>It's also a way for someone to get a way nicer car than they could otherwise afford, or get financing for.
Can they still afford it after they purchase ridesharing insurance on top of their normal insurance policy?
And if 30% of drivers are losing money, even if they are really bad on personal finances on average, wouldn't, say, half of them eventually realize it and the first time we'd be hearing about it would not be from a study?
Yes? Only 4% of Uber drivers stick with it for over 1 year, and the number one reason for leaving is the pay. So yes, it seems like well over half eventually realize it and leave.
Don't get me wrong, I've talked to a few drivers and I'd say most are not that happy with Uber, but the complaint is that they have to work more to make a proper income after their expenses - which means at least they are not on the red as in that case working more would not help...
Well, the median driver is in the black, just not very far in the black. And if, as another study said the drivers that do earn reasonable wages tend to be the ones that have been on the platform long enough to know where and when to be driving, it could be the vast majority of Uber drivers either don't stick around long enough to learn the ropes, aren't available at the right times, or aren't in a profitable area.
So if turnover is this high... what happens to Uber when the majority of the people likely to drive for Uber have already driven for Uber - and given up?
In the US typically it is chip only, no PIN. Plus the card could have just been swiped. As pointed out in the article, 41% of storefronts don't have chipreaders.
HI! please make a Firefox plug-in that blocks stock photos. Preferably it would replace them with the top result in a google search for "stick figure" and the image title, but white space will do in a pinch.
Actually I've been hoping for a "stock photo blocker" extension for a long time now. If a news source took a picture that is relevant to the story, that's great. But a stock image really doesn't add anything to a news story.
Basically just search the image tags and title for all the usual suspects.
If it is a stock image replace it with whitespace or the top result from the google image search for "stick figure" and the image caption or title.
For example: "stick figure" and "trump". See? Much better than whatever the original image was.
Bitcoin does have an intrinsic value which is its use as the unit of account for the blockchain public ledger. To use the blockchain for trust applications like smart contracts and and asset tracking all the world's business will need to pay for it in Bitcoin.
Hence buying Bitcoin is like buying real estate, where the real estate is future recording space on the blockchain.
Wouldn't trust applications just switch to a less expensive blockchain?
Best practice would be for all potential insider traders (including Congress) to be forced to announce their trades (and place the orders) at least one full business day before the orders execute. No, they can't cancel or change their order if the market shifts in the meantime.
One thing I see when I look at faked research and retractions of papers is that it often is in biology and medical research or things like sociology. In the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, meteorology and dare I say it climatology it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often. Maybe it's harder to fake the data in those sciences or maybe there's just more variability open to interpretation in the results from biology/medicine.
I think a big part is that when it's medicine the media is more likely to pick up the story. Jan Hendrik Schön was one of the biggest scandals - but it didn't really make a big splash in the news because solid state physics just isn't something most people get worked up about. Ditto for Adrian Maxim. So unless you are a regular at Retraction Watch, you hear about Wakefield and Hwang Woo-Suk (cloning), but not about physics or engineering fraud.
I also wonder if the problem is really that much worse than it was in the past. Granted, academia is more competitive than it used to be. But really, the big change is that it is so much easier to find fraud than it was in the past. You're right - it is not that hard to make some fake data for a biology paper. You photoshop the picture of your gel (a technique for showing which proteins are present in a sample and whether they are interacting with each other) to show the results you want. 30 or 40 years ago: same thing, though you would have had to do it manually. But now image analysis can catch that easily. Ditto for plagiarism. Ditto for analyzing sets of numbers to see if they were observed or invented. And because it is easier to examine for fraud, and fraud is actually routinely talked about, more people are looking for it than in the past. Now, fraud stands a good chance of being caught. Back then: not so much.
I would have thought the fact that they have a large number of retractions indicates their peer-review system is working, not failing.
Not exactly. Peer review happens before publication, not after. For an article to be retracted it first had to pass peer review. In the case mentioned in the story, the journal (Tumor Biology, which has a US/European editorial board), allows authors to suggest peer reviewers and trusted the contact information they received. It's pretty trivial to verify the email address of a professor in the US or Europe. The retractions happened because these authors used names of real Chinese professors - but fake email addresses.
Biometric ids are intrinsically secure - so long as they are only used to verify your identity in person, not remotely. It doesn't matter if someone hacks your data, it would still be pretty hard for them to fake your IPD, and pretty expensive for them to make custom contact lenses to fake an iris scan.
Except the age discrimination part (which is over a lifetime away for highschoolers, so probably not what they are worrying about) how is that compared o other six figure salary professions? At least with coding you probably have less college debt than law, medicine, etc. And if you want to code for the Chicago school district (that sounds pretty insane right there) you won't have to move to the bay area to do it.
I think they are keying into your searching for TV stands, not the purchase. Google and your ISP/mobile provider now know you are looking and get paid handsomely for that info. They either aren't privy to the sale - or don't want to stop selling your info to advertisers, so don't bother to incorporate that information into the package.
Then you're doing it wrong. I've been tracking those details for over 20 years.
Sure, where click - takes buyer to your storefront or some other platform that directly ties the click to a purchase. That usually doesn't happen with toothpaste or furniture (remember, the story is about P&G). Or my company. Sure, we run ads, but less than 5% of our sales are through a website, and few of those are traceable (B2B: person/computer viewing the ad isn't the person/computer placing the order).
Correct, you should know to the penny, to the minute how effectice your online ads are.
Horseshit. Most sales cannot be directly connected to a click any more than viewing a commercial on TV can. Most of the time you don't know if the person who clicked is the person who bought your toothpaste or furniture. Clickthrough is not a measure of an ad's effectiveness, it's just a proxy.
Now THAT would make an interesting fight - and is probably closer to the reason Apple is getting paid $B.Google doesn't have to worry about Bing, but if a nice chunk of its market was "encouraged" to become an expense rather than a profitable resource - that would hit hard. I don't know if it would even actually be DuckDuckGo - I could see Apple making or sponsoring its own version.
Genetics certainly decides who is most likely to become diabetic within a population, but environment is determining how many will become diabetic within that population. And the change in environment over the past two generations has doubled (or more) the incidence of diabetes in pretty much every major ethnic group in the USA.
similar to Walmart in terms of focus although not quite as cutthroat from what I've seen.
Amazon monitors the sales of its third party vendors to find which products they are having the most success with - and then starts selling those products directly and undercutting them. Seems pretty cutthroat to me.
Yes. Plus the animal models do improve over time. The Alzheimers/amyloid mouse models are being updated to remove artifacts caused by overexpression of APP (think amyloid). Other models directly manipulate tau instead.
Slashdot Mirror
>It's also a way for someone to get a way nicer car than they could otherwise afford, or get financing for. Can they still afford it after they purchase ridesharing insurance on top of their normal insurance policy?
And if 30% of drivers are losing money, even if they are really bad on personal finances on average, wouldn't, say, half of them eventually realize it and the first time we'd be hearing about it would not be from a study?
Yes? Only 4% of Uber drivers stick with it for over 1 year, and the number one reason for leaving is the pay. So yes, it seems like well over half eventually realize it and leave.
Don't get me wrong, I've talked to a few drivers and I'd say most are not that happy with Uber, but the complaint is that they have to work more to make a proper income after their expenses - which means at least they are not on the red as in that case working more would not help...
Well, the median driver is in the black, just not very far in the black. And if, as another study said the drivers that do earn reasonable wages tend to be the ones that have been on the platform long enough to know where and when to be driving, it could be the vast majority of Uber drivers either don't stick around long enough to learn the ropes, aren't available at the right times, or aren't in a profitable area.
So if turnover is this high ... what happens to Uber when the majority of the people likely to drive for Uber have already driven for Uber - and given up?
In the US typically it is chip only, no PIN. Plus the card could have just been swiped. As pointed out in the article, 41% of storefronts don't have chipreaders.
It's Netflix's intent. Lower costs, higher discoverability, more hours of content for people to binge.
Meanwhile, good video stores are topping 50,000 titles
How are you defining discoverability? Netflix's app seems ruthlessly dedicated to limiting the number of titles anyone sees.
Especially considering how much more difficult it is to get a job as you get older even if you already have experience in the field.
--
HI! please make a Firefox plug-in that blocks stock photos. Preferably it would replace them with the top result in a google search for "stick figure" and the image title, but white space will do in a pinch.
If it is a stock image replace it with whitespace or the top result from the google image search for "stick figure" and the image caption or title.
For example: "stick figure" and "trump". See? Much better than whatever the original image was.
Bitcoin does have an intrinsic value which is its use as the unit of account for the blockchain public ledger. To use the blockchain for trust applications like smart contracts and and asset tracking all the world's business will need to pay for it in Bitcoin. Hence buying Bitcoin is like buying real estate, where the real estate is future recording space on the blockchain.
Wouldn't trust applications just switch to a less expensive blockchain?
Best practice would be for all potential insider traders (including Congress) to be forced to announce their trades (and place the orders) at least one full business day before the orders execute. No, they can't cancel or change their order if the market shifts in the meantime.
I'll start with your checkbook, credit cards, drivers license, and that list of passwords in your desk drawer.
One thing I see when I look at faked research and retractions of papers is that it often is in biology and medical research or things like sociology. In the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, meteorology and dare I say it climatology it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often. Maybe it's harder to fake the data in those sciences or maybe there's just more variability open to interpretation in the results from biology/medicine.
I think a big part is that when it's medicine the media is more likely to pick up the story. Jan Hendrik Schön was one of the biggest scandals - but it didn't really make a big splash in the news because solid state physics just isn't something most people get worked up about. Ditto for Adrian Maxim. So unless you are a regular at Retraction Watch, you hear about Wakefield and Hwang Woo-Suk (cloning), but not about physics or engineering fraud.
I also wonder if the problem is really that much worse than it was in the past. Granted, academia is more competitive than it used to be. But really, the big change is that it is so much easier to find fraud than it was in the past. You're right - it is not that hard to make some fake data for a biology paper. You photoshop the picture of your gel (a technique for showing which proteins are present in a sample and whether they are interacting with each other) to show the results you want. 30 or 40 years ago: same thing, though you would have had to do it manually. But now image analysis can catch that easily. Ditto for plagiarism. Ditto for analyzing sets of numbers to see if they were observed or invented. And because it is easier to examine for fraud, and fraud is actually routinely talked about, more people are looking for it than in the past. Now, fraud stands a good chance of being caught. Back then: not so much.
I would have thought the fact that they have a large number of retractions indicates their peer-review system is working, not failing.
Not exactly. Peer review happens before publication, not after. For an article to be retracted it first had to pass peer review. In the case mentioned in the story, the journal (Tumor Biology, which has a US/European editorial board), allows authors to suggest peer reviewers and trusted the contact information they received. It's pretty trivial to verify the email address of a professor in the US or Europe. The retractions happened because these authors used names of real Chinese professors - but fake email addresses.
So they wrote their own peer reviews.
Biometric ids are intrinsically secure - so long as they are only used to verify your identity in person, not remotely. It doesn't matter if someone hacks your data, it would still be pretty hard for them to fake your IPD, and pretty expensive for them to make custom contact lenses to fake an iris scan.
Except the age discrimination part (which is over a lifetime away for highschoolers, so probably not what they are worrying about) how is that compared o other six figure salary professions? At least with coding you probably have less college debt than law, medicine, etc. And if you want to code for the Chicago school district (that sounds pretty insane right there) you won't have to move to the bay area to do it.
I think they are keying into your searching for TV stands, not the purchase. Google and your ISP/mobile provider now know you are looking and get paid handsomely for that info. They either aren't privy to the sale - or don't want to stop selling your info to advertisers, so don't bother to incorporate that information into the package.
It's reliable if your business means actually speaking with your customers.
Then you're doing it wrong. I've been tracking those details for over 20 years.
Sure, where click - takes buyer to your storefront or some other platform that directly ties the click to a purchase. That usually doesn't happen with toothpaste or furniture (remember, the story is about P&G). Or my company. Sure, we run ads, but less than 5% of our sales are through a website, and few of those are traceable (B2B: person/computer viewing the ad isn't the person/computer placing the order).
Correct, you should know to the penny, to the minute how effectice your online ads are.
Horseshit. Most sales cannot be directly connected to a click any more than viewing a commercial on TV can. Most of the time you don't know if the person who clicked is the person who bought your toothpaste or furniture. Clickthrough is not a measure of an ad's effectiveness, it's just a proxy.
Radio will come back when different stations are run differently.
If running radio stations that way was more profitable they would still be run that way.
Now THAT would make an interesting fight - and is probably closer to the reason Apple is getting paid $B.Google doesn't have to worry about Bing, but if a nice chunk of its market was "encouraged" to become an expense rather than a profitable resource - that would hit hard. I don't know if it would even actually be DuckDuckGo - I could see Apple making or sponsoring its own version.
Time consuming yes, but many of the products are loaned or provided for free.
Genetics certainly decides who is most likely to become diabetic within a population, but environment is determining how many will become diabetic within that population. And the change in environment over the past two generations has doubled (or more) the incidence of diabetes in pretty much every major ethnic group in the USA.
Bingo. If this was to make amends the money would go to costs for treating patients with pulmonary diseases exacerbated by smog.
similar to Walmart in terms of focus although not quite as cutthroat from what I've seen.
Amazon monitors the sales of its third party vendors to find which products they are having the most success with - and then starts selling those products directly and undercutting them. Seems pretty cutthroat to me.
Yes. Plus the animal models do improve over time. The Alzheimers/amyloid mouse models are being updated to remove artifacts caused by overexpression of APP (think amyloid). Other models directly manipulate tau instead.