Nobody creates a boring fake news story. Lots of real news is uninteresting. There's your difference. When it is believed, fake news travels faster because it is more interesting.
Not only is real news boring but their selection pool is horribly biased. Nobody takes the time to write a fact checking article for a boring true story. You only fact check something that is questionable in nature to begin with.
Or maybe there's an issue with their definition of "fake". The quoted selection of fact checkers alone suggest a heavy bias.
Or a fact checker at all regardless of bias. You don't typically need a fact checker for stuff that is not questionable to begin with. I would expect places like snopes, factcheck.org, mythbusters, etc... are heavily biased toward questionable and false claims. They would be boring sites if 90% of their articles were about "yes, that's true". It's the same reason the published research articles are heavily biased toward showing success or upsets. Research articles showing failures or "behaved as expected" or "nothing happened" are generally not very interesting.
The point of something like this is that if you need to heat your house anyways then the electricity is basically free and you can reach break even much sooner.
Most TVs hang on the walls these days and if you look at the picture, it's more of blending in with the background than completely invisible. I don't really see much difference from this and pretending to be a painting or fireplace.
It's only invisible when it's "off". Of course in this case "off" is somewhat dubious because it is presumably still using the full amount of electricity to achieve this "off" effect.
They have a business model to cannibalize the regulated Taxi industry and pay employees as mere contractors. They have an App. Am I missing some magic pixie dust here?
This is pretty much capitalism as normal. Where I live a 6 bed "clinic" recently opened up. It only does profitable low risk surgeries for insured patients. Basically, it is skimming the easy cases off the regular hospital. UPS/FedEx do the same thing with the postal service. Services that are contracted to provide universal coverage like taxis, hospitals, etc.. usually charge more for certain items to make up for losing money on other items and will always be at a huge disadvantage to someone who doesn't have to play by the rules and can only take jobs that are profitable.
Ambulances cost more to operate than a taxi or uber. I would be curious how countries that don't charge for ambulances prevent people from using them for non-emergencies. In the USA, if you call an ambulance, it will come pick you no matter what even if you don't have the ability to pay. Same with our Emergency Rooms. This has led to situations where people who don't have the ability to pay use ambulances and emergency rooms for non-emergencies because they know they won't see the bill and a free ambulance is cheaper (for them) than a $10 taxi ride but ends up costing the tax payers several orders of magnitude more than that.
The one thing that a lot of people don't realize about the USA system is that one reason the costs are higher than other countries is we don't ration care. If you're 85 and need open heart surgery and dialysis then you can get it done. All payments are done after the fact too so if you have money you will likely be penniless afterwards but if you're already penniless then you basically get your medical care for free. It's really a screwed up system because the USA basically already has universal health care for everyone once you are penniless. So those "freeloaders" everyone are worried about are already getting free health care and if you need a major surgery you basically have to either be rich, have good health insurance (and be healthy enough to keep your job), or file bankruptcy to get it.
Pretty much every manager I have worked for tended to look at the work and skills of others through the lens of his or her own world. They understand leadership, communication and collaboration because for them it's a core skill set. Focus, reflection, a deep understanding of specific areas of expertise? Not so much. I suppose that's why they would value the first set of skills more. It's also what they focused on in performance reviews, and what they would most suggest to others (developers or other staff) as areas of improvement. They found technical skills harder to deal with, unless broken down into certificates. It's probably also why they gave us open plan offices
This makes perfect sense. Someone who doesn't know how to code has no way of judging the quality or even speed of the code. They can kind of judge the quality of the end product but if it's a large product then even each coder's individual doesn't really show much in the final product. So what does a non-coder judge on? Lines of code, responsiveness of programmer, how helpful the programmer is to other employees, how quickly the programmer fixes the problem, etc... They are judging on the only things they understand. Good managers realize this and ask other programmers to help in the hiring and the rating of employees but others basically assume that if you have a degree or certificate then your just as good as any other programmer and the only difference is your soft skills.
are you are aware that level 5 autonomy vehicles are already being demonstrated at technology shows?
No they aren't. It's pretty much impossible to demonstrate level 5 autonomy vehicles at a trade show almost by its very definition. Level 5 autonomy means that the car reacts the same as a human in diverse conditions. A controlled environment like a trade show is pretty much the exact opposite of diverse conditions.
The intelligence in even the most advanced self driving car is non-existent. It's not actually thinking or identifying unknown objects like a human. It is only as smart as its training set which means that anything out of the ordinary and it is going to fail. A stopped firetruck confuses it. A cardboard box or plastic bag can confuse it. It also follows rules to a fault. As a human driver, I routinely have to take evasive action and break the rules in order to prevent an accident with another driver who is breaking the rules. The most common of these is probably where someone in a double turning lane decides to cross into my lane. I could stay in my lane and it would be their fault but I prefer to avoid the accident altogether. Those type of split second decisions where a human driver has to decide whether it is safer to hit a cardboard box or slam on the brakes are going to be really hard for a computer with no underlying comprehension or context of what it is doing.
1. To help solve problems and keep your building/neighborhood from turning into a dysfunctional shithole. 2. To attend meetings and socialize, and feel at least somewhat important/relevant to your community. 3. To revel in the awesome power of forcing your neighbors to do follow your command, and hassling them if they don't obey.
I would add a 4th type. These aren't the power hungry crazy leaders like #3 but rather followers to a fault. These are the people who feel like the HOA rules are to be followed no matter what because that is what is written. These people would fit right in with the people at Auschwitz who were "just following orders". These people can be some of the worst to deal but they have a secret weakness. They thrive on following the rules so showing them that other rules (like FCC rules) trumps their homeowner association rules or by getting the votes to change the rules, they are happy to comply. They don't actually care what the rules are just that everyone follows them.
If you are calling from the local area, the cops should be aware of that. If you are intentionally trying to be anonymous then cops should also be aware of that. Not all anonymous tips are bad but they should be approached with caution. Even something as simple as letting the SWAT team know that the tip might not be good should help them case the place properly before busting down a door.
Yes, AI has the potential. Just like humanity has the potential to colonize Mars. The difference is that we know how to do #2. Expert systems and neural nets have been around for decades and neither one gets you to human level intellect or creativity just like climbing a tree or a mountain can't you to the moon. Even self driving cars are somewhat of a pipe dream. The current self driving cars can't recognize a firetruck in the middle of the road.
In the not so distant past, 80+% of a person's money went to buying food. Today that is closer to 10%. I predict that consumer goods will continue to drop and may reach that at some point. If people only need 20% of their budget for food and stuff then the other 80% is going to be spent on entertainment, luxuries, and services. You can already see that today where larger and larger percentages of people's income go to non-necessities like the latest iphone, theatre tickets, football tickets, cable tv, etc...
Or spending $27 million a year to watch someone throw a ball down a football field... Or spend $15 million a year to watch a hockey player slap a puck... Or millions to send a rocket to space, or to the bottom of the oceans. Or hundreds of thousands to climb a remote mountain peak.....
I mean if people would only spend their money the way I think they should spend it, the world would just be so much better...
The problem is that people aren't really voting for any of this. Each person decides that it's worth their Sunday afternoon to watch football, or that paying Amazon for that toothbrush is a better deal than paying Walmart or that they really want that new phone. Each person spends a small amount of their time or money and this combines to be a significant amount of money at the top. If given the choice, very few people would actually choose to pay a football player $27million but their collective actions means that the team that does nets more money than the team that doesn't.
Other than the sci-fi appeal, I don't see that flying cars being more practical than regular cars. First of which is that they are less fuel efficient. You can go anywhere in a flying car which is a problem as you'll see them crashing into homes and lawns, etc.
Flying cars would allow stacking of lanes so that we could have 50 lane highways without needing to build the highways. It would allow several orders of magnitude more traffic and eliminate traffic jams and the need to build highways. That being said, I don't see flying cars ever happening until we have the ability to defy gravity and position a stopped vehicle vertically in space. Our current technologies of jets, planes, helicopters, and hovercrafts wouldn't work well with stacked vertical lanes like seen in Fifth Element and similar. Some sort of dirigible might work but I don't see that happening without being able to manipulate gravity or some major improvement to dirigibles or some other major technological breakthru.
Likewise, diversity is not supposed to be about competitive advantage, but about the betterment of society and the fair treatment of all people.
But it is a competition. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc... already employ a higher percentage of minorities than are graduating from college. The only way for a company to hire more minorities is to steal them from a different company.
The only other alternative is to start much younger possibly even grade school and change the funnels there but that doesn't directly benefit individual corporations.
This blood test does not help diagnose concussion. It just helps determine who needs a CT/MRI and who does not. Best case, it saves some kids from getting unnecessary imaging studies.
If it was widely available, I could see this being used by worried soccer moms. My kid fell down, let's do a quick test and see if we need to go to the doctor.
Considering that they have to pay drivers significantly less than minimum wage in order to keep the prices down far enough to undercut the taxi companies and fund their R&D, I think it's questionable if they could make a profit even if they wanted to.
In fact, if the authorities weren't so incompetent, they'd be sued for antitrust and minimum wage violations to the point where they'd probably go under from that alone.
My point is that most of that R&D money is being spent on replacing their current business model with self driving cars. Drivers working for less than minimum wage and not being able to cover their own wear and tear actually makes them even more profitable. Their R&D budget is almost entirely devoted to trying to get rid of the driver. They already have a version of Uber that works with human drivers; they don't need to spend money researching that. Their current business model of fleecing drivers and pocketing the difference would likely be very profitable if they didn't have the expensive all consuming side project of getting rid of the driver altogether.
It's not just volume. Uber is really two parts. The ride sharing side and the company researching self driving cars side. It would be interesting to see that broken down. My guess is that the ride sharing side would likely be profitable if the R&D side wasn't eating up their profit plus some. It's kindof a strange combination. A pure ride sharing company without the self driving car R&D could likely operate with fairly high profit margins but when/if self driving cars get here they will either need to quickly find someone willing to sell them self driving cars or they will not be able to compete with driverless cars. Driverless cars are an existential risk to lots of current companies which is why so many companies are either researching it or investing in companies that are.
Most all those users have all been taken away already, by Apple.
Sure, theirs is also a walled garden, but at least the experience is user-friendly and not user-hostile.
Microsoft is not aiming for the Apple market. Apple charges a premium and it's customers are the people who buy their products. Apple still does some lock in by making Apple products work best with other Apple products but the purchasers of its hardware are still its primary customer. Microsoft is aiming for a completely different market. Microsoft is trying to change to the android/facebook/google business model where it gives its product away for free. The end user is no longer their customer. Their customer is the advertisers, the developers, and the purchasers of things like Office 360. They have decided that there is not enough profit margin on the OS to bother charging for it and it's better to get the money from businesses than cash strapped consumers.
Can anybody with experience in programming unicode handling explain how a bug like this happens? It seems weird that a specific character could trigger a crash like this - what is being handled at such an individual level?
The only way this would make sense to me is either they didn't code for an undefined character or if instead of storing bitmaps for the font they are storing vector graphics for each character and there was something wrong with their renderer code.
Unicode has a ton of unallocated character space and frequently adds new ones so testing all possible characters isn't really practical or desirable. What should be tested on the other hand is support for unknown characters. You have defined characters and an associated bitmap and then undefined characters that need to have a default. That default can be either a static image or another way I've seen it is the unicode number crammed inside a small box. Either way, testing for a single valid character and a single invalid character should be sufficient if all the characters are treated the same way as they should be.
Right on the heels of the article and discussion of plaintext vs. rich text vs. whateverthefuck Google is about to unleash on email comes this screwup. I say it's high time that any and all text-ish messaging systems require just plain ASCII characters and if people insist on using alternative alphabets they dang well should be required to paste them in as images, not Unicode 84E0DDC2834A or however big the field is these days.
I agree that the unicode emojis are ridiculous but plain ascii barely works for english let along other languages. You could map other languages onto english characters but even that presents a problem because many languages have more than 26 letters in their alphabet. A two byte character code either DBCS or unicode makes sense but any system that implements it should have a default for all 65k characters including the ones that it doesn't know how to display. The most common way I'm used to seeing it is a little box icon with the 4 digits crammed inside it but because many of those 65k characters are still undefined it should definitely not crash on an undefined character.
It depends on the city, but most people value less time spent commuting over all else.
Especially if the commute is over 30 minutes, I would think most people would be willing to have a slightly longer commute if they can read a book or do something else while commuting.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody creates a boring fake news story. Lots of real news is uninteresting. There's your difference. When it is believed, fake news travels faster because it is more interesting.
Not only is real news boring but their selection pool is horribly biased. Nobody takes the time to write a fact checking article for a boring true story. You only fact check something that is questionable in nature to begin with.
Or maybe there's an issue with their definition of "fake". The quoted selection of fact checkers alone suggest a heavy bias.
Or a fact checker at all regardless of bias. You don't typically need a fact checker for stuff that is not questionable to begin with. I would expect places like snopes, factcheck.org, mythbusters, etc... are heavily biased toward questionable and false claims. They would be boring sites if 90% of their articles were about "yes, that's true". It's the same reason the published research articles are heavily biased toward showing success or upsets. Research articles showing failures or "behaved as expected" or "nothing happened" are generally not very interesting.
The point of something like this is that if you need to heat your house anyways then the electricity is basically free and you can reach break even much sooner.
Most TVs hang on the walls these days and if you look at the picture, it's more of blending in with the background than completely invisible. I don't really see much difference from this and pretending to be a painting or fireplace.
It's only invisible when it's "off". Of course in this case "off" is somewhat dubious because it is presumably still using the full amount of electricity to achieve this "off" effect.
They have a business model to cannibalize the regulated Taxi industry and pay employees as mere contractors. They have an App. Am I missing some magic pixie dust here?
This is pretty much capitalism as normal. Where I live a 6 bed "clinic" recently opened up. It only does profitable low risk surgeries for insured patients. Basically, it is skimming the easy cases off the regular hospital. UPS/FedEx do the same thing with the postal service. Services that are contracted to provide universal coverage like taxis, hospitals, etc.. usually charge more for certain items to make up for losing money on other items and will always be at a huge disadvantage to someone who doesn't have to play by the rules and can only take jobs that are profitable.
What a country.
Ambulances cost more to operate than a taxi or uber. I would be curious how countries that don't charge for ambulances prevent people from using them for non-emergencies. In the USA, if you call an ambulance, it will come pick you no matter what even if you don't have the ability to pay. Same with our Emergency Rooms. This has led to situations where people who don't have the ability to pay use ambulances and emergency rooms for non-emergencies because they know they won't see the bill and a free ambulance is cheaper (for them) than a $10 taxi ride but ends up costing the tax payers several orders of magnitude more than that.
The one thing that a lot of people don't realize about the USA system is that one reason the costs are higher than other countries is we don't ration care. If you're 85 and need open heart surgery and dialysis then you can get it done. All payments are done after the fact too so if you have money you will likely be penniless afterwards but if you're already penniless then you basically get your medical care for free. It's really a screwed up system because the USA basically already has universal health care for everyone once you are penniless. So those "freeloaders" everyone are worried about are already getting free health care and if you need a major surgery you basically have to either be rich, have good health insurance (and be healthy enough to keep your job), or file bankruptcy to get it.
Pretty much every manager I have worked for tended to look at the work and skills of others through the lens of his or her own world. They understand leadership, communication and collaboration because for them it's a core skill set. Focus, reflection, a deep understanding of specific areas of expertise? Not so much. I suppose that's why they would value the first set of skills more. It's also what they focused on in performance reviews, and what they would most suggest to others (developers or other staff) as areas of improvement. They found technical skills harder to deal with, unless broken down into certificates.
It's probably also why they gave us open plan offices
This makes perfect sense. Someone who doesn't know how to code has no way of judging the quality or even speed of the code. They can kind of judge the quality of the end product but if it's a large product then even each coder's individual doesn't really show much in the final product. So what does a non-coder judge on? Lines of code, responsiveness of programmer, how helpful the programmer is to other employees, how quickly the programmer fixes the problem, etc... They are judging on the only things they understand. Good managers realize this and ask other programmers to help in the hiring and the rating of employees but others basically assume that if you have a degree or certificate then your just as good as any other programmer and the only difference is your soft skills.
are you are aware that level 5 autonomy vehicles are already being demonstrated at technology shows?
No they aren't. It's pretty much impossible to demonstrate level 5 autonomy vehicles at a trade show almost by its very definition. Level 5 autonomy means that the car reacts the same as a human in diverse conditions. A controlled environment like a trade show is pretty much the exact opposite of diverse conditions.
The intelligence in even the most advanced self driving car is non-existent. It's not actually thinking or identifying unknown objects like a human. It is only as smart as its training set which means that anything out of the ordinary and it is going to fail. A stopped firetruck confuses it. A cardboard box or plastic bag can confuse it. It also follows rules to a fault. As a human driver, I routinely have to take evasive action and break the rules in order to prevent an accident with another driver who is breaking the rules. The most common of these is probably where someone in a double turning lane decides to cross into my lane. I could stay in my lane and it would be their fault but I prefer to avoid the accident altogether. Those type of split second decisions where a human driver has to decide whether it is safer to hit a cardboard box or slam on the brakes are going to be really hard for a computer with no underlying comprehension or context of what it is doing.
1. To help solve problems and keep your building/neighborhood from turning into a dysfunctional shithole.
2. To attend meetings and socialize, and feel at least somewhat important/relevant to your community.
3. To revel in the awesome power of forcing your neighbors to do follow your command, and hassling them if they don't obey.
I would add a 4th type. These aren't the power hungry crazy leaders like #3 but rather followers to a fault. These are the people who feel like the HOA rules are to be followed no matter what because that is what is written. These people would fit right in with the people at Auschwitz who were "just following orders". These people can be some of the worst to deal but they have a secret weakness. They thrive on following the rules so showing them that other rules (like FCC rules) trumps their homeowner association rules or by getting the votes to change the rules, they are happy to comply. They don't actually care what the rules are just that everyone follows them.
If you are calling from the local area, the cops should be aware of that. If you are intentionally trying to be anonymous then cops should also be aware of that. Not all anonymous tips are bad but they should be approached with caution. Even something as simple as letting the SWAT team know that the tip might not be good should help them case the place properly before busting down a door.
Reminds me of the TV show Revolution:
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt207...
AI has the potential
Yes, AI has the potential. Just like humanity has the potential to colonize Mars. The difference is that we know how to do #2. Expert systems and neural nets have been around for decades and neither one gets you to human level intellect or creativity just like climbing a tree or a mountain can't you to the moon. Even self driving cars are somewhat of a pipe dream. The current self driving cars can't recognize a firetruck in the middle of the road.
In the not so distant past, 80+% of a person's money went to buying food. Today that is closer to 10%. I predict that consumer goods will continue to drop and may reach that at some point. If people only need 20% of their budget for food and stuff then the other 80% is going to be spent on entertainment, luxuries, and services. You can already see that today where larger and larger percentages of people's income go to non-necessities like the latest iphone, theatre tickets, football tickets, cable tv, etc...
Hell, just imagine what a banana peel would do...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I didn't think this was physically possible. Mythbusters even listed this as BUSTED: http://www.discovery.com/tv-sh...
Or spending $27 million a year to watch someone throw a ball down a football field... ..
Or spend $15 million a year to watch a hockey player slap a puck...
Or millions to send a rocket to space, or to the bottom of the oceans.
Or hundreds of thousands to climb a remote mountain peak...
I mean if people would only spend their money the way I think they should spend it, the world would just be so much better...
The problem is that people aren't really voting for any of this. Each person decides that it's worth their Sunday afternoon to watch football, or that paying Amazon for that toothbrush is a better deal than paying Walmart or that they really want that new phone. Each person spends a small amount of their time or money and this combines to be a significant amount of money at the top. If given the choice, very few people would actually choose to pay a football player $27million but their collective actions means that the team that does nets more money than the team that doesn't.
Other than the sci-fi appeal, I don't see that flying cars being more practical than regular cars. First of which is that they are less fuel efficient. You can go anywhere in a flying car which is a problem as you'll see them crashing into homes and lawns, etc.
Flying cars would allow stacking of lanes so that we could have 50 lane highways without needing to build the highways. It would allow several orders of magnitude more traffic and eliminate traffic jams and the need to build highways. That being said, I don't see flying cars ever happening until we have the ability to defy gravity and position a stopped vehicle vertically in space. Our current technologies of jets, planes, helicopters, and hovercrafts wouldn't work well with stacked vertical lanes like seen in Fifth Element and similar. Some sort of dirigible might work but I don't see that happening without being able to manipulate gravity or some major improvement to dirigibles or some other major technological breakthru.
Likewise, diversity is not supposed to be about competitive advantage, but about the betterment of society and the fair treatment of all people.
But it is a competition. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc... already employ a higher percentage of minorities than are graduating from college. The only way for a company to hire more minorities is to steal them from a different company.
The only other alternative is to start much younger possibly even grade school and change the funnels there but that doesn't directly benefit individual corporations.
This blood test does not help diagnose concussion. It just helps determine who needs a CT/MRI and who does not. Best case, it saves some kids from getting unnecessary imaging studies.
If it was widely available, I could see this being used by worried soccer moms. My kid fell down, let's do a quick test and see if we need to go to the doctor.
Considering that they have to pay drivers significantly less than minimum wage in order to keep the prices down far enough to undercut the taxi companies and fund their R&D, I think it's questionable if they could make a profit even if they wanted to.
In fact, if the authorities weren't so incompetent, they'd be sued for antitrust and minimum wage violations to the point where they'd probably go under from that alone.
My point is that most of that R&D money is being spent on replacing their current business model with self driving cars. Drivers working for less than minimum wage and not being able to cover their own wear and tear actually makes them even more profitable. Their R&D budget is almost entirely devoted to trying to get rid of the driver. They already have a version of Uber that works with human drivers; they don't need to spend money researching that. Their current business model of fleecing drivers and pocketing the difference would likely be very profitable if they didn't have the expensive all consuming side project of getting rid of the driver altogether.
In other words, they'll make it up on volume.
It's not just volume. Uber is really two parts. The ride sharing side and the company researching self driving cars side. It would be interesting to see that broken down. My guess is that the ride sharing side would likely be profitable if the R&D side wasn't eating up their profit plus some.
It's kindof a strange combination. A pure ride sharing company without the self driving car R&D could likely operate with fairly high profit margins but when/if self driving cars get here they will either need to quickly find someone willing to sell them self driving cars or they will not be able to compete with driverless cars.
Driverless cars are an existential risk to lots of current companies which is why so many companies are either researching it or investing in companies that are.
Most all those users have all been taken away already, by Apple.
Sure, theirs is also a walled garden, but at least the experience is user-friendly and not user-hostile.
Microsoft is not aiming for the Apple market. Apple charges a premium and it's customers are the people who buy their products. Apple still does some lock in by making Apple products work best with other Apple products but the purchasers of its hardware are still its primary customer. Microsoft is aiming for a completely different market. Microsoft is trying to change to the android/facebook/google business model where it gives its product away for free. The end user is no longer their customer. Their customer is the advertisers, the developers, and the purchasers of things like Office 360. They have decided that there is not enough profit margin on the OS to bother charging for it and it's better to get the money from businesses than cash strapped consumers.
Can anybody with experience in programming unicode handling explain how a bug like this happens? It seems weird that a specific character could trigger a crash like this - what is being handled at such an individual level?
The only way this would make sense to me is either they didn't code for an undefined character or if instead of storing bitmaps for the font they are storing vector graphics for each character and there was something wrong with their renderer code.
Unicode has a ton of unallocated character space and frequently adds new ones so testing all possible characters isn't really practical or desirable. What should be tested on the other hand is support for unknown characters. You have defined characters and an associated bitmap and then undefined characters that need to have a default. That default can be either a static image or another way I've seen it is the unicode number crammed inside a small box. Either way, testing for a single valid character and a single invalid character should be sufficient if all the characters are treated the same way as they should be.
Right on the heels of the article and discussion of plaintext vs. rich text vs. whateverthefuck Google is about to unleash on email comes this screwup.
I say it's high time that any and all text-ish messaging systems require just plain ASCII characters and if people insist on using alternative alphabets they dang well should be required to paste them in as images, not Unicode 84E0DDC2834A or however big the field is these days.
I agree that the unicode emojis are ridiculous but plain ascii barely works for english let along other languages. You could map other languages onto english characters but even that presents a problem because many languages have more than 26 letters in their alphabet. A two byte character code either DBCS or unicode makes sense but any system that implements it should have a default for all 65k characters including the ones that it doesn't know how to display. The most common way I'm used to seeing it is a little box icon with the 4 digits crammed inside it but because many of those 65k characters are still undefined it should definitely not crash on an undefined character.
It depends on the city, but most people value less time spent commuting over all else.
Especially if the commute is over 30 minutes, I would think most people would be willing to have a slightly longer commute if they can read a book or do something else while commuting.