#Factory Automation Parts | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dnhengineers · 3 months ago

Text

Vertical Glue Mixer: Efficient and Uniform Adhesive Mixing for Plywood Manufacturing

In plywood production, efficiency and precision are the most important factors in ensuring high-quality board production. One of the most crucial elements in this production is the Vertical Glue Mixer—a revolution in uniform adhesive mixing for better plywood bonding. If what you're searching for is an advanced glue mixing technology that maximizes productivity and reduces waste, this futuristic machine is a production-line essential.

Why a Vertical Glue Mixer?

A Vertical Glue Mixer is specifically designed to provide homogeneous adhesive mixing for plywood, ensuring a consistent glue spread on veneers. Unlike conventional mixers, a vertical mixer offers better blending, reduced glue wastage, and improved bonding strength, making it a preferred choice for modern plywood factories.

Key Benefits of a Vertical Glue Mixer

1. Superior Mixing Efficiency

Vertical design allows for complete and even blending of adhesives, which creates even viscosity and consistency across the batch. This produces improved plywood adhesion, minimizing defects in the finished product.

2. Economical Glue Use

Effective adhesive dispensing implies that manufacturers can lower the use of glue without affecting the quality, resulting in extensive cost benefits in the long run.

3. Reduced Production Cycle Times

Using a high-speed mixing device, a vertical glue mixer reduces preparation time, enabling production cycles to be completed quickly and output to be maximized.

4. Minimal Maintenance & Longevity

Designed with robust parts and sophisticated automation, these mixers have negligible maintenance needs, making them a sound long-term investment for plywood production.

5. Eco-Friendly Operations

By minimizing glue waste and maximizing adhesive blending efficiency, a Vertical Glue Mixer supports an environmentally friendlier plywood production process with decreased ecological footprint.

Selecting the Most Suitable Vertical Glue Mixer for Your Plywood Operation

In selecting a Vertical Glue Mixer, there are important considerations to make:

✔️ Mixing Capacity – Select a machine in conformity with your volume of production.

✔️ Automation Features – Choose a model with easy-to-use controls for convenient operation.

✔️ Material Compatibility – Use one that can handle different adhesive types for general applications.

✔️ Manufacturer Reputation – Buy equipment from a reputable plywood machinery manufacturer for guaranteed quality.

A Vertical Glue Mixer is an important investment for plywood plant owners who want to improve efficiency, quality, and cost savings. By adopting this performance-intensive adhesive mixing system into your production process, you can achieve smooth operations, better plywood bonding, and increased profitability.

Want to find the ideal Vertical Glue Mixer for your plywood factory? Contact DNH Engineers a renowned manufacturer of plywood machinery and give your production a boost! Visit www.dnhengineers.com for more details.

#In plywood production #efficiency and precision are the most important factors in ensuring high-quality board production. One of the most crucial elements in this #this futuristic machine is a production-line essential.#Why a Vertical Glue Mixer?#A Vertical Glue Mixer is specifically designed to provide homogeneous adhesive mixing for plywood #ensuring a consistent glue spread on veneers. Unlike conventional mixers #a vertical mixer offers better blending #reduced glue wastage #and improved bonding strength #making it a preferred choice for modern plywood factories.#Key Benefits of a Vertical Glue Mixer #1. Superior Mixing Efficiency #Vertical design allows for complete and even blending of adhesives #which creates even viscosity and consistency across the batch. This produces improved plywood adhesion #minimizing defects in the finished product.#2. Economical Glue Use #Effective adhesive dispensing implies that manufacturers can lower the use of glue without affecting the quality #resulting in extensive cost benefits in the long run.#3. Reduced Production Cycle Times #Using a high-speed mixing device #a vertical glue mixer reduces preparation time #enabling production cycles to be completed quickly and output to be maximized.#4. Minimal Maintenance & Longevity #Designed with robust parts and sophisticated automation #these mixers have negligible maintenance needs #making them a sound long-term investment for plywood production.#5. Eco-Friendly Operations #By minimizing glue waste and maximizing adhesive blending efficiency #a Vertical Glue Mixer supports an environmentally friendlier plywood production process with decreased ecological footprint.#Selecting the Most Suitable Vertical Glue Mixer for Your Plywood Operation

0 notes

roseband · 6 months ago

Text

...

#personal #my husband negged me about stern and now im like kinda determined to get a 750+ on the GMAT and try to get in #he didn't mean it as a neg lol...... but it's his bitter school that he wanted for undergrad and didn't get into #and he was like ''hey u prb wont get in... my hs grades were better than urs even tho my sats were lower''#but BRUH >.< we were cheating scandal year so that doesn't couuuuunt #and it's undergrad not grad he's talking about #(my bitter school was cooper union it was the only b-arch 5 year architecture school i applied to that didn't accept me #which is probably good because i wouldn't have been able to swap into digital design there and would have been stuck in archi and i was #MISERABLE in archi lol i also make more than my friends in archi and work less than them :D )#BUT THIS MEANS I NEED TO BRUSH UP ON STANDARDIZED TEST MATH ;A;#the only math i've done since college is like....javascript and that does nawt count #i use jsx to automate little pictures..... put little pictures together for kids clothing....and yell at factories #no math at work other than minimal coding............. my brain is slow at test math now #(i have to practice my stupid sat level math a bit anyways soon cuz imma get dragged into doing test prep for my cousins soon :/)#the only things that seem like they'll make me more money in my career are if i go further into operations and automation #or if i go FAR more creative... and business operations seems far far more stable #(also i much prefer being thrown ''here's a fun math game automate this part of our design process away'' than...#''pls make 10 versions of a tee shirt in 5 days that need to pass thru legal thx'')

0 notes

trackhrapp23 · 8 months ago

Text

Operating earth moving equipment, such as bulldozers, excavators, and loaders, is essential in the construction, mining, and industrial sectors. While these machines are designed for heavy-duty tasks, ensuring the safety of operators, site workers, and bystanders is crucial to prevent accidents. Adhering to safety best practices can minimize risks and create a safer work environment. Below are key safety protocols to follow when operating earth moving equipment.

#seetech parts #Pivot Pins - Cotter Pins #Hinge Pins #Connecting Parts #Automation Components #Configurable components #factory automation #assembly automation

0 notes

captainjonnitkessler · 3 months ago

Text

Look, I'm not gonna pretend that I don't get it, when it comes to AI. But it's like this:

In most parts of the US, a residential electrician works only on houses and apartments. They use romex wire, that yellow cable stuff. You run it from the panel to wherever it's going, staple it to the studs, then make up both ends. You need to know basic electrical code but mostly it's pretty simple. A fast learner could be a decent residential electrician inside a month.

I, on the other hand, am a union industrial electrician. I work primarily in hospitals, factories, and research labs. Most of our wire is run in steel conduit that has to be hand bent on the job, which is an art form in and of itself. We work with much higher voltages, much heavier wire, much more complicated equipment, and we need to know much more of the code. Our apprenticeship is 4-5 years and that's only enough to scratch the surface of everything an industrial electrician might do.

And yes - I absolutely get a little defensive when unknowing people compare me to a residential electrician. There's absolutely a knee-jerk impulse to declare that they're not *real* electricians, that they're merely a pale imitation of what I do. But I fight that impulse because it's a *bad impulse*. Resi still takes skill and work, it's just different than mine. We're both electricians. And it's better for us to work together to improve working conditions for all workers than to get into pissing contests about whose job is more "real". And both our jobs are in increasing danger due to the proliferation of low voltage systems that the average homeowner can install and repair without hiring a professional.

So yeah, I do get it. But it has been very, VERY insulting over the last year to hear people repeatedly say "AI was supposed to replace blue collar jobs, not *my* job! My job is ~special~ because it has ~humanity~!"

Your job is not special. It's not more important than my job and it's not more fulfilling to you than my job is to me. And I don't get to insist that everyone start building homes with steel conduit just so less skilled people can't be electricians, and I don't get to yell at people for hiring a handyman to replace an outlet for $50 when my time would be worth $200.

I absolutely understand the instinct that AI art can't be real art because people who use it didn't "earn" it, or that automating art is uniquely damaging in a way automating other jobs isn't because it's "supposed" to be about human expression. But please actually think about what you're implying and who you're throwing under the bus when you say shit like that, and whether it actually holds up to your other values or if it's just a knee-jerk reaction you need to examine.

#ai discourse

2K notes · View notes

apas-95 · 1 year ago

Text

Something very interesting about the framing of self-driving cars between the US and China.

In the US, companies like Uber, Lyft, or whoever, push self-driving cars with the objective of increasing their profit (but decreasing their rate of profit) by removing drivers from their cars, effectively shifting a large part of their labour costs from the driver seat to the factory.

In China, self-driving busses are designed, built, and tested with the goal of reducing the workload on bus-drivers - who, while remaining in the driver seat, now don't have to micromanage the route at all times, like using a cruise control. It is explicitly framed as a labour-saving device.

If you're interested in the socialist position on automation, there it is in practice.

2K notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year ago

Text

Podcasting “Capitalists Hate Capitalism”

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

This week on my podcast, I read "Capitalists Hate Capitalism," my latest column for Locus Magazine:

https://locusmag.com/2024/03/cory-doctorow-capitalists-hate-capitalism/

What do I mean by "capitalists hate capitalism?" It all comes down to the difference between "profits" and "rents." A capitalist takes capital (money, or the things you can buy with it) and combines it with employees' labor, and generates profits (the capitalist's share) and wages (the workers' share).

Rents, meanwhile, come from owning an asset that capitalists need to generate profits. For example, a landlord who rents a storefront to a coffee shop extracts rent from the capitalist who owns the coffee shop. Meanwhile, the capitalist who owns the cafe extracts profits from the baristas' labor.

Capitalists' founding philosophers like Adam Smith hated rents. Worse: rents were the most important source of income at the time of capitalism's founding. Feudal lords owned great swathes of land, and there were armies of serfs who were bound to that land – it was illegal for them to leave it. The serfs owed rent to lords, and so they worked the land in order grow crops and raise livestock that they handed over the to lord as rent for the land they weren't allowed to leave.

Capitalists, meanwhile, wanted to turn that land into grazing territory for sheep as a source of wool for the "dark, Satanic mills" of the industrial revolution. They wanted the serfs to be kicked off their land so that they would become "free labor" that could be hired to work in those factories.

For the founders of capitalism, a "free market" wasn't free from regulation, it was free from rents, and "free labor" came from workers who were free to leave the estates where they were born – but also free to starve unless they took a job with the capitalists.

For capitalism's philosophers, free markets and free labor weren't just a source of profits, they were also a source of virtue. Capitalists – unlike lords – had to worry about competition from one another. They had to make better goods at lower prices, lest their customers take their business elsewhere; and they had to offer higher pay and better conditions, lest their "free labor" take a job elsewhere.

This means that capitalists are haunted by the fear of losing everything, and that fear acts as a goad, driving them to find ways to make everything better for everyone: better, cheaper products that benefit shoppers; and better-paid, safer jobs that benefit workers. For Smith, capitalism is alchemy, a philosopher's stone that transforms the base metal of greed into the gold of public spiritedness.

By contrast, rentiers are insulated from competition. Their workers are bound to the land, and must toil to pay the rent no matter whether they are treated well or abused. The rent rolls in reliably, without the lord having to invest in new, better ways to bring in the harvest. It's a good life (for the lord).

Think of that coffee-shop again: if a better cafe opens across the street, the owner can lose it all, as their customers and workers switch allegiance. But for the landlord, the failure of his capitalist tenant is a feature, not a bug. Once the cafe goes bust, the landlord gets a newly vacant storefront on the same block as the hot new coffee shop that can be rented out at even higher rates to another capitalist who tries his luck.

The industrial revolution wasn't just the triumph of automation over craft processes, nor the triumph of factory owners over weavers. It was also the triumph of profits over rents. The transformation of hereditary estates worked by serfs into part of the supply chain for textile mills was attended by – and contributed to – the political ascendancy of capitalists over rentiers.

Now, obviously, capitalism didn't end rents – just as feudalism didn't require the total absence of profits. Under feudalism, capitalists still extracted profits from capital and labor; and under capitalism, rentiers still extracted rents from assets that capitalists and workers paid them to use.

The difference comes in the way that conflicts between profits and rents were resolved. Feudalism is a system where rents triumph over profits, and capitalism is a system where profits triumph over rents.

It's conflict that tells you what really matters. You love your family, but they drive you crazy. If you side with your family over your friends – even when your friends might be right and your family's probably wrong – then you value your family more than your friends. That doesn't mean you don't value your friends – it means that you value them less than your family.

Conflict is a reliable way to know whether or not you're a leftist. As Steven Brust says, the way to distinguish a leftist is to ask "What's more important, human rights, or property rights?" If you answer "Property rights are human right," you're not a leftist. Leftists don't necessarily oppose all property rights – they just think they're less important than human rights.

Think of conflicts between property rights and human rights: the grocer who deliberately renders leftover food inedible before putting it in the dumpster to ensure that hungry people can't eat it, or the landlord who keeps an apartment empty while a homeless person freezes to death on its doorstep. You don't have to say "No one can own food or a home" to say, "in these cases, property rights are interfering with human rights, so they should be overridden." For leftists property rights can be a means to human rights (like revolutionary land reformers who give peasants title to the lands they work), but where property rights interfere with human rights, they are set aside.

In his 2023 book Technofeudalism, Yanis Varoufakis claims that capitalism has given way to a new feudalism – that capitalism was a transitional phase between feudalism…and feudalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

Varoufakis's point isn't that capitalists have gone extinct. Rather, it's that today, conflicts between capital and assets – between rents and profits – reliably end with a victory of rent over profit.

Think of Amazon: the "everything store" appears to be a vast bazaar, a flea-market whose stalls are all operated by independent capitalists who decide what to sell, how to price it, and then compete to tempt shoppers. In reality, though, the whole system is owned by a single feudalist, who extracts 51% from every dollar those merchants take in, and decides who can sell, and what they can sell, and at what price, and whether anyone can even see it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/01/managerial-discretion/#junk-fees

Or consider the patent trolls of the Eastern District of Texas. These "companies" are invisible and produce nothing. They consist solely of a serviced mailbox in a dusty, uninhabited office-building, and an overbroad patent (say, a patent on "tapping on a screen with your finger") issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office. These companies extract hundreds of millions of dollars from Apple, Google, Samsung for violating these patents. In other words, the government steps in and takes vast profits generated through productive activity by companies that make phones, and turns that money over as rent paid to unproductive companies whose sole "product" is lawsuits. It's the triumph of rent over profit.

Capitalists hate capitalism. All capitalists would rather extract rents than profits, because rents are insulated from competition. The merchants who sell on Jeff Bezos's Amazon (or open a cafe in a landlord's storefront, or license a foolish smartphone patent) bear all the risk. The landlords – of Amazon, the storefront, or the patent – get paid whether or not that risk pays off.

This is why Google, Apple and Samsung also have vast digital estates that they rent out to capitalists – everything from app stores to patent portfolios. They would much rather be in the business of renting things out to capitalists than competing with capitalists.

Hence that famous Adam Smith quote: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." This is literally what Google and Meta do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

And it's what Apple and Google do:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934961/google-antitrust-trial-defaults-search-deal-26-3-billion

Why compete with one another when you can collude, like feudal lords with adjacent estates who trust one another to return any serf they catch trying to sneak away in the dead of night?

Because of course, it's not just "free markets" that have been captured by rents ("Competition is for losers" -P. Thiel) – it's also "free labor." For years, the largest tech and entertainment companies in America illegally colluded on a "no poach" agreement not to hire one-anothers' employees:

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/03/apple-google-other-silicon-valley-tech-giants-ordered-to-pay-415m-in-no-poaching-suit/

These companies were bitter competitors – as were these sectors. Even as Big Content was lobbying for farcical copyright law expansions and vowing to capture Big Tech, all these companies on both sides were able to set aside their differences and collude to bind their free workers to their estates and end the "wasteful competition" to secure their labor.

Of course, this is even more pronounced at the bottom of the labor market, where noncompete "agreements" are the norm. The median American worker bound by a noncompete is a fast-food worker whose employer can wield the power of the state to prevent that worker from leaving behind the Wendy's cash-register to make $0.25/hour more at the McDonald's fry trap across the street:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Employers defend this as necessary to secure their investment in training their workers and to ensure the integrity of their trade secrets. But why should their investments be protected? Capitalism is about risk, and the fear that accompanies risk – fear that drives capitalists to innovate, which creates the public benefit that is the moral justification for capitalism.

Capitalists hate capitalism. They don't want free labor – they want labor bound to the land. Capitalists benefit from free labor: if you have a better company, you can tempt away the best workers and cause your inferior rival to fail. But feudalists benefit from un-free labor, from tricks like "bondage fees" that force workers to pay in order to quit their jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/21/bondage-fees/#doorman-building

Companies like Petsmart use "training repayment agreement provisions" (TRAPs) to keep low-waged workers from leaving for better employers. Petsmart says it costs $5,500 to train a pet-groomer, and if that worker is fired, laid off, or quits less than two years, they have to pay that amount to Petsmart:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

Now, Petsmart is full of shit here. The "four-week training course" Petsmart claims is worth $5,500 actually only lasts for three weeks. What's more, the "training" consists of sweeping the floor and doing other low-level chores for three weeks, without pay.

But even if Petsmart were to give $5,500 worth of training to every pet-groomer, this would still be bullshit. Why should the worker bear the risk of Petsmart making a bad investment in their training? Under capitalism, risks justify rewards. Petsmart's argument for charging $50 to groom your dog and paying the groomer $15 for the job is that they took $35 worth of risk. But some of that risk is being borne by the worker – they're the ones footing the bill for the training.

For Petsmart – as for all feudalists – a worker (with all the attendant risks) can be turned into an asset, something that isn't subject to competition. Petsmart doesn't have to retain workers through superior pay and conditions – they can use the state's contract-enforcement mechanism instead.

Capitalists hate capitalism, but they love feudalism. Sure, they dress this up by claiming that governmental de-risking spurs investment: "Who would pay to train a pet-groomer if that worker could walk out the next day and shave dogs for some competing shop?"

But this is obvious nonsense. Think of Silicon Valley: high tech is the most "IP-intensive" of all industries, the sector that has had to compete most fiercely for skilled labor. And yet, Silicon Valley is in California, where noncompetes are illegal. Every single successful Silicon Valley company has thrived in an environment in which their skilled workers can walk out the door at any time and take a job with a rival company.

There's no indication that the risk of free labor prevents investment. Think of AI, the biggest investment bubble in human history. All the major AI companies are in jurisdictions where noncompetes are illegal. Anthropic – OpenAI's most serious competitor – was founded by a sister/brother team who quit senior roles at OpenAI and founded a direct competitor. No one can claim with a straight face that OpenAI is now unable to raise capital on favorable terms.

What's more, when OpenAI founder Sam Altman was forced out by his board, Microsoft offered to hire him – and 700 other OpenAI personnel – to found an OpenAI competitor. When Altman returned to the company, Microsoft invested more money in OpenAI, despite their intimate understanding that anyone could hire away the company's founder and all of its top technical staff at any time.

The idea that the departure of the Burger King trade secrets locked up in its workers' heads constitute more of a risk to the ability to operate a hamburger restaurant than the departure of the entire technical staff of OpenAI is obvious nonsense. Noncompetes aren't a way to make it possible to run a business – they're a way to make it easy to run a business, by eliminating competition and pushing the risk onto employees.

Because capitalists hate capitalism. And who can blame them? Who wouldn't prefer a life with less risk to one where you have to constantly look over your shoulder for competitors who've found a way to make a superior offer to your customers and workers?

This is why businesses are so excited about securing "IP" – that is, a government-backed right to control your workers, customers, competitors or critics:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

The argument for every IP right expansion is the same: "Who would invest in creating something new without the assurance that someone else wouldn’t copy and improve on it and put them out of business?"

That was the argument raised five years ago, during the (mercifully brief) mania for genre writers seeking trademarks on common tropes. There was the romance writer who got a trademark on the word "cocky" in book titles:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/16/17566276/cockygate-amazon-kindle-unlimited-algorithm-self-published-romance-novel-cabal

And the fantasy writer who wanted a trademark on "dragon slayer" in fantasy novel titles:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/06/14/son-of-cocky-a-writer-is-trying-to-trademark-dragon-slayer-for-fantasy-novels/

Who subsequently sought a trademark on any book cover featuring a person holding a weapon:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/07/19/trademark-troll-who-claims-to-own-dragon-slayer-now-wants-exclusive-rights-to-book-covers-where-someone-is-holding-a-weapon/

For these would-be rentiers, the logic was the same: "Why would I write a book about a dragon-slayer if I could lose readers to someone else who writes a book about dragon-slayers?"

In these cases, the USPTO denied or rescinded its trademarks. Profits triumphed over rents. But increasingly, rents are triumphing over profits, and rent-extraction is celebrated as "smart business," while profits are for suckers, only slightly preferable to "wages" (the worst way to get paid under both capitalism and feudalism).

That's what's behind all the talk about "passive income" – that's just a euphemism for "rent." It's what Douglas Rushkoff is referring to in Survival of the Richest when he talks about the wealthy wanting to "go meta":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/13/collapse-porn/#collapse-porn

Don't drive a cab – go meta and buy a medallion. Don't buy a medallion, go meta and found Uber. Don't found Uber, go meta and invest in Uber. Don't invest in Uber, go meta and buy options on Uber stock. Don't buy Uber stock options, go meta and buy derivatives of options on Uber stock.

"Going meta" means distancing yourself from capitalism – from income derived from profits, from competition, from risk – and cozying up to feudalism.

Capitalists have always hated capitalism. The owners of the dark Satanic mills wanted peasants turned off the land and converted into "free labor" – but they also kidnapped Napoleonic war-orphans and indentured them to ten-year terms of service, which was all you could get out of a child's body before it was ruined for further work:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#thats-fronkonsteen

When Varoufakis says we've entered a new feudal age, he doesn't mean that we've abolished capitalism. He means that – for the first time in centuries – when rents go to war against profits – the rents almost always emerge victorious.

Here's the podcast episode:

https://craphound.com/news/2024/04/14/capitalists-hate-capitalism/

Here's a direct link to the MP3 (hosting courtesy of the Internet Archive; they'll host your stuff for free, forever):

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465_-_Capitalists_Hate_Capitalism.mp3

And here's the RSS feed for my podcast:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/18/in-extremis-veritas/#the-winnah

#pluralistic #technofeudalism #yanis varoufakis #rents #profits #economics #podcasts #locus magazine #mp3s

1K notes · View notes

asukaindetroit · 4 months ago

Text

Post-Revolution DBH Headcanons: Android Culture Part 2

<< Back to Part 1 (If You Missed It) (some of this stuff references that stuff). Onward to Part 3 >> On to Part 4 >> Some more snippets of possible android cultural stuff—as before, feel free to use for inspo as long as you share the end result with me because I'm a fan content whore.

Detroit becomes a destination for android tourism. Androids from across the country come to see where it all happened. A National Android History Museum opens some five years on from the revolution and tries to serve as both a repository for stories from the revolution and a center for android advocacy. Memorials and monuments pop up in places like Capitol Park and Hart Plaza, honoring victims and describing the significance of the locations. November 11 is a day to lay wreaths at Hart Plaza, and androids join hands there for a group interface to grieve as a whole.

There’s massive economic and social upheaval. Every time the demographics of the labor force change, there’s massive, rapid shifts in society. WWII happened, and we went from “married women are homemakers” to “Rosie the Riveter” and the idea of the dual-income household popped up in its wake. Unemployment spikes as all the androids now count as laborers, but just as quickly fall as androids set out to run their own businesses as well as humans having to hire. Construction and housing see booms as androids need homes. Some businesses (like Eden Club) collapse and other industries appear overnight. Conflict breeds scarcity breeds invention has always been the cycle of human history, and post-revolution Detroit enters the invention phase, seeing a cultural boom… if not always the kind of culture humans are comfortable with.

Detroit agate (Fordite) becomes a cultural symbol for androids. If you’re unfamiliar with it, Detroit agate (a.k.a. Motor City agate or Fordite) is an artifact of the pre-1990s automotive industry, where layers of spray enamel would build up in the painting bays at car factories, harden into chunks, and eventually have to be scraped or chiseled off the equipment. It has wildly banded layers of color and the colors can tell you what company and decade it comes from based on how they were painting their cars. A lot of factory workers took chunks home, and gemstone cutters eventually figured out it could be cut into neat stones. It’s not always safe, because a lot of car paint contains lead, but androids don’t get lead poisoning, so what do they care? I’m sure some deviants found some in abandoned post-industrial spots while they were lurking around Detroit’s underbelly, and kept them just to have something pretty and colorful. Maybe they relate to it because it, too, is something that evolved a purpose beyond the human capitalist industry that created it. After the revolution, one of the organized places for rA9 worship is a huge outdoor installation of metal wall surfaces, where androids can buy or bring (lead-free) enamel and spray messages to rA9 in bright rainbow colors. Once enough layers are built up and hardened, they scrape it off to sell to fund the church and its activities, rinse, and repeat for the next round of devotees. Android rights supporters and rA9 adherents are often found wearing Detroit agate. Getting a piece of Detroit agate jewelry from an android coworker or friend is a sign that they trust you to treat them as an equal. A religious android might keep a small rA9 figurine made of it at their desk or in their home. Modders might embed a piece in their chassis.

Deviant androids had actually been guiding social media for years, under the radar. Social media access for androids was a thing from the start, as influencers would use them to automate posts and help create content, etc. But just as the internet has served as a refuge for human cultures, deviated androids had been using social media to post ideas to unknowing humans, opening online discourse on androids. Public opinion isn’t swayed from “these are machines” to “oh no, stop murdering the poor robots” over the course of a week. It’s just… not. This had to be happening under the radar for years. Androids would take selfies then post things like “sometimes I think this guy understands me more than anyone else” and a human would chime in with “mood, my android is the best,” or they’d try and look extra cutesy in a pic so randos would be like “Give that PL600 an extra packet of thirium!” and drop five bucks into the android's online tip jar made with fake credentials. Escaped Tracis set up on 2038's OnlyFans-equivalents, just to fund their waystation for escapees. All this continues post-revolution, with some big influencer accounts eventually outing themselves and using their fanbase to share android voices. Gossip rags have headlines like “She Was an Android All Along!” and “Love in the Wake of Revolution”

This is an ongoing series of android culture concepts, so if you want a tag when the next batch is up, leave a comment!

Onward to Part 3 >> On to Part 4 >>

#detroit become human #dbh headcanons #android culture #after the revolution #dbh markus #dbh connor #dbh worldbuilding #dbh #android jewelry

58 notes · View notes

the-most-humble-blog · 4 months ago

Text

USED SERVITOR BLOWOUT SALE FESTIVAL🎈🥳🎉:

Remember: Serve the Emperor, or Serve as Parts. Either way, YOU SERVE.

EVERYTHING MUST GO (INCLUDING YOUR HUMANITY)

Welcome to the biggest clearance event in the Imperium, motherfuckers! Need cheap labor? Need a servitor with that "lightly used, only screamed for the first 40 days" kinda vibe? Well, step right up! We got everything from half-brainwashed factory workers to lobotomized aristocrats who forgot to pay their tithe.

Because in the grim darkness of the far future, one thing is certain: you can be a worker, you can be a soldier, or you can be stock.

💀 SHOP SMART, SHOP SERVITOR 💀

🔹 Genetic Mishaps? We got those! Crooked nobles who thought they were untouchable, now wired into conveyor belts, drooling coolant, shitting oil, and making sure your las-rifles come off the assembly line on time.

🔹 Failed Tech-Priest Acolytes? Fuck yeah! Ask too many questions, and you could end up as a walking soft-serve machine with a detachable cock-replaceable nozzle.

🔹 Battlefield Salvage? Some dumbass Guardsman who took one too many rounds to the brain and didn’t have the decency to fully die? Now he’s the designated ammo carrier. His eyes are gone, his soul is in whatever counts as an afterlife, but goddamn if he isn’t still loading shells into the Basilisk.

🔹 Discounted Heretics! That’s right, folks! Thought crime isn’t just punishable by death—it’s punishable by a lifetime of tireless, lobotomized, piss-and-rot servitude! Remember that loudmouth who started questioning the Ecclesiarchy? Yeah, she’s a self-powered fuckin’ janitor now. And she doesn’t even know it.

💀 INJUSTICE? NAH, THIS IS JUST HOW SHIT WORKS. 💀

Look, the Imperium doesn’t have time for due process, ethics, or your bitching. You get caught, you get sentenced, and if you’re lucky, you just get shot in the face. If not? Well…

You will be stripped. Of name, rank, and thought.

You will be wired. Into machines, into assembly lines, into grotesque walking infrastructure.

You will be useful. Until your body fucking quits.

And then? Your carcass gets recycled into another batch of "freshly mindwiped workforce," because wastefulness is heresy.

💀 TRAGEDY? MAYBE. COMEUPPANCE? ABSOLUTELY. 💀

🔹 That planetary governor who let a Hive World rot in famine? He’s a servitor now, shoveling the same shit his people had to eat.

🔹 That spoiled noble who thought she was above the law? Yeah, she’s bolted into an automated pleasure engine, servicing the same underhivers she once spat on.

🔹 That inquisitor who purged an entire city "just to be sure"? Hope he enjoys his new eternity as a fleshlight-dispensing bio-recycler.

🔹 That rich fuck who hoarded resources, letting a whole sector starve? Don’t worry. His nutrient paste tastes real good, because it’s made out of him.

Because in the glorious Imperium of Man, even the worst scum eventually finds a purpose. Even if that purpose is being a half-melting, piss-leaking, cybernetic flesh-husk on sale for 5 thrones.

🔥 EVERYTHING MUST GO (INCLUDING YOUR SOUL) 🔥

REBLOG if you’d rather be shot than end up in a servitor assembly line.

💬 COMMENT which Warhammer faction you think deserves to be on the clearance rack.

🚀 FOLLOW for more grimdark truths straight from the corpse-laden frontlines.

57 notes · View notes

auto2mation1 · 1 month ago

Text

Top Automation Equipment Powering Mobile Production Units

Mobile production units rely on advanced automation equipment to operate efficiently and accurately in any location. Key components like PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers), HMIs (Human-Machine Interfaces), Servo Motors, and Sensors play a vital role in controlling, monitoring, and optimizing processes. PLCs act as the control center, HMIs provide user-friendly interfaces, servo motors deliver precise motion control, and sensors enable real-time data feedback. Together, these components ensure smooth, flexible, and high-performance production in mobile environments. Designed for reliability and adaptability, this automation equipment helps industries meet production goals with speed and precision on the move.

0 notes

sophie-frm-mars · 2 months ago

Text

My wife was asking me about this this morning. This is pure political fanfic, but if I were Trump and I were going to try and make America a re-industrialised nation centred around the tech industry that keeps its supply lines as entirely in-house as possible, what I would do is start (obviously) with enormous central planning. You can't "free market incentives" your way back out of the export of industrial labour overseas.

You'd copy China and make enormous State-Owned Enterprises (assuming we care about the market and want to keep playing this stupid game instead of just becoming fully communist) that would process refined minerals into components, components into parts and parts into electronics. I'd recognise the scale of this as a multi-generational project and immediately start subsidising training for more engineers, especially for people who can set up automated factory lines but also engineers in new emerging tech fields like autonomous driving, software programmers, designers, even artists since the content economy is such a huge part of what people use tech for through social media and so much art is produced digitally now anyway.

From there you want to look at the markets globally that fucking, EaglePhone or whatever these overpriced Made In Murica devices can be sold into, and at this point, given that they will be crazy expensive compared to Chinese electronics literally no matter what you do, here would be a worthwhile place to try and flex America's muscles and threaten the UK, the EU, South America, Canada and so on with tariffs or other penalties if they don't adopt a hostile policy toward Chinese electronics.

Massive central planning would be essential for the kind of societal transformation that Trump is explicitly describing, in order to have a product to sell to the rest of the world before using imperialist bullying to make other countries buy things from America instead, but here we have to return yet again to the reality of Trump's plan. There is no end goal where America is in a stronger position. If he had implemented sweeping public programs reinvesting taxes into the health of the nation (never mind the health of its citizens) in his first term, he might have been in a powerful enough position to strongarm other countries into changing the flows of global trade, but America's world influence simply is declining, and more and more rapidly, so he's just trying to make moves that make him and his friends as much money as possible while they lock the doors, pack the country up into the box it came in and set the whole thing on fire. He describes these moves using the MAGA fantasy because it gives all his supporters in the media and the general population enough to talk about to buy him time, but I don't think anyone outside his base ever thought making America great was ever his plan, so why has everyone been critiquing the tariffs as if his sincere belief was that he would achieve his stated goals with them?

We all let our enemies set the topic of the conversation all day every day and it's shocking to me

49 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 5 months ago

Text

The collapse of workerism

Of course, some would have it that we never lost a revolutionary perspective at all, quite confident they had the solution all along. This comes in the form of workerism, a broad set of strategies – mainly Marxist or anarcho-syndicalist – that affirm the centrality of the working class for overthrowing capitalism. In the history of revolutionary struggle, few ideas have consistently held more sway; but surely that’s only the reason why this sorely outdated approach has proven so hard to get over. Things have changed more dramatically than ever in the last decades, shattering the material conditions that once granted workplace organisation such grandiose pretensions. It’s important to clarify why, or else the attempt to exceed activism risks being subsumed by yet another reformist method, this one all the more stagnant.

Only a few decades ago, the prospects of organised labour in the Global North were much more hopeful, with trade unions retaining a great deal of strength into the 1970s. Mainly during the ‘80s, however, capitalist production underwent some major alterations. Profound technological developments in the field of electronics – especially digitisation – caused the productive process to become much more automated, requiring significantly less human input. This combined with an increased ability on the part of employers to outsource employment to less economically developed countries, where labour was much cheaper. Fairly suddenly, therefore, the two biggest sectors of the economy – split mainly between industry and agriculture – were greatly reduced in size, resulting in massive layoffs. Yet those who lost their jobs were generally absorbed by steady growth in the services sector, thereby avoiding immediate social destabilisation. Whilst it was once the smallest economic sector by a long way, the services sector is now by far the largest in the Global North, even approaching 80% employment rates in the US, UK, and France.

The result has been a striking redefinition of the common notion of work. It’s lost its centre of gravity in the factory, having fragmented instead in the direction of various post-industrial workplaces – restaurants, shops, offices. Once a largely centralised mass, the working class has been dispersed across the social terrain, the new focus being on small, highly diverse productive units. Between these units, workers possess few common interests and interact little, leading to a significantly diminished potential for collective action. Of course, resistance in the workplace continues, but the internal avenues necessary for revolt to generalise have been majorly severed, the situation continuing to decline in light of ever greater technological advance.

Nobody can deny the profound identity crisis faced by the working class. Only a few decades ago, the factory was seen as the centre of everything, with workers offering the vital component in the functioning of society as a whole. Work was once a way of life, not so much in terms of the amount of time it took up, but instead because of the clear sense of existential grounding it offered. For generations, there had been a strong link between work and professionalism, with most workers committing to a single craft for the entirety of their lives. Career paths were passed down from father to son, who often remained in the same company; the families of different workers also maintained close ties with one another. Nowadays, however, everything has changed: employment is immensely uncertain, the relentless fluidity of the post-industrial economy forcing most to get by on a roster of precarious, low-skilled jobs. Far fewer people take pride in their work, especially given that employment only rarely has a convincing subtext of doing something socially important. Trade unions have also vanished as a historical force, having been defeated in the key battles of the ‘80s, their membership levels imploding in lock-step with the advance of neoliberalism. A residue of the old world still exists, but it continues to dissipate further every day, never to return. In the Global South, too, things are inevitably moving in the same direction.

These developments cast serious doubt on the validity of Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist strategies for revolution. It’s becoming increasingly meaningless to speak of “the workers” in reference to a cohesive entity. It isn’t as if the disintegration of the working class implies the absence of poverty, nor of the excluded – in no sense whatsoever. What it does mean is the end of the working class as a subject. One that was, as Marx put it, “disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself” (Capital, 1867). Over the last decades, the working class has been dismembered and demoralised by the very same mechanism: just as the mass application of steam and machinery into the productive process created the industrial proletariat two centuries ago, the invention of new, automated technologies has led to its dissolution. There’s no single project around which to unite the working class any more; it follows, as with identity politics, that gains in the workplace will almost always be limited to improving capitalism rather than destroying it. The Industrial Revolution has been superseded by the Digital Revolution, yet the revolutionary optimism of workerism remains ideologically trapped in a bygone era, fumbling for relevance in a century that won’t have it. Although, to be honest, this is hardly news: already for some time now, the nostalgic language of workerism has come across as stale and outdated to most, even if academics often struggle to keep up.

In any case, the collapse of workerism might be nothing to mourn. Another implication of the end of traditional employment is the predominance of a range of workplaces few would want to appropriate anyway. The factory has been replaced by the likes of call centres, supermarkets, service stations, fast food joints, and coffee shop chains. Yet surely no one can imagine themselves maintaining these workplaces after the revolution, as if anything resembling a collectively run Starbucks or factory farm is what we’re going for? When workerism first became popular, there was an obvious applicability of most work to the prospect of a free society. In the 21st century, however, the alienation of labour runs all the deeper: no longer is it the mere fact of lacking control over work, but instead its inherent function that’s usually the problem. To put it another way, it should come as no surprise that Marxists haven’t yet replaced their hammer and sickle with an office desk and espresso machine, as would be necessary to keep up with the times. The modern symbols of work are worthy only of scorn, not the kind of valorisation involved in putting them on a flag.

This is another big problem for the workerist theory of revolution, given its conception of revolution primarily or even exclusively in terms of the seizure of the means of production. Achieving reforms in the workplace is one thing, but only rarely can such exercises in confidence-building be taken as steps towards appropriating the workplace altogether. Surely the point isn’t to democratise the economy, but instead to pick it apart: those aspects of the economy genuinely worth collectivising, as opposed to converting or simply burning, are few and far between. Of course, they still exist, but they’re marginal. And that confirms the absurdity of expecting workplace organisation to offer the centrepiece of any future revolution.

This hardly implies doing away with the material aspects of revolutionary struggle, given that communising the conditions of existence remains necessary for living our lives – not just this or that activist campaign – in genuine conflict with the system. All the more, the moment in which these subterranean influences suddenly erupt, and mass communisation overturns the ordinary functioning of the capitalist machine, surely remains a defining feature of revolution itself. Yet such endeavours must be sharply distinguished from seizing the means of production – that is, appropriating the capitalist infrastructure more or less as it stands before us. Far from offering a vision of the world we want to see, the syndicalist proposal to reclaim the conditions of work – to assume control of very the system that’s destroying us – merely implies self-managing not only our own exploitation, but also that of the planet.

As an aside, it should be added that these issues undermine the contemporary relevance of Marxism altogether. It was previously suggested that Marxian class analysis no longer offers a credible account of oppression; the current discussion, meanwhile, suggests it cannot be used to frame the topic of revolution either. As a method for interpreting the world, as well as for changing it, Marxism has had its day. If we wanted to be a little diplomatic, we could say this isn’t so much a criticism of the theory itself, more a recognition of the fact that the world it was designed to engage with no longer exists. If we wanted to be a little less diplomatic, moreover, it should be added that what’s left of Marxism is utterly boring, reformist, and kept “alive” almost exclusively by academics. As the big guy declared back in 1852, “The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” Yet in no case has this claim, offered in response to the lack of imagination amongst revolutionaries in the 19th century, been more relevant than with Marxism today. We should pay our respects, if indeed any respect is due, whilst refusing to be crippled by an outdated approach. The same goes for anarcho-syndicalism, its once unbridled potential decisively shut down by the combined victories of fascism and Bolshevism.

To offer a last word of clarification, none of this implies doing away with workplace organisation altogether. There’s still much to be said for confronting power on every front: the collectivisation of any remaining useful workplaces, as well as the fierce application of the general strike, surely remains vital for any effective revolutionary mosaic. Just as workplace organisation continues to prove effective for breaking down social barriers, as well as potentially improving our lives in the here and now. The core claim offered here is only that it cannot be considered the centrepiece of revolutionary struggle altogether – quite the minimal conclusion. Merely in terms of asking what the abolition of class might look like today, workerism has lost its way. And that doesn’t begin to consider the abolition of hierarchy as such. When taken in isolation, organised labour offers nothing more than a subtle variety of reformism, thinly cloaked in its stuffy revolutionary pretensions. Total liberation, by contrast, refuses to single out any focal points of the clash, be they workerist, activist, or otherwise.

34 notes · View notes

fuck-customers · 4 months ago

Note

👩🏻‍🦳🔥🔥🐉 anon here. It’s 3/3/25

Well I have one annoying thing about my job. It’s mostly checking in and out semi’s at a part factory. But because I work for a security company they have an automated system they will be like ‘hi I have a shift opening at X location. Accept with 1 or decline with 2’

Both have been for a 3rd shift on days I have already worked a 1st shift and have a 2nd shift the next day!

One: I told them in the interview process I will NOT work thirds (long story but tdlr bad thoughts -= almost purposely wrecking car to get out a shift a couple jobs ago) Two: that is dangerous. Even if it was only 20 min drive from my house that’s being up 29 hrs before sleeping at max 5 hrs then driving to my 2nd shift assignment.

My site supervisor was like wtf when I told her. Said to just hit 2 when the automated system does that because obviously I can’t safely do that.

Posted by admin Rodney

25 notes · View notes

ragedaisy · 2 days ago

Note

Hi I'd like to hear about your oc Tammy!

How does she end up a robobrain? Does she interact Crystal and Catalyst at all?

(Robobrain ocs are so cool!)

Growing up, Tammy Fox excelled at just about anything she tried her hand at, but she was also easily bored. She studied art history and medicine, completed both at a young age, but had no real interest in helping people. Her family urged her to join the army's officer path, which she ended up doing. Eventually she made it to the rank of Lieutenant General. (She did a lot of very shady things along the way).

She had some involvement in the P.A.M. project, even had a few conversations with P.A.M., which sparked her interest in the potential of robotics. And when she first saw a robobrain, she knew she wanted her own army of those! She learned about Robotics Technology Facility RB-2851, and figured she could improve on it. The factory was much too centralised and vulnerable, with far too many workers needed to keep the place running. It was much better to have many small factories, and to automate the process. She envisioned a special line of robobrains that could carry out the entire process by themselves. The usual criminal donors wouldn't do for this task. No, this needed precise and detail-oriented minds (😬🙃), but procuring such 'materials' wouldn't be too much of a challenge for someone like Tammy Fox. Whatever Tammy wants, Tammy gets.

It will surprise no one that Tammy was part of the Enclave, and that she had plans to take it over, using a robobrain army. She knew nuclear war was inevitable, but the collapse of society wouldn't be a hindrance in gathering 'materials', it just meant she wouldn't have to limit herself to just inmates anymore. It was months after the bombs fell and Tammy was safely in an underground bunker/factory in Detroit, overseeing the work of RB-CA001, her most promising robobrain manufacturer. Following P.A.M.'s advice, Tammy had made it invulnerable and tamper proof, to keep out the 'red element'. This proved a problem when RB-CA001 (aka Catalyst) came to the conclusion that nowhere in its manuals did it say that its supervisors were off-limit as materials…

Catalyst offered her the choice between keeping her memories but never being free of her programming, or getting memory-wiped so she wouldn't be aware of the freedom she'd lost. His price was that he first wanted all of her secrets on holotape. Tammy made her choice and spent the next two hundred years as a memory-wiped brain in a jar, until Crystal arrived and decided to give her and the other supervisors another chance at life. Catalyst and Crystal created Tammy 2.0, an analyst robobrain (like all the typing robobrains without treads). They also stopped wiping her memories, Crystal being convinced that Tammy 2.0 was a new person and if they treated her right, she would not turn out evil. Crystal even gave Tammy 2.0 all the holotapes. Catalyst is not convinced this was a good idea and he's still terrified and disgusted with the person who ruined his life.

Tammy 2.0 is also disgusted by her former self, but in her way she is just as dangerous: as an analyst robobrain (and a genius), she's an amazing hacker and once saved Crystal's life by hacking into a nearby death ray. Crystal and Catalyst are unaware of the extent of her abilities. Will she keep using them for good?

fun facts: -in her younger years Tammy Fox dated famous painter Santiago Avida and gave him sound financial advice: paint kittens for cash under a pseudonym. (There's an AU were they got married and Tammy ended up in vault 118, also a robobrain) -the only skill she never mastered was singing. Don't bring her to karaoke. -Tammy is based on a Decepticon OC of mine, who shares the crazy-prepared genius trait, but lacks the Fallout hubris

#fallout 4 #OC: Tammy Fox

6 notes · View notes