Fil

Comme quoi, y a pas que les frites du MacDo.

https://www.zammagazine.com/images/Blog/PoliticsOpinion/012024/SA_LEGAL_TEAM_-_file-20240112-19-mytpcb.jpg

#Afrique_du_Sud #génocide #Israël #Palestine #cour_pénale_internationale #justice #Gaza

#John Dugard #Max_du_Plessis #Adila_Hassim #Tembeka_Ngcukaitobi #avocats

https://i0.wp.com/nightingaledvs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image4-1.jpg

The grouped bar chart is equally interesting. It outlines five countries’ import and export performance, with the y-axis consisting of five countries further divided by years between Shōwa 4 to 9 (1929-1934) and the x-axis divided into two: the left side depicting export levels and the right side outlining import levels. What’s peculiar about this chart is that the year 1929 is used as a metric of comparison for the following years so every country begins with both export and import levels of 100 in 1929. Japan on top shows a quick bounce back after two years of decrease while the rest of the chart draws a gloomier economic outlook with no recovery.

les trames des barres sont sympas…

Merci pour le grand ménage :-)

Bravo !

@odilon je n’ai aucun mérite, sauf celui d’avoir pris du temps pour le faire :)

#archéobotanique #agriculture (s) #adventices

Concernant le catalogue je n’ai trouvé que celui-ci
▻https://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/files/frenchlanguageversionpdf-0
Adventices des champs céréaliers en agriculture biologique sur le territoire de Sault, en Haute-Provence : Identification et écologie

La porte d’Ishtar aurait été construite 15 ans après la conquête de Jérusalem par Babylone - Sciences et Avenir
▻https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/archeo-paleo/archeologie/le-champ-magnetique-rajeunit-de-15-ans-la-porte-d-ishtar-de-l-ancie

Pour dater les objets du passé, les archéologues disposent de technologies plus ou moins précises. L’une d’entre elles, encore balbutiante, est l’archéomagnétisme, qui vient de révéler son potentiel sur des briques de terre cuite dans le cadre d’une étude tout juste publiée dans la revue PLoS ONE. En mesurant l’intensité du champ magnétique conservé dans plusieurs briques de la porte d’Ishtar, l’une des portes d’entrée de Babylone, une équipe internationale de chercheurs a réussi à affiner les datations des différentes phases de sa construction.

On pensait en effet que l’ouvrage, commandé par le roi Nabuchodonosor II – qui régna de 605 à 562 avant notre ère –, avait été réalisé en plusieurs temps, et que son achèvement aurait même pu avoir eu lieu après sa mort. Toutes les briques analysées auraient toutefois été cuites du vivant du souverain, en 569 avant notre ère, ce qui pourrait remettre en cause la signification présumée de l’édifice, censé célébrer la conquête de Jérusalem par Babylone en 586 avant notre ère.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Australia in 2020, Associate Professor Stuart Turville had been working in the Kirby Institute’s level-three physical containment (PC3) lab, researching another well-known RNA virus: HIV. His team quickly pivoted to #SARS-CoV-2, capturing the virus and characterising it very quickly. Still today when the NSW Ministry of Health’s genomic surveillance unit identifies a new variant of interest, Dr Turville, a virologist, will use a swab from a positive case and grow the virus to understand its mutations and virulence.

Scientists working in the PC3 lab must wear robust personal protective equipment primarily for respiratory safety. Before he enters the lab Dr Turville dons several layers of gear: a full-face Powered #Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) mask, a collar with its own HEPA filter ("it’s like being in a scuba suit"), two pairs of gloves, a disposable Tyvek suit, a generic gown that is laundered after use, booties, gumboots and little plastic socks that go over the boots. “Not only could [getting infected] impact our research colleagues and the general community,” he says, “but we could also take the virus home.”

For Dr Turville, the risk of taking #COVID-19 home was particularly serious. In 2020 he was caring for his elderly father who had heart problems and his mother was also at risk of severe disease. If he brought the virus into his dad’s aged care facility, it would be put into lockdown and “he would be eating cold meals in his room alone”. “So for me personally it was incredibly important to maintain that protection and ensure I remained negative,” he says. “I’ve still only got it once — I got it from undergraduate teaching, which will teach me.”

As for how he protects himself outside the lab, day to day? For starters, “As a scientist I don’t get out much,” he jokes. He drives to work, avoiding crowded public transport. If he’s going on an overseas trip, he’ll plan to get a booster vaccine four weeks before he gets on a plane. “I know from the studies that we do and other people do that if you get a new formulation vaccine you’re going to encourage the mature B cells to generate better cross-reactive antibodies,” he says, “and so you’re going to have better protection if you’re exposed to [COVID-19].”

A man wearing a green lab gown stands against the wall in a corridor, next to a blue clinical smock
Political support for genomic surveillance work is “shrinking”, says Stuart Turville.(Supplied: Richard Freeman, UNSW)
If someone in his family gets sick, he says, they immediately isolate themselves. “It’s only happened once or twice where one of us has been positive but they’ve generally been isolated to one room and wearing a P2 mask” to protect the rest of the household. “Another thing we’ve been doing, which has been somewhat of a side benefit of looking after my father in aged care, is RAT testing before going into those facilities — even though we might be asymptomatic,” he says. “I think it’s really a situation of common sense in the context: if you don’t feel well, you isolate, you keep germs to yourself.”

Still, Dr Turville is acutely aware of the vitriol frequently directed at people who promote COVID-19 safety. Strangers will circulate photographs of him in his lab kit, particularly on social media, to mock him: “They’ll say, ’Oh, this guy is an idiot, why is he using that, he shouldn’t fear [the virus] anymore’.” This both puzzles and amuses him. “It’s my job; I’m not going to bring it home when I have a sick father — pull your head in,” he says. “Unfortunately there is a lot of negativity towards people who choose to protect themselves. We never really saw that in the HIV era — there was never really a pushback on condom use.”

Then again, the differences between how the two pandemics — HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 — were managed in Australia are probably quite instructive, says Dr Turville. With HIV, experts and health ministers collectively built a strong public health strategy that they strove to protect from politics. “When we look at COVID, it was political from the start and continues to be,” he says. We also now lack a “mid to long-term plan to navigate us through” this next phase of COVID-19: “Some argue that we are no longer in the emergency phase and need to gear down or simply stop,” he says. “But should we stop, and if not, what do we gear down to as a longer-term plan?”

Three scientists wearing white Tyvek suits and full face PAPR masks working in a physical containment lab
Stuart Turville and his colleagues working in the Kirby Institute’s PC3 laboratory.(Supplied: Richard Freeman, UNSW)
Perhaps one reason Australia lacks a long-term plan for managing COVID-19 is the complexity of instigating one in light of the community’s collective trauma. The first couple of years of the pandemic were stressful and frightening and as much as border closures, lockdowns and other restrictions saved tens of thousands of lives in 2020 and 2021, they are still resented by some people whose livelihoods or mental health suffered — and who now push back against precaution. This backlash is so fierce in pockets of the community that some seem to conflate any kind of protective action with lockdowns.

“There might have been some things we went too hard with but I think we have to look at it in perspective,” Dr Turville says. “We didn’t have those really, really dark months in Australia — we never had the mass graves like we saw in Italy or New York. We got a scare during [the] Delta [wave] and that helped get us our really high vaccination rates … But my worry now is, are we stepping away too soon?”

Aside from much of the general public abandoning measures like masking, he says, political support for genomic surveillance work is also now “shrinking”. And without the critical data it generates, he says, there’s a risk scientists like him will miss new, more dangerous variants. “I think there’s a lot of patting on the back at the moment — job well done. And that’s nice, but I think it’s somewhat job well done, there goes the rug,” he says. “I think it’s the apathy that’s the concern. And I think it’s coming top-down, it’s coming very much from the government. I just don’t understand why, like we had with HIV, there can’t be a mid-term strategy.”

’Air is out of mind until it’s a problem’

Robyn Schofield, aerosol scientist at Melbourne University

A woman with blue eyes, short dark hair and green earrings smiles as a busy city rushes around her
Robyn Schofield is an atmospheric chemist and aerosol scientist at Melbourne University.(ABC News: Danielle Bonica)
Associate Professor Robyn Schofield can rattle off data on the harms and benefits of clean indoor air as breezily as if she were reciting her own phone number. We breathe in about eight litres of air a minute. We consume 14 kilograms of air a day. Our lungs have the surface area of half a tennis court. Globally, nine million people die from air quality issues every year. In Australia, she says, it’s somewhere between 3,000 and 11,000 deaths — “way more than the road toll”. But people generally don’t know any of that, she says. “They don’t appreciate how important breathing is until it’s hard to do. It’s like the air: you can’t see it, so it’s out of mind until it’s a problem.”

In 2020, the air became a massive problem. The main way COVID-19 spreads is when an infected person breathes out droplets or aerosol particles containing the virus — think about aerosols as behaving similarly to smoke, lingering in the air potentially for hours. An atmospheric chemist and aerosol scientist at Melbourne University, Dr Schofield quickly began working with respiratory specialists to understand how to reduce the risk of viral transmission by improving the ventilation and filtration of indoor air.

What she still finds thrilling is that indoor air quality can be assessed with a battery-powered CO2 monitor; popular devices like the Aranet cost about $300 but some companies are developing tech to allow smartphones to do the same. And the investment is worth it, many argue, because it can help you avoid catching COVID-19. It’s also good for productivity, with studies showing higher CO2 levels decrease cognitive performance. If CO2 is 800 parts per million, Dr Schofield says, 1 per cent of the air being inhaled has been breathed out by someone else — and is therefore a good proxy for infection risk.

A woman pulls a 3M Aura respirator and an Aranet CO2 monitor out of her black handbag
Dr Schofield’s COVID-safety kit includes an N95 respirator and a CO2 monitor.(ABC News: Danielle Bonica)
One of the findings from the past few years she finds “most exciting”, however, is the role of relative humidity in indoor spaces. When relative humidity is below 40 per cent, Dr Schofield says, the risk of catching COVID-19 increases. (A good sign of that, for those who wear contact lenses, is dry eyes, which she says is “a really good indication that you should get out!”) “Because you are becoming the moisture source. Your mucous membranes — which are protecting you from getting COVID or the doses you acquire — are giving up that moisture, and so it’s easier to be infected.”

Dr Schofield is particularly concerned with preventing infection in healthcare settings. She bravely spoke out last year when, while being treated for breast cancer at Peter Mac in Melbourne, the hospital decided to relax its masking policy for patients. “COVID cases were actually rising at the time, so it was a bad call,” she says. “And it was then reversed.” But she was still “disgusted” and lost respect for the hospital’s leadership, she says: she expected that staff would understand the science of COVID-19 transmission and take steps to protect vulnerable patients.

A woman wearing a black top prepares to put on a white N95 respirator as people dine at outdoor cafe tables behind her
Dr Schofield chooses restaurants with outdoor dining areas when eating out.(ABC News: Danielle Bonica)
Even before she was diagnosed with cancer, Dr Schofield was taking precautions — for starters, she knows where the “most risky settings” are. Trains, planes and automobiles are big red zones: “Buses are actually the worst,” she says, because they recirculate air without filtering it. She regularly uses nasal sprays, wears an N95 respirator when she’s indoors with other people — in meetings at work, for instance — and makes sure air purifiers are switched on. “If I walk into a space, I will also open windows. I just go around and open them,” she says. “Because actually, no one’s going to tell me not to.”

When eating out, she chooses restaurants that have outdoor dining areas: a newly revamped boathouse in the Melbourne suburb of Kew is a favourite of hers, and Korean barbecue is “always excellent”, she says, because there are generally extractor fans at each table. It’s all about good ventilation — clean air. “I always take my Aranet [CO2 monitor] along, and if you sit close enough to the kitchen, the kitchen fans are very effective.”

All of these issues point to an urgent need for governments to develop indoor air standards, Dr Schofield says — for air quality to be regulated and monitored, just like food and water are. Before the pandemic, in 1998, the economic cost to the Australian economy of poor indoor air was $12 billion per year — $21.7 billion in 2021 money. “So why aren’t we learning from that, and moving forward?” she says. “This is not about going back to 2019, it’s about having the future we deserve in 2030.”

’We’re living in a public health ’Barbieland’

Brendan Crabb, chief executive of the Burnet Institute

professor brendan crabb
The lack of action against COVID is fundamentally a problem of a lack of leadership, says Brendan Crabb.(Image: Supplied by Burnet institute)
Four years into the COVID-19 pandemic we’re living in a “public health Barbieland”, says Professor Brendan Crabb, director and chief executive of the Burnet Institute. Too many of us are playing “make-believe” that life has returned to “normal”, he says, and there’s an “enormous disconnect” in the community: a failure to grasp both the true scale of COVID circulating and the impact of infections on our health and longevity.

Australia recorded more than 28,000 excess deaths between January 2022 and July 2023, he says. “These are unheard of numbers, people who wouldn’t have otherwise died, let alone the hundreds of thousands in hospital — we don’t know exactly because no one publishes the numbers.” Then there are the hundreds of millions globally with long COVID-19, the risk of which increases with each infection. “I find what we know about COVID concerning enough to call it an elevated public health crisis,” Professor Crabb says. “And we need sustainable solutions to that now and in the longer term.”

Long COVID will take your health, your wealth — then it will come for your marriage
Long COVID is not just destroying people’s health. Behind closed doors, in homes across Australia and abroad, it is irreversibly changing relationships — sometimes for the better, too often for worse.

An illustration in blue and pink colours shows a woman sitting alone in a room looking out a window
Read more
The lack of action against COVID-19, Professor Crabb says, is fundamentally a problem of a lack of leadership. “The most common thing said to me is, ’Brendan, I really do trust what you and others are saying. But if there was a real problem the prime minister, the government, would be telling us that,’” he says. “I don’t think people are all of a sudden profoundly individualistic and don’t care about COVID anymore — that they’re suddenly willing to take massive risks and hate the idea of vaccines and masks. I just don’t think they’re being well led on this issue.”

A crucial factor shaping Australians’ apathy towards COVID-19 in 2024, Professor Crabb believes, was Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly’s statement in September 2022 that the virus was no longer exceptional. “It is time to move away from COVID exceptionalism, in my view, and we should be thinking about what we do to protect people from any respiratory disease,” Professor Kelly said at a press conference. Those comments, Professor Crabb says, have never been turned around. “If I’m right — and I say that was a profoundly wrong statement — then that has to be corrected by the same people.”

He also points a finger at two unhelpful ideas. “There is a strong belief, I think, by the chief medical officer and many others that once we got vaccinated, infection was our friend,” he says. Australia’s vaccine program was highly successful, Professor Crabb says. Most people were inoculated against COVID-19 before large numbers were infected. “If we were the US, we’d have had 80,000 deaths … [instead] we had 1,744 deaths in the first two years,” he says. But while vaccination broadly protects against severe illness and death, it does not protect against (re)infection or the risk of acute and chronic health problems.

The other idea is hybrid immunity, which holds that vaccination and infection provides superior protection against severe outcomes compared to immunity induced by vaccination or infection alone. For Professor Crabb, the concept is flawed: first, because it encourages infection, which he believes should be avoided, and second, because it does not work — at least not with the predictable emergence of new variants like JN.1 which are capable of evading population immunity. “Immunity is good,” he says. “But it’s not good enough.”

A panel of participants at the Clean Air Forum in Parliament House, with air purifiers and a CO2 monitor around the room
Brendan Crabb took his portable air purifier to the Clean Air Forum at Parliament House last year, where there were also large purifiers in the room and a CO2 monitor on the desk.(Supplied: Stuart Kinner)
In a perfect world, Professor Crabb says, political leaders would speak regularly about the pressure on health systems, about deaths, and about the potential health consequences for children, which are often overlooked. “And then underneath that they’d set a blueprint for action around the tools we currently have being properly implemented: a vaccine program, a clean air program, advice around wearing masks when you can’t breathe clean air, and testing so you can protect those around you and get treated.” But who speaks matters, too: “If it’s not [coming from] the prime minister, if it’s not the premiers — if it’s not consistent — it’s probably not going to cut through.”

In the meantime, he says, people can and should take precautions — they can be leaders in their community, and start conversations with their employers and kids’ schools. For him, in addition to getting current booster vaccines, it means using a toolkit he built with his wife who, as a paediatrician who works in a long COVID-19 clinic in Melbourne, comes face to face with the harm the virus is doing every day. The kit includes a well-fitted N95 mask, a CO2 monitor and a portable air purifier. “It’s another line [of defence],” he says. “If you’re in a restaurant, say, and … you’ve got a few people around you, putting one of those on the table, blowing in your face, is a good idea.”

Masks, he adds, should be worn in crowded places or spaces with poor ventilation. Of course, the topic sometimes sparks heated debate. A Cochrane review which last year suggested masks do not work was later found to be inaccurate and misleading and subject to an apology. But the damage it did was significant. Since then a vicious culture war has raged, much to the dismay of respected scientists who continue to make the point: numerous studies show high-quality, well-fitted N95 and P2 respirators prevent infection when they’re worn correctly and consistently.

Professor Crabb’s home is also as “airborne safe” as he can make it. An “enormous amount of transmission” occurs in homes, he says. And his analysis of excess deaths from COVID-19 between January 2022 and March 2023 paints a striking picture: Moving down the east coast from Queensland, excess deaths increase, with Tasmania recording the highest proportion — last year it was more than double that of Queensland. “There’s no way Queensland has better COVID strategies than Victoria,” he says. “So very likely it’s to do with less time spent in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.”

Ultimately, strong evidence supporting the benefits of clean air is why Professor Crabb believes the future of COVID-19 — and other pandemics to come — is regulating indoor air quality: a responsibility for governments, public institutions and workplaces. “That’s where we are really headed, and that’s where I think there’s strong interest at a government level,” he says. “Of course everyone is stressed about what that will cost, but … let’s at least have the conversation. We have to move towards an airborne future. How you do that in economically sensible ways is a separate discussion — whether we do it or not should not be up for discussion, and the gains are enormous.”

#santé #prévention #CO2 #masque #purificateur_d'air #purificateur_d'air_portable

Ultimately, strong evidence supporting the benefits of clean air is why Professor Crabb believes the future of COVID-19 — and other pandemics to come — is regulating indoor air quality: a responsibility for governments, public institutions and workplaces. “That’s where we are really headed, and that’s where I think there’s strong interest at a government level,” he says.

Oui, d’ailleurs, à propos de la « régulation de la qualité de l’air intérieur, responsabilité des gouvernements, institutions publiques et lieux de travail », à Davos, ils montrent l’exemple pour la deuxième année consécutive. Le capitalisme, ça vous gagne.

https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fa.travel-assets.com%2Ffindyours-php%2Fviewfinder%2Fimages%2Fres70%2F349000%2F349684-Davos-Klosters.jpg&sp=1705866711Ta3b1c06e1a3eaa49ab0358a53d8439df8747d256d20d29b92b09b5bab1c894c4

C’est à dire, @sombre ? Ils ont sorti les purificateurs partout ?

Me serais-je mal fait comprendre ? Les purificateurs ne sont pas partout, hélas. Juste dans des endroits « stratégiques » où les dominants protègent leurs intérêts et pérennisent leurs privilèges. Un air pur et exempt de tout agent pathogène, ça se « mérite ».

Oui, c’est bien ce dont je parle. L’année dernière, on avait vu les images accablantes de tous des dispositifs de purification d’air pour Davos, pendant que les autres grenouillent dans les miasmes.

On a vu aussi que « Stan » avait eu une maousse subvention qui avait dû manquer aux actions sociales pour entièrement refaire son système de ventilation.

Je me demandais donc si on avait de nouveau vu Davos se protéger consciencieusement perdant que les dirigeants racontent à leurs peuples respectifs que la pandémie, faut vivre avec.

Oh, j’ai le même (en bas à droite) :-))

Je vois rien, c’est où la page d’origine ?

La source de l’image : ▻https://twitter.com/Ecole_Oubliee/status/1747265477737668936

et aussi :
▻https://twitter.com/astro_matthias/status/1747197034522616288

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GD9KbR1XIAEIWuy.jpg

Là, c’est mieux, non ?

Uh merci @mad_meg et le film complet est en ligne
Quand homo sapiens faisait son cinéma.
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtMbTfIosqM

Réalisateurs : Pascal Cuissot et Marc Azéma
Année: 2015

merci @aurelie

Unstaffed tills were supposed to revolutionise shopping. Now, both retailers and customers are bagging many self-checkout kiosks.
I
It’s a common sight at many retail stores: a queue of people, waiting to use a self-checkout kiosk, doing their best to remain patient as a lone store worker attends to multiple malfunctioning machines. The frustration mounts while a dozen darkened, roped-off and cashier-less tills sit in the background.

For shoppers, self-checkout was supposed to provide convenience and speed. Retailers hoped it would usher in a new age of cost savings. Their thinking: why pay six employees when you could pay one to oversee customers at self-service registers, as they do their own labour of scanning and bagging for free?

While self-checkout technology has its theoretical selling points for both consumers and businesses, it mostly isn’t living up to expectations. Customers are still queueing. They need store employees to help clear kiosk errors or check their identifications for age-restricted items. Stores still need to have workers on-hand to help them, and to service the machines.

The technology is, in some cases, more trouble than it’s worth.

“It hasn’t delivered anything that it promises,” says Christopher Andrews, associate professor and chair of sociology at Drew University, US, and author of The Overworked Consumer: Self-Checkouts, Supermarkets, and the Do-It-Yourself Economy. “Stores saw this as the next frontier… If they could get the consumer to think that [self-checkout] was a preferable way to shop, then they could cut labour costs. But they’re finding that people need help doing it, or that they’ll steal stuff. They ended up realising that they’re not saving money, they’re losing money.”
One of the frustrations of self-checkout can be the extra work of having to find a specific PLU code to ring up a purchase (Credit: Alamy)

Unexpected problems in the bagging area

Many retail companies have invested millions – if not billions – of dollars in self-checkout technology, which Andrews says was first developed during the 1980s, and started appearing in stores in the 1990s. They’re not exactly cheap to get into stores: some experts estimate a four-kiosk system can run six figures.

Despite the cost to install them, many retailers are reversing course on the tech. Target, for instance, is restricting the number of items self-checkout customers can purchase at one time. Walmart has removed some self-checkout kiosks in certain stores to deter theft. In the UK, supermarket chain Booths has also cut down on the number of self-service kiosks in its stores, as customers say they’re slow and unreliable.

Dollar General, one of the fastest-growing retailers in the US, is also re-thinking its strategy. In 2022, the discount chain leaned heavily into self-checkout technology – it’s not uncommon to see only one or two employees staffing an entire Dollar General store in some areas. Despite the investment, they are now planning to increase the number of employees in stores “and in particular, the checkout area”, according to the company’s CEO, Todd Vasos.

“We had relied and started to rely too much this year on self-checkout in our stores,” he said during the company’s Q3 2023 earnings call on 7 December 2023. “We should be using self-checkout as a secondary checkout vehicle, not a primary.” (Dollar General did not respond to the BBC’s requests for comment).
Some data shows retailers utilising self-checkout technology have loss rates more than twice the industry average
Some retailers cite theft as a motivator for ditching the unstaffed tills. Customers may be more willing to simply swipe merchandise when using a self-service kiosk than they are when face-to-face with a human cashier. Some data shows retailers utilising self-checkout technology have loss rates more than twice the industry average.

In addition to shrink concerns, experts say another failure of self-checkout technology is that, in many cases, it simply doesn’t lead to the cost savings businesses hoped for. Just as Dollar General appears poised to add more employees to its check-out areas, presumably increasing staffing costs, other companies have done the same. Despite self-checkout kiosks becoming ubiquitous throughout the past decade or so, the US still has more than 3.3 million cashiers working around the nation, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Humans or machines?

Consumers want this technology to work, and welcomed it with open arms. However, years later, they’re still queueing for tills; waiting for store-staff assistance with errors or age checks; and searching high and low for the PLU code of the Walla Walla Sweet Onions they’re trying to purchase.

In a 2021 survey of 1,000 American shoppers, 60% of consumers said they prefer to use self-checkout over a staffed checkout aisle when given the choice, yet 67% of consumers have had the technology fail while trying to use it.

Experts say some self-checkout kiosks may stand abandoned as some shoppers transition backed to staffed tills (Credit: Alamy)
The bottom line is businesses want to cut costs, and shoppers want to get in and out of a store. If self-checkout isn’t the answer, they’ll find another avenue.

“It’s not that self-checkout technology is good or bad, per se… [but] if we try self-checkout and realise we’re not benefitting from it, we might switch back to not using it,” says Amit Kumar, an assistant professor of marketing and psychology at the University of Texas, who studies consumer behaviour and decision-making.

That appears to be happening in many cases, as customers’ frustrations with the technology persist. But Andrews says that while stores may change up their strategies – as seen with Dollar General and others – many large retail chains are likely to keep kiosks in stores due to sunk costs. “They spent billions putting it in stores, and are hoping they can still get the public to buy into it,” he says.

Retailers may continue to rely on the technology, but many aren’t putting all their farm-fresh eggs in the self-checkout basket. Instead, they’re increasingly giving customers the option to choose between human and machine.

For the customers that do choose to do the labour themselves, there’s one thing Andrews believes won’t change. However ubiquitous the technology is, and however much consumers get used to using the kiosks, shoppers are likely to find themselves disappointed and frustrated most of the time.

“It was part of a larger experiment in retail in trying to socialise people into using it,” he says. Simply, “customers hate it”.

#caisses_automatiques #grande_distribution #commerce #commerce_alimentaire #vol #solutionnsme_technologique

#supermarchés #flop #automatisation #efficacité #inefficacité #technologie

Il faut voir si c’est vraiment intéressant financièrement aussi. Un système intégral avec batterie coute entre 1200 et 4000 €. Personnellement, je paye 540 € par an (mon chauffage n’est pas électrique), dont environ 430 correspondant à la consommation (110 d’abonnement). En 2022 j’ai consommé 1632 KWH. Si je prends le système minimal, il va me fournir 370 KWH, je vais donc économiser 22% de ma consommation, soit 94 €. Rapporté à 1200€, cela signifie que l’investissement est rentable à partir de la treizième année. A priori le système fonctionne pour 25 ans mais je pense que la batterie ne dure pas plus de 10-15 ans, donc est-ce vraiment intéressant...? Si on est tout le temps chez toi, il n’est pas certain que la batterie soit très utile...

On revient également à cette mise en garde pertinente (de la part de copains installateurs de solaire) de croire qu’il serait intéressant de revendre l’électricité produite individuellement. C’est un piège intéressant pour EDF qui n’a rien à débourser ni de l’installation, ni de son entretien, de son renouvellement ou de son retraitement.

Et oui @rumor, j’avais également fait deviser un chauffe-eau solaire, j’ai renoncé après avoir calculé qu’il me faudrait 20 ans pour l’amortir. D’autant qu’un chauffe-eau solaire me semblait plus simple qu’un mini réseau avec batteries.

#energie_solaire #solaire #logement_ecologique #autonomie_énergétique

En gros, c’est rentable ou pas ?

Pour être rentable rapidement, il faut le faire soi-meme, avec les étapes suivantes :
– réduire sa consommation par l’isolation de son bien. le rendre thermiquement passif
– réduire la consommation moyenne en ayant pas d’équipements qui consomment plus de 1,2k si possible.
– Pas de batterie (sauf si l’autonomie peut être atteinte en n’ayant plus besoin de souscrire un contrat en énergie), mais à éviter quand même.
– éviter les panneaux les panneaux photovoltaïques sur le toit. Sur le toit, pour le chauffe-eau prévoir un panneau solaire à clapets.
– FAIRE L’INSTALLATION SOI-MÊME.

Je me permets de répondre, je ne sais pas si il existe une réponse toute faite.
Justement c’est pas possible à calculer « en gros » puisque ça dépend de l’ensemble des propres paramètres de chaque installation. Le calcul se fait par rapport au coût de ta consommation de départ évidemment en KWh mais pas que. Tu as différents type de consommation du logement : nombre d’habitants à l’année et leur façon de vouloir avoir de l’électricité « légère ». Ne va pas imaginer faire tourner un lave linge deux fois par jour en solaire, une fois par semaine si tu as un local pour les batteries ce sera super.
Il y a aussi ton ensoleillement géographique, la position des panneaux, leur taille. Enormément de variables. Le plus facile à comparer je trouve c’est la vie en camion ou camping car.

Amha, pour avoir un logement énergétiquement écologique qui passe les saisons, il faut tabler sur plusieurs sources : solaire/géothermie/bois et surtout ne pas voir trop grand, réduire sa consommation, savoir gérer les heures et les saisons. Ici, je suppose que c’est le seul avantage, c’est de demander à un algo de le faire pour toi …

Pour te dire ce que tu peux faire avec une batterie de 1,44KWh proposé par L’Autrichien EET, EDF te tutoies toi même tutututu et te dit …

▻https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/jeunes-enseignants/pour-les-jeunes/lenergie-de-a-a-z/lelectricite-au-quotidien/que-peut-on-faire-avec-1-kwh

Éclairage

Avec 1 kWh, on peut s’éclairer entre une journée et une journée et demie. Cela dépend si l’on habite en maison ou en appartement. Il faut bien veiller au choix des luminaires car avec 1 kWh, on fait fonctionner une lampe à halogène pendant seulement 2 h alors qu’on peut s’éclairer pendant 7 h avec 7 lampes basse consommation !

Oups, @aldoreset1 je n’avais pas lu ta réponse, on est presque raccord :) Sauf sur les batteries, vu que ça te permet de stocker donc c’est un peu essentiel même si ça complique l’install. En général tu as besoin de lumière la nuit, quand y’a plus de soleil. En permaculture, dans mes souvenirs, l’idée était aussi d’avoir un petit lac au-dessus du logement, avec un hydro-moteur qui remonte l’eau la journée et fabrique de l’électricité la nuit (ou du genre shadock)

les batteries sont très chères et polluantes aujourd’hui.
Le 1er point est vraiment de supprimer la passoire thermique.
Il y avait un avantage de ne pas avoir un compteur linky est que le surplus produit était décompté de ton compteur automatiquement donc l’énergie restituée la nuit était gratuite.
ensuite politiquement il faut se battre contre l’énergie centralisée (idem pour les télécom) et absolument refusé le nucléaire en tout cas vraiment le limité.
A l’échelle locale par forcement individuelle, il faut produire de l’énergie par un mix (solaire, éolien, géothermie...) et le renvoyer par solidarité pour son voisin et avoir un bon routage électrique (rarement mis en place par enedis).
REFUSER l’artificialisation des sols, produire de l’énergie sur des terres nourricières est un crime contre l’humanité...
mes 2cts.

Pour être rentable rapidement, il faut le faire soi-meme, avec les étapes suivantes :
– réduire sa consommation par l’isolation de son bien. le rendre thermiquement passif [...]

Je suis en train d’isoler (et seulement en partie) ma maison, y en a pour presque 30000€ (et seulement 2000€ d’aides), autant dire que je ne me pose plus la question de la rentabilité depuis longtemps. :)

Traduit ici : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1034916

quand je lis « dette immunitaire », je m’arrête immédiatement, malgré l’élan, puis je reviens à « dette » et j’appuie sur le buzzer « bingo ». Dette ? Y a un budget ? Un capital ? Une institution banquaire ? Un marché libre et non faussé peut-être ? Percolation !

#pochade

Ah ouais quand même, on va finir par l’admettre ? Ceci dit, je pense qu’on est plusieurs ici à s’en être rendu compte. Depuis que les écoles ont été maintenues ouvertes à la rentrée de septembre 2020 et que rien n’a été fait pour assainir l’air ambiant. On a donc privilégié « l’immunité de troupeau » en permettant aux enfants de s’infecter à tour de bras et de contaminer tous leurs proches.

Je confirme que tous les bidules collectifs de la période, il y avait au moins un toussotant/mouchant. Pour le bidule de Noël, 1350ppm, au moins une contamination confirmée.

Hier, les vrais amis m’ont souhaité mon annif (nope, je ne suis pas un 01) et en gros, tout le monde a passé les fêtes au pieu avec une forte fièvre mystérieuse.

C’est pas bon pour le commerce, tout ça !

Heureusement, il nous reste les remèdes « naturels ».
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIseUQnGXXg

Sérieux c’est ces ***** de Faciliti qui ont gagné le procès ? 😭

Apparemment, en première instance.
Il faudrait lire la décision, pour vérifier dans quelle mesure les billets de blog qui ont suivi n’ont pas convaincu les juges qu’il y avait intention de nuire.