Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Businesses Japan Technology

Fast Retailing, the World's Third-Largest Retailer, Says It's Cracked the Final Barrier To Full Automation (latimes.com) 93

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: There was only one job that robots could not do when Fast Retailing, the owner of Uniqlo, replaced 90% of its workers with robots at its flagship warehouse in Tokyo last year. But now, with the help of a Japanese start-up called Mujin, the world's third-largest retailer says it has cracked the final barrier to full automation, a priority for Uniqlo as Japan's aging population creates labor shortages. The two companies have invented a robot with two arms that can pick up soft T-shirts and place them neatly in boxes to be shipped to customers.

While it sounds easy, the ability to lift soft textiles has been a challenge for clumsy robotic arms. Add to this the need to sort through constantly changing seasonal clothes, in shades that are hard to distinguish and wrapped in various forms of packaging, and humans have always come out on top. The jointly developed robot, which was made by Yaskawa Electric Corp., is already operating in Fast Retailing's main warehouse in Tokyo, but Takino admitted that the robot was not able to handle all of the facility's products, and that it needed further development. For instance, the plastic packaging of the thermal underwear in Uniqlo's Heattech line is relatively simple for the robots to pick up, but this could become more difficult as Fast Retailing aims to switch to more eco-friendly paper bags. The robots are able to pick up belts, but they typically become unbundled as they are dropped into boxes. One solution would be for Fast Retailing to ensure that belts are sold in bundled forms.
"We've been putting off working with an apparel company because it's so difficult," said Issei Takino, co-founder and chief executive of Mujin. "But Fast Retailing's strength is its ability to overhaul its entire supply chain to make it fit for automation. If we're going to take on this challenge, we had to do it with Fast Retailing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fast Retailing, the World's Third-Largest Retailer, Says It's Cracked the Final Barrier To Full Automation

Comments Filter:
  • Stores too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:09AM (#59564458) Homepage Journal

    I was in Uniqlo today and they don't have a manned checkout any more. They have self service but you don't have to scan anything. You just put your shopping bag in a special area and it scans all the RFID tags in it. You pay and tag the bag to a bagging area. It's very fast and easy but also a bit impersonal. Not sure how I feel about it.

    • Do what people do in my city.. take it as an invitation to walk out without paying.
      • And this is why Japan can have all those vending machines openly sitting on the street while the vending machines near me are inside cages.
        • Open your eyes, the world is going to the people who put those cages on vending machines because those people just take what they want.
      • And then get arrested or fired on by a robot?

        • Well they still need people for an arrest where I come from. The company doesn't want to pay for people, hence no arrests. People disguise the theft by paying for 80% of what they have and slipping out with the rest.
      • And get arrested or fired on by a robot?

        • And then get arrested or fired on by a robot?

          And then get arrested or fired on by a robot?

          Isn't that quadruple jeopardy?

      • Do what people do in my city.. take it as an invitation to walk out without paying.

        One of the local brick and mortars I trade with has an incipient self-checkout option, where customers scan their own items during checkout. I've noticed a couple of customers scanning less than 100% of their carts, so it certainly happens.

        I also presume the additional loss of merchandise is something the store is aware of, that they've done the math, and it's still more profitable than pay and benefits for the 3-4 now obsolete jobs.

        At this rate, RFID tagged merchandise will become ubiquitous as the UPC,

      • the cloths are made for pennies in sweatshops. The savings from not having employees (and their benefits) vastly outweighs anything you could steal short of pulling a truck up and emptying the store (and yes, you will still get arrested for that).

        Hell, look up "Beer Run" sometime. In most parts you can't buy beer after 1am (it's supposed to get folks to sober up before rush hour) so folks who want beer go into a store and just take what they want and leave. Buddy of mine used to work a gas station and t
        • Sure maybe with clothes and cheap crap. With groceries, not so much.
        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          How about actual full automation. Stand in front of the display turn on the camera for a body scan. Send the details to a manufacturer, it activities the deformable body mould, spray the fibre binder mixture (properly engineered to produce to must biologically compatible fabric). Allow extra panels to extend as protective and additional surfaces to form pockets, colour panels et al and once spray is complete and set, the body mould contracts and lays down the complete apparel component in the recyclable pac

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I'm sure they have CCTV watching your every move.

        • If it's one per day, sure. But gangs make sure it is 20 per day. Also, there is another 20 that have 'looked' suspicious but didn't actually do anything.
      • As long as it's under $950, no one will stop them or care.
    • Re:Stores too (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @09:03AM (#59564510) Homepage
      No doubt here - I hate it and think it's a huge step back for customer service. While I get the cost saving angle, I can't help but feel that they are shooting themselves in the foot on the store personnel / personal touch front. Sure, if you just want a quick look at the actual product before purchase that's one thing, but the only real advantage that traditional brick and mortar stores have over online ones is the ability to interact with staff and ensure that you really are getting the right product. No fake reviews, absolutely sold as seen, and often an honest opinion from someone as to the pros and cons of competing products if you are having trouble making up your mind. What's really sad about it are the staff directing people to the auto-checkout machines; talk about destroying your own future employment prospects, but I guess there's always getting shafted by the gig economy, right?

      Fine, not everyone likes social interaction (at least not face-to-face; for all its flaws, social media is still hugely popular) - and Japan undeniably has a stereotypical reputation both for that and high-levels of retail automation - but interaction is the whole point of making a trip to the high street vs. just buying online for me, so if they're taking that away then I'm just going to go elsewhere and check out their competitors. I've already done this with my bank, who now only pay lipservice to traditional tellers meaning a long wait whenever I need to do something their souped-up ATMs can't handle. Combine that with the push to online banking meaning that many of their smaller branches no longer open at weekends, or have simply closed altogether, so my quick in-and-out vists first thing on a Saturday morning or from work at lunch turned into 30-45min queue-fests. Nope. Not having that; account transferred to a competitor that makes a point having their staff keep queues to a minimum. It also turned out that they also have much better online banking services too, so it's definitely not an either/or choice.

      The high street clearly needs to reinvent itself in the face of online giants like Amazon. When bookstores were really struggling in the light of what was the then upstart Amazon Books, Waterstones managed to turn it around through making the in-store experience much more social; in-store café franchises, signings by popular authors, more relaxed areas to flip through books, a much less rigid "library" style layout that encouraged you to browse, and tactics like small "impulse buy" items near the - usually well staffed - checkouts. Uniqlo is doing this through turning their outlets into a glorified online self-service store with minimal staff, and therefore no real "soul", that seems designed more to those who want the whole experience to be as introverted as possible. Both have huge (Uniqlo's is brand new) flashy stores in prime locations in the mall near my office, so I guess it'll be an interesting social study on which way society is headed on a social level - being engaging with our fellow humans, or the dystopia of full-on introversion. I hope for all our sakes it's the former that prevails.
      • the younger set mostly don't care. They grew up with online shopping and if they're going into a store it's because they want to be sure the cloths fit or because they don't want to wait for shipping and maybe a return. And when it comes to cloths it's mostly the younger folk what buys them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *

        "I hate it and think it's a huge step back for customer service. "

        WTF is that?
        This will get me my T-shirts delivered on my porch without me having to pay for a breathing person to fold it.

        "While I get the cost saving angle, I can't help but feel that they are shooting themselves in the foot on the store personnel / personal touch front. "

        Personal touch? How old are you, gramps? The few people who still go to brick and mortar shops are watching their cell phone, they wouldn't notice a personal touch if it bi

        • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
          I do think it depends what you're after. I have no qualms about buying online for simple things like your t-shirt example that you just need in a given size/colour (fashion statements aside). In that situation I think going online is perfectly fine, and usually less preferable since it's also much less hassle than having to get into town and potentially roam several different stores. Same for anything else that's entirely generic and/or pre-packaged where you know what you want such as clothes, food, man
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Sometimes I like to see the clothes before I buy. Often though it's just another t shirt or more socks so I don't care.

          Uniqlo has the best clothes. Comfortable, high tech material, good quality and price. Honestly the innovation is astounding, e.g. my underwear is anti bacterial, anti odour, quick drying, breathable, smooth silk feel, anti static, form fitting stretch material.

          I just wish they were a nicer company.

        • by Calydor ( 739835 )

          I think it was Ford who said he had to pay his workers a decent enough wage that they could buy his cars. Tell me, if UBI is not a thing, and all manufacturers and stores are fully automated, how are people going to make money to buy stuff from said manufacturers and stores?

          • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Hopefully society can think of some productive things for people to do other than stand around and look bored... I mean organize the merchandise.

            We waste an enormous percentage of our capability, intellectual, labour and industrial, on trivialities.

            • by ezdiy ( 2717051 )

              We waste an enormous percentage of our capability, intellectual, labour and industrial, on trivialities.

              That's the glass half full stance. The glass half empty says those were make-work jobs to begin with, and most people in general are not really capable of contributing anything of measurable value. Because whatever the highly-productive few do will always brutally outcompete rest of us proles. Starting with engineers who design robot checkouts (vs cashiers), ending with art and entertainment (pewdiepie v

              • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                Of course they're make-work jobs. Replacing them, we get another chance to stop assigning zero or negative value to two thirds of society. We should use the extra productivity to institute strong social support, make education free, fund research at 10% of GDP (instead of 1%) and reap the rewards.

                Instead we'll let unions and people who just want a job (any job) make automation illegal and continue to chuck half our productivity down the toilet.

          • UBI (universal basic income) will have to become a thing. The future isnâ(TM)t possible without it. We already have it in some forms. For example, welfare and social security. Social security is funded by capital investment, like owning shares in a factory. UBI will be funded by capital investment and robot taxation.

      • Re:Stores too (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @11:00AM (#59564748)

        No fake reviews, absolutely sold as seen, and often an honest opinion from someone as to the pros and cons of competing products if you are having trouble making up your mind.

        LOL. The first thing I learned when I started to buy stuff on my own was that anything the salesperson says about a product has to be taken with a ton of salt. They'll say anything to make a sale, including baldfaced lies about a product's capabilites. They were the predecessor of fake reviews.

        • by Rakhar ( 2731433 )

          If they're on commission maybe. Repeat business is the real goldmine in retail. The goal isn't just to get the customer's money, it's to make them feel good for giving it to you so they come back.

          Commissions go against that, incentivizing sales people to make short-sighted decisions. I try to avoid places that do that. Those are the sales I'd rather do online.

      • The high street clearly needs to reinvent itself in the face of online giants like Amazon.

        Except that they can't really. I posted this a couple of days ago: why I'll never shop for clothes at a department store again [slashdot.org]. Basically, I can buy pants at Amazon in less than 15 minutes, and that includes returning a pair that doesn't fit to a physical location. I can barely even get to a brick and mortar clothing store in that much time. Actually finding a pair that fits will take me many times that much time. And it will cost more. And Amazon doesn't pout and get sad when I tell it to shut the fuck up

      • > the only real advantage that traditional brick and mortar stores have over online ones is the ability to interact with staff and ensure that you really are getting the right product

        Maybe for you. For me, the only advantage of traditional brick and mortar stores is that I can get a product instantly instead of having to wait some days/weeks to get it, or when it's not available online (mostly food). Interaction I get with staff is not the kind I want/need, I have family, friends, parties, Internet, etc.

    • Not sure how I feel about it.

      The fact that you'd even shop there makes it quite clear how you don't feel about it.

    • It's very fast and easy but also a bit impersonal.

      I'm not looking for a personal experience when doing a checkout.

    • The only thing this makes me think of is when I was in retail... the people that would intentionally pick damaged boxes and come up to register with "How much will you take off for this box being damaged?" Then they would get pissed and adamantly refuse to pick up one of the perfectly fine 500 other boxes of the product. They would demand that we sell them the damaged box, and that the damage to the box meant they should get at least 20% off the box, if not more, and they should still be able to use a co

  • by SJ ( 13711 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:09AM (#59564460)

    If you know anything about Uniqlo, you'd know that they would have gotten rid of the staff even if they were lining up around the block for a chance to work.
    They are an unbelievably bad place to work. This labor shortage is just a convenient PR excuse.

    Don't support businesses that don't support humans. Welcome to the future.

    • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:30AM (#59564472)

      Did you know that the steel plow made it possible for one man to do the work of dozens?

      And the sailing ship, likewise? No more oarsmen to pay!

      Printing press? Replaced hundreds of people each.

      And don't even talk about computers! They replaced thousands of jobs each! Yes, "computer" used to be a job, not a piece of hardware.

      In other words, until YOU are ready to start living a Bronze Age lifestyle, don't waste time whinging about job losses due to advancing technology....

      • by SJ ( 13711 )

        Yes... and that was in a world with far less population than we have now. There are now 7 billion of us.

      • When most of those things were invented, it was back in a time when the thinking of a company was "great now for every person I hire, I can do 20x the work". Then they want out and found 20x the work to do. These days markets are way more saturated and there isn't really as many growth opportunities as there used to be. The thinking has reversed to, "Great I can lay off 19 out of every 20 people".
        • has shown you can be staggeringly profitable and only serve a tiny portion of the market.

          Here's a scary thought, what if the top 10% just let the bottom 90% go to hell? Modern telecom means they don't have to live anywhere near you and me. Drones with machine guns means we aren't going to get near them. Yeah, we've got guns here in America, but they control manufacturing, so sooner or later we'll run out of bullets and food. Supply lines are a bitch.

          The King didn't need anyone to buy his stuff, he w
          • I expect 'wall building" to become very popular, with a small percentage of the population traveling from compound to compound by air or armored car.
        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Good. It's situations like that when humanity takes leaps forward. Excess labour and production frees up people to take risks and try new things.

          We've spent the last seventy years pouring effort into consumer manufacturing. We've got that locked down. Time to move on to other things.

          • You can't really enjoy "trying new things" if your family is dying due to starvation.
            • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              That's an issue with resource allocation, not job allocation.

              It really is odd: there are people who think that many people are so useless that they literally can't make a positive contribution, but have such a moral bugaboo that they would rather pay more to have those people work than see them sit idle.

      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @10:25AM (#59564660)
        and their jobs weren't replace. Folks sorta just gloss over this but there was decades of unemployment and social strife following the last few Industrial Revolutions. Not that I can blame you, if you were taught about it you probably got a half a paragraph in some high school text book. Maybe a page in a college text book unless you were a history major...

        The Industrial Revolution replaced orders or magnitude more people than even a printing press did. And they did not create more jobs. Not immediately. It took 80 years and two World Wars to make enough tech and blow up enough infrastructure to make enough jobs to get the economy going again.

        Here's a good exercise, we're about to replace around 20-30 million warehouse, driving and retail jobs with robots. Uniqlo shows us warehouses are ready, we've already got self driving taxis in retail and we've all used self checkout lines. And we're still replacing manufacturing jobs with automation and process improvement.

        Now then, what is going to replace those jobs. Be specific. It's not manufacturing, those are already the domain of robots. It's not bio tech. Those were the jobs of the 90s that never materialized. It's not the service sector, you need money to buy things in the service sector and no jobs means no money.

        And no fair saying "The jobs will be so futuristic we can't imagine them!". Yeah, a guy fired from the textile plant couldn't imagine writing JavaScript for a living, but he also died penniless and hungry without ever knowing what JavaScript is (ok, maybe that's not all bad...). Remember, it doesn't do any good to have a job 100 years from now with new tech. You and me are living now.

        So by all means, tell me what's going to replace those 20+ million jobs. I really would like an answer, because the alternatives are scary.
        • It took 80 years and two World Wars to make enough tech and blow up enough infrastructure to make enough jobs to get the economy going again.

          I've never considered the Allies' firebombing of large civilian centers in this light. Still incredibly atrocious, but a bonus side effect, I guess.

          One thing that might help is if top compensations in corporations were limited to some multiple of the lowest salary. If more people had more disposable income, there would be more demand, which could lead to more employment.

          I wonder if it will become trendy to buy things that were produced by artisans (kind of like stuff on Etsy? maybe make a coop version of th

          • Japan too. Rebuilding it was a huge boon economically. This history of the world is basically one of fighting against the natural conservative tendency for wealth to accumulate at the top and economic activity to come to a stop. There's a reason the Renaissance followed the Black Plague. What tends to happen is that the ruling class puts the kibosh on progress because change risks upsetting their power. Massive disasters force change and are followed by periods of rapid advancement.

            And yeah, it would be
            • If you want to avoid the accumulation of wealth "at the top" then you can't support the Green New Deal. Whom do you think will get all that money? Certainly not the middle class.

          • One thing that might help is if top compensations in corporations were limited to some multiple of the lowest salary.

            What's that even supposed to accomplish? People are going to pay market rate for labor. If you do work with higher demand relative to the supply of labor, you get paid more. Good executives get paid a lot because they're hard to find. If they're not using that money to pay salaries, then it's going to either be reinvested into the business or given to the shareholders. If the business is a sole proprietorship, then that's who it goes to.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Like your 401k? Plan on using Social Security & Medicare in your retirement? Want to see what a country w/o immigrants and an aging population is like? Hint, it's Japan, and it's not a good time. They've been in recession for 20+ years.

            The problem isn't the immigrants, the problem is that you don't get any value from the immigrants. I don't mean American, I mean you. You Personally.

            What we need is more social programs. Start with Universal Single Payer Healthcare & tuition free public Univers
        • Yes! More people need to talk outside the thoughtless parroting everybody seems to have been raised upon!

          It's an uphill battle with Americans who don't know their own history and they never give much thought to the world.

          OTHER issues get missed:

          International: the USA props up industries with automation that work so well they either have to limit production (they don't) or invent ways to over-consume (socially engineered post WW2 - the rise of fashion being an ingenious scheme,) waste (it's near limit now,)

      • When there's a shortage of product/services, increasing efficiency helps the economy grow. When there isn't, further increases in efficiency just helps the economy shed workers.

    • My coworker lived in Japan for a few years. There is absolutely a labor shortage. Some stores have to close a few days a week because they can't stay staffed. Some places are offering signing bonuses to work retail. Part of the issue is Japan's very tight immigration policies.

      https://www.npr.org/2018/12/07... [npr.org]

  • by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:17AM (#59564464)
    There goes another coveted job: Loose clothing folder
    • Are you hinting that replacing the editors on /. with robots would be more efficient for eliminating duplicate posts?

      It probably takes a lot of effort to enter something into the search field and see if the URL or story title has been previously posted.

      • Are you hinting that replacing the editors on /. with robots would be more efficient for eliminating duplicate posts?

        Many times a dupe will link to the exact same webpage as the original. An automated script could check and warn about that.

  • Clothing production and shipping is still extremely labor intensive. If it wasnâ(TM)t it would be feasible to print and ship custom clothing on demand. A robot doesnâ(TM)t have to be stuck to making a particular t-shirt design. It ought to be able to cut or print a pattern you upload.

  • its not the shipping that's the problem, it's the returns that are the problem... unless you just put it in the trash... in which case you would evaluate each customers likelihood of returning goods and not sell to those that might return the goods... welcome to the future you wont be able to purchase things even if you have the money...

  • It's interesting to listen to Andrew Yang talk about automation.

    Everyone just talks about manufacturing - But rightly he points out the largest sector of employment in the USA is retail. What happens when 30% of those jobs are gone?
    • It's interesting to listen to Andrew Yang talk about automation.

      Everyone just talks about manufacturing - But rightly he points out the largest sector of employment in the USA is retail. What happens when 30% of those jobs are gone?

      learn to code

      [hangs head in shame]

    • What happens when 30% of those jobs are gone?

      We know the answer because entire sectors of the economy have been automated many times in the past.

      People will get jobs elsewhere in the economy, the economy will expand to take advantage of both the increased productivity and the availability of labor, and living standards will rise.

      This has been happening continuously for centuries and is the reason that developed countries are more prosperous than undeveloped countries.

      Unless you have the secret formula for Strong-AI, there is no reason to believe "This

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Re:Yang (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday December 28, 2019 @11:49AM (#59564836)

          And that more and more jobs require at least 120 while the average IQ is barely 100? What are you gonna do with those that can't "learn to code"? You gonna put them in camps?

          Is this why we have soaring unemployment? Guess what? We don't. We have record-low unemployment.

          you can't bullshit your way out of reality

          Reality is that, all over the world, developed countries that have automated the most have the fewest idle workers, while it is the undeveloped countries that have high levels of unemployment and under-employment. This is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

          Japan is the most automated society on earth. At 2.2%, their unemployment rate is even lower than America's.

          • Is this why we have soaring unemployment? Guess what? We don't. We have record-low unemployment.

            I'm not supporting the post you're responding to one was or the other, but a lot of people miss that the reason we have low unemployment is because "gig-economy" jobs (ie. Uber drivers and Etsy sellers) are being counted as real-jobs. The effect of this is that wage-growth has stalled (because gig economy workers are often making less than minimum wage) and the number of people who require government services ha

            • the reason we have low unemployment is because "gig-economy" jobs (ie. Uber drivers and Etsy sellers) are being counted as real-jobs.

              80% of Uber drivers use it as additional income, not as their primary job.

              • 80% of Uber drivers use it as additional income, not as their primary job.

                OK. That's just Uber, and I couldn't find that statistic online anywhere, but let's assume that's true... If millions of part-time and full-time employees start putting wear and tear on their personal vehicles and use their free time to drive taxis, what does that tell us about the jobs market? Maybe that using the unemployment rate as the sole measure of how the jobs market is performing might be over-simplifying too much..?

          • Unemployment is a powerful official stat and like many others; it has a long history of being fudged. Nobody makes a big enough stink when they change how they calculate it.

            In the USA, it's quite a dishonest stat; additionally, it seems a lot of people who assume it's honest still are aware that the new employment sucks... because measuring success on a simple metric only works if you are not SEEING it screw people around you.

        • > even the US military won't take someone below 100 IQ anymore, right

          That's because they don't grow their own food or dig their own ditches anymore. It's all contracted out and soldiers are mostly specialists.
            Peterson is disingenuous when he uses this stat as evidence.

          The broader point is valid but the example is bogus.

      • > Unless you have the secret formula for Strong-AI, there is no reason to believe "This time is different."

        But there's a good reason to sell it. Apparently many Silicon Valley billionaires never took history or economics and fall for Yang's Folly hook, line, and sinker.

        Andy has very wisely raised his social standing on other people's money without any risk to himself. VC for VP, as it were.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        I think your history must have been highly curated. What happened to lots of those people when their jobs were automated is that they died. Small groups, like buggy-whip manufacturers, are readily absorbed. Larger groups like weavers, not so.

        Also look up the enclosure acts, and what resulted. And don't just follow the fortunes of the gentry.

  • They aren't breeding in sustainable numbers.
    https://japantoday.com/categor... [japantoday.com]
    Are the Japanese men BLIND?
    What gives? Too much soy?

  • Replacing all our labour with robots does one very important thing; it leaves capital with no need for human labour & so no need to employ people anymore. However, robots don't buy stuff & so demand for stuff that robots make will spiral into to decline & eventually collapse... unless you can think of something to replace demand for goods & services? Some alternative in a world where 95%+ unemployment is the norm.

    I believe Allan Moore explored this idea & what might happen: https://en.wi [wikipedia.org]

  • Utilization is a challenge Robots vs Humans. Automated robots typically perform a narrow set of tasks well for volume. Machines usually need some human oversight whether a saw, press-brake or laser cutter. But machines can be adapted to different shapes with human machinists. Humans are very versatile but expensive in underutilized. Tesla had a recent case where fully automation did not work out quite as well. Clothing packaging a bit simpler than putting together a car but as article mentioned it was a cha
  • I can't help thinking that if humanity is removed from fashion production, doesn't that make humanity a bit sad in continuing to spend money on ever-changing designs? Say I set my t-shirt design software to churn out millions of random designs based around a template of prominent logo (to indicate the wearer has enough spending power to be a good mate), a jaunty colour, a message or name of a city and one animal. Hit 'Go'. Robots make and deliver it -> charge two hours wages for something to replace the

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.

Working...