It's not even just labor, it is the fully burdened labor (i.e., all costs of that labor, which is well beyond the wage/salary an employee sees...the true cost of labor, i.e., a $20/hr wage is actually a $25-28 expense), multiplied by the number of hours and number of people working during those hours that becomes a cumulative overhead cost that is added to the wholesale and other general overhead costs that the item margin must cover in addition to providing a certain profit.
Then there is also something like spoilage that comes into play in an example like your "fried chicken snack", which may not sell within FDA food regulation timeline and temperature, and therefore must be thrown away...a total loss.
But it's not just a total loss; not only did you then not make a profit on the sale of the "fried chicken snack", you also are in the hole to the tune of the wholesale cost of the chicken snack, e.g., $4, the labor and other indirect and overhead costs in addition to the opportunity cost, e.g., $1.
So a $1 earnings from a $6 "fried chicken snack" may turn into a $4 loss of the chicken at wholesale price and an additional loss of $1 for labor, overhead, etc. So now you are $5 in the hole when you had hoped to be $1 in the black, and now have to sell 6x$6 "fried chicken snacks" just to break even and finally make that $1 you had previously hoped for.
That's just a very simplified version of just something as simple as "fried chicken snacks". It gets way more complicated from there.
People don’t realize that the people at the top of organizations are effectively like politicians in democratic systems only the vote comes in confidence; usually manipulative, lying, and deceptive because they are inherently dependent on maintaining perception of the people they rely on and underpin their roles and power.
One way in which they do that is to ride or effectively are selected by the system for their mastery of the psychological trick of positivity and optimism that predisposes people to follow and trust, e.g., even when someone betrays you, you “wish them well.
In such systems, courage and hard lines that enforce strict rules, discipline, and principles does not provide the leaders in that system the affordances and benefits of leadership. As has been indicated, the subject behaviors are not only not novel, nor are they unique. What precipitated this current action appears to be the egregious and probably violative nature of the behavior, not the behavior itself. The veneer of perception was pierced, which is the real trigger of action.
Just use my saying what I just said above as an example, there will be people who have not even read this last paragraph and will it will have the urge to down vote what I said solely on the basis that they want to punish me, the messenger, because I’m pointing out things that are very much true and not saying it in a positive manner. It causes feelings of discomfort and especially in American society today where everything is geared towards positivity and good feelings opium, not bad feelings, even if you’re being scammed or defrauded or lied to, you have to remain positive, say things in positive ways, be “constructive”.
I don’t know if it’s sustainable because it’s such a con job at its very core, an abusive confidence trick, maintaining the perception of confidence and optimism to keep people happy and positive and optimistic regardless of red flags; however, we shall all find out one day if no one being able to deal with reality anymore if it’s not wrapped some nicety, is sustainable. Hence, “They violated us/me” but “I wish them well”. See, they are wished well, so everything is fine and we just removed the bad apple, nothing to see here, keep being positive as the telescreen instructs you to.
On another totally unrelated note, this guy [1] that is not at all connected to the Epstein class whatsoever (he is) and is only an advisor to the leader of some some small little organization called the world economic forum says you and your children should be kept “happy” with drugs and video games.
Skip to the very end for the statement or listen to the whole little clip to hear how the demigods think about you and your children “worthless” children.
The irony is that I think the author may have meant granularity, not precision. You could have the highest precision model (not the AI type) of any given topic or domain and not only be totally inaccurate, but being categorically flawed, i.e., you’re not even shooting at the right target.
From his statement it seems what he is really saying though is that it is the granularity of data is insufficient for an AI model to accurately or precisely evaluate a problem and then presumably solve it, assuming there is, let alone a human-acceptable solution.
As I mentioned, you can have the most precisely modeled problem in the world and it won’t make a difference if it’s not accurate, especially since there is a very uncomfortable reality starting to face us, at least in the West, that all the little lies we were told and we perpetuated because we have been trained on them from birth, across generations now, are simply wrong and have polluted our minds to such a degree that many people could never accept if AI told them they’re wrong and everything they believe they know and have known all their life is wrong.
On top of that, it shatters people’s narcissistic self-image of having been the good guy, because accepting what AI tells them is actually the truth means accepting that they were abusive to those who were right all along, meaning they are actually the bad guy.
And if we definitely know anything as good guys, it’s that the majority is always right, because that is what we were taught is the democratic way. The majority is always right and you always have to trust the minority that are experts unless it’s a majority of experts, then you have to trust them too, especially if they are beholden to the minority ruling class! Right? Right!
I’ve been accused of being AI. My first impression when it happened was that because I often deal in information that people don’t like hearing, because it challenges their frame of mind, i.e., what they were trained on, “this is AI” is just another convenient tool to either dismiss uncomfortable challenge, i.e., cognitive dissonance, and/or another means to keep the mental herd they are part of or control in line with dogma.
“This is AI” seems to just be an evolution of other thought terminating cliches where the negative conditioning associated with something is used in an abusive and manipulative way to evade challenge or the truth itself. It is a common tactic of abusive people, the “beyond the pale” moralizing.
Something that was meant to remain secret made public, is not the same thing as whether something public is public.
If anything, this is a question of whether you owe royalties to the owner of IP you consumed in your life since it became part of and trained your mind, identity, and outputs too.
According to IP owners ever since things were digitized, you technically own nothing and simply paid for an authorization to use any given IP for the duration that the IP owner authorized you to use it and you continue to pay, so pay your monthly meat-AI bill to pay for all the IP your mind has been trained on.
This smells more like military propagand, i.e., bullshit.
There is no way this is honest or real, i.e., it somehow fought off a tactical unit trying to take the frontline that this drone was holding? Or was it just parked in some area where there was no tactical point of even taking the territory?
Just by virtue of its nature, a single drone and/or a well placed dumb grenade, not even to mention likely a smoke grenade could have easily defeated this thing within seconds of deployment if there was any interest in taking the area this toy was "controlling".
Someone is doing a literal con job to get military graft and fraud contracts.
There are real videos, even months old of exactly these 'land drones', equipped with good ol' .50 cal. In certain situations, they fought extremely well given no risk for crew. I mean killing off entire bmp-something transport including all crew with AP rounds, typically during night since it has night vision, zoom and so on. Verified also by drone flying nearby.
Now I am not claiming all the facts stated in the article are verified by me, but I can imagine one of them got so lucky with drones and getting hidden from their view for prolonged time it could theoretically pull it off. Not sure about batteries/fuel/ammo part thought.
Perhaps it would be helpful to view the claims of this article through a cost/benefit analysis?
Clearly if the opponent had wanted to defeat this vehicle and take this ground, they could have.
That said, it seems likely that this vehicle substantially increased the expected cost of taking this ground, and it did so at very little cost/risk to the defenders.
This sort of device dramatically changes the equation of conflict. It seems this article does a pretty good (though unverified) job of making that case.
That too is a bunch of nonsense. The cost of this rather comical robo-gun is far greater than the $600 quadcopter or $30 grenade or two, whose shrapnel can make quick work of the unshielded mechanics and electronics. And that’s witty even going into all the other obvious limitations off its design.
Sorry to piss in your corrupt government/military contract punch bowl.
You mindless drones really love that peasant slop.
You probably don’t even know why I said that and are just offended because you think you’re not a mindless drone that does not understand what is actually happening beyond the propanganda that has your mindless drone mind trained like any other AI.
You are literal AI. You merely lack the self-awareness to understand that to it confuses and angers you to have read what I just told you, because it conflicts with your programming.
AIUI, a current common tactic for the Russians is sending many small groups of untrained "solders" out probe the front lines and try to penetrate undefended spots. They take a ton of casualties, but some make it through, and they gradually build up, and then try to take action.
Yes propaganda and bullshit, but by way of exaggeration and puffery, not lying.
I wouldn't expect even a lightly informed mid-wit to think that this murderbot held the ground by itself; and I don't think the author expects that either. Thus something else is probably going on. To wit - puffery.
The murderbot is remotely operated, so it did not held the ground by itself, though it is claimed that it might be able to do some things autonomously.
I suspect it’s the unwinding of the Yen carry trade and/or indirectly connected to running for shelter for several reasons including the massive bomb in private lending and subsequently private equity that is ticking down and doing so even faster now that Trump cut the wrong wire to distract from the Epstein files and him being a child rapist.
This all seems structural, as indicates that in the middle of a war even military stocks are down, which indicates deep rot or deep lack of confidence in at least the stock market.
That could be at least part of it. My understanding as to why gold dropped is that many countries essentially got market called. The Oil countries don't have cash reserves without selling, but they do have gold. Taking in London is that the Saudi's have sold a good amount of gold. China stopped buying in Q4 2025. Others followed suit. Hell, Russia is blocking gold exports at the end of the month.
Then there is also something like spoilage that comes into play in an example like your "fried chicken snack", which may not sell within FDA food regulation timeline and temperature, and therefore must be thrown away...a total loss.
But it's not just a total loss; not only did you then not make a profit on the sale of the "fried chicken snack", you also are in the hole to the tune of the wholesale cost of the chicken snack, e.g., $4, the labor and other indirect and overhead costs in addition to the opportunity cost, e.g., $1.
So a $1 earnings from a $6 "fried chicken snack" may turn into a $4 loss of the chicken at wholesale price and an additional loss of $1 for labor, overhead, etc. So now you are $5 in the hole when you had hoped to be $1 in the black, and now have to sell 6x$6 "fried chicken snacks" just to break even and finally make that $1 you had previously hoped for.
That's just a very simplified version of just something as simple as "fried chicken snacks". It gets way more complicated from there.
reply