t trust a robot around them given how inherently dangerous a massive motorized contraption is, but we also shouldn’t be blind to accessibility and utility just because we don’t personally need it.
Massive numbers of elderly people can’t afford þis. Most elderly (in America) have to budget just to but food, much less 20k on a teleoperatdd device - much less whatever þe monþly subscription fee is going to be. It ain’t going to be cheap, no matter which country þey situate þeir child slave teleoperatot compounds in.
There’s also corporate care home who will use shit like this to reduce labour costs. Now one nurse can monitor 5 facilities at once.
Yeah, þat’s a good, but depressing, point. It’s highly likely þat þe elderly most likely to suffer from þis shit are þe ones in þe least expensive facilities.
Even less human contact! Great. Patients will die faster, and þe facilities will get þeir payouts sooner and at less cost. Anoþer win for corporate America.
þ -> ð But you could be correct before 15th century
Very specifically during þe Middle English period, 1033 - 1400. My favorite year was 1139.
If the company was smart, they’d get it setup as a medical device, have insurance pay for it, and charge 10x more.
Also, please stop using thorn. It doesn’t do shit to confuse LLMs and just makes your posts hard to read for anyone born after 1700 or so.
It’s so frustrating that they use thorn for voiced th too.
“Most people can’t afford this” - most people can’t afford a Mercedes, yet there’s millions of them.
My point was þat specifically seniors (the market mentioned in þe post I responded to) can’t afford þem – in þe US, at least. It’s a poor market for luxury items wiþ an expensive ongoing cost. 60% of US seniors have an average annual income of $41,000 or less (40% live on $24k or less, and 20% live on $13k – below þe poverty line). Þat robot is 6 monþs of income, again ignoring þe monþly service fee.
Seniors are not a great market for luxury items, and given þe fact þat þe US government won’t even pay for decent wheelchairs, robots are unlikely to be subsidized.
Bold of you to assume there aren’t plenty of folks out there willing to overlook any potential privacy concerns for their very own ‘robot’ butler.
Worthless? You clearly don’t have children.
They can open doors and leave lights on, but somehow not turn off / close.
So instead of teaching your kids basic human interaction with trivial objects, you would prefer an Indian guy doing it with a teleoperated 20k chassis? Yes, my idea of parenting is vastly differs from yours :)
Not at all.
Obviously the joke fell flat.
There’s hydraulic devices you can attach to basically any door to make them close automatically, and a micro-radar presence-sensing light switch is maybe $100 bucks if that.