have you been to San Francisco or Seattle? There police presence is such that crime is nil. And if you go to places like Dallas or Phoenix the crime is far and away from the well to do areas. The problem is that you've got a core of super expensive living quarters where the well to do live surrounded by dirt poor hell holes with 4 hour a day commutes for the working class slobs who are stuck servicing those well to dos. That's what "gentrification" means. It means screwing the working class and lowering their quality of life even more.
and it has zero rent control and almost zero regulations on building new houses. When Builders build they're building luxury houses because they're surprisingly cheap to build and much higher profit.
It's got nothing to do with Rent Control or supply. The cities where this is a problem (San Francisco, Phoenix, Dallas, Seattle etc) are already out of land. They're being forced to build out further and further from where jobs are, resulting in 90+ minute commutes one way if you want affordable housing. The only way supply could be increased is if the city tears down single homes and replaces them with high rise apartments. But you can't really raise a family in those. Not the kind of families that can meet replacement birth rates
the Japanese don't make or play FPSes much. The story goes that FPSes are "Holographic Murder Simulators" and the hyper realistic violence is the problem. Stuff like Nier Automata or Dark Souls, while violent, lacks the realism needed to train today's mass shooter. Or so the arguments go.
and I do wish we could get folks to understand that. Cities didn't limit hotels to "Preserve the Character of the neighborhood" or some other hippy crap. They did it to stop this kind of rent seeking garbage. People have to live where the jobs and rich folk know that. So they can pay damn near anything because they know they can rent it back to somebody and make a profit. Sure there are limits, but they're frighteningly high.
This crap should just be shut down. Just like this crap was shut down when I was a kid and we called it sub-letting.
This is all just a classic misdirection technique. That campaign to call those kids who got shot up Crisis Actors in a False Flag operation was the same thing. The point is to steer the debate away from gun control and put the pro-gun control side on the defensive. Get them arguing about absurd things like violence in video games and conspiracy theories. Worked too. Even the left wing press picked up these stories and ran with them.
The funny thing is IIRC these techniques were invented by the Soviets. To be fair though it was Karl Rove that popularized their use in the Republican party.
Web apps that used to break constantly now push 5 9s uptime. My bluetooth devices work now and don't disconnect all the time. My cheapo phone doesn't reboot or drop calls all the time. PC manufactures don't intentionally sell me bad ram. VIA motherboards with buggy chips fixed in drivers are a thing of the past. I just bought a new board/CPU this year and I installed the extra drivers for performance, not stability. And is anyone here old enough to remember when ethernet wasn't 100% plug and play? Or the gymnastics needed to install a new videocard in Windows 98?
Tech is maturing. Getting 'good enough'. The cut off point is when it's cheaper to make the product work than it is to field the calls. That eventually happens to all tech and it's doing it faster than it used to. Yes, you still have a job, but I'll wager there's a ton of things you used to have to fix and don't anymore. That doesn't free you up to do other things, that lets your company lay off some of the guys who did them.
Now, the argument is the company will expand in more productive areas, but that only works if there's demand for products and services. But as folks get laid off that demand decreases. We're not a supply side economy because, well, there's no such thing. Companies respond to demand.
in a nut shell. It's always the other guy that gets screwed. It's so common there's a meme for it.
Plus, I can never seem to get people to understand survival bias. As in "I've survived layoffs so it must be because I'm so damn awesome, and not because I got lucky as hell".
But Christ people, even if your job somehow _isn't_ the one automated away everybody else is going to be gunning for the few jobs left ya know?
We encourage self expression but also shit all over a big portion of our population (economically speaking). The result is vandalism. They're not thinking in terms of stopping progress. They're just angry. Usually because they lack good economic prospects.
Countries like Japan deal with this by discouraging expression. They also have unusually high suicide rates. I suppose we could also not abandon a large chunk of our population to economic desolation, but, well, that costs money. And we're nothing if not cheapskates.
it's sold to management. When it to sales know your audience. If a guy comes into a truck dealer with a hot wife and he's looking for a $15k plain white work truck you ignore him and sell the wife a $60,000 Cadillac.
you managed to take a clever and talented woman's story and twist it into a screed against equal pay for equal work.
The takeaway isn't "girls should stop complaining because they can write code too" it's "girls should complain because they can write code too and multiple studies show they're paid less for it".
And it's not "men are paid more" it's "Women are paid less". That's the important distinction everybody misses. The point is _always_ to pay workers less.
MIT's data is limited because Uber won't release stats. That means the MIT guy ran a survey with questions. By changing the questions you can get different results. That's basically what's in contention here is the questions being asked of the drivers. We'd need Uber to open up their books to know what's really being paid.
I'm assuming you don't live in America. If you do you're kind of naive. There is virtually no one enforcing labor law in this country. If there was this MIT study wouldn't exist. Uber would be required to open up their books to prove they pay minimum wage. They're not, hence the reason why we're debating the methodology of an MIT survey vs working off actual data.
If Uber really wants to prove what they pay they can release hard numbers in their SEC filing (where lying is a crime that is actually enforced, since it could hurt the shareholders). Me? I'm inclined to believe that original $3.37 number. It's probably worst case, but if the worst case wasn't what's happening why does Uber work so hard to hide their numbers?
If there's any serious threat they'll fold the corporation and pay out little or nothing. Then they'll 're-open' on paper without so much as a name change. That's if they don't just keep the lawsuit going until the parties settle out of desperation or die of old age.
We're a country that poisoned out air for 50 years so our engines wouldn't knock. Autonomous vehicles have so much profit potential that nothing is going to stop them. A few highway fatalities here and there certainly aren't.
still make less than minimum wage. That drives my wages down (and yours too). These Uber drivers aren't dumb, they're desperate and unlucky. They know they're getting screwed and the first chance they get they'll take a real job with real benefits. Ones like you and me have. Ones that will now pay less because we're competing with sub-minimum wage employees who also have no benefits.
Also if you're not willing to abandon 41% of the population to abject poverty that raises my taxes (to subsidize the low wages).
This has absolutely nothing to do with feelings. This is about the cold hard reality of our economic system. Stop using straw man arguments. They work, but not in your favor. You'll get screwed by Uber and the gig economy along with the rest of us.
for my kid. I used to buy about $120/yr worth of iTunes cards for her. Now I pay $5/month for Apple Music. She's in college so I get a discount, and once she graduates she's on her own:).
maybe there's something wrong with a society whose only answer to advancing technology that reduces the need for labor is lower wages and lower standard of livings.
I'll point out that Uber and it's ilk are bypassing employee protection laws that folks literally died for. Tempers can get a little high as a result. It's easy to forget all that if you've worked in tech your whole life, have a college degree and avoided the worst of the layoffs; which to be blunt a lot of us/.ers have.
it was the part where 30% of the drivers made nothing when maintenance was factored in. I've heard Uber called a payday loan on the maintenance of your car.
I'll say this, I've taken 5 Ubers in my life and 3 of them were recently laid off folks trying to make rent with cars bought from when they were employed.
Slashdot Mirror
You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
have you been to San Francisco or Seattle? There police presence is such that crime is nil. And if you go to places like Dallas or Phoenix the crime is far and away from the well to do areas. The problem is that you've got a core of super expensive living quarters where the well to do live surrounded by dirt poor hell holes with 4 hour a day commutes for the working class slobs who are stuck servicing those well to dos. That's what "gentrification" means. It means screwing the working class and lowering their quality of life even more.
and it has zero rent control and almost zero regulations on building new houses. When Builders build they're building luxury houses because they're surprisingly cheap to build and much higher profit.
It's got nothing to do with Rent Control or supply. The cities where this is a problem (San Francisco, Phoenix, Dallas, Seattle etc) are already out of land. They're being forced to build out further and further from where jobs are, resulting in 90+ minute commutes one way if you want affordable housing. The only way supply could be increased is if the city tears down single homes and replaces them with high rise apartments. But you can't really raise a family in those. Not the kind of families that can meet replacement birth rates
the Japanese don't make or play FPSes much. The story goes that FPSes are "Holographic Murder Simulators" and the hyper realistic violence is the problem. Stuff like Nier Automata or Dark Souls, while violent, lacks the realism needed to train today's mass shooter. Or so the arguments go.
and I do wish we could get folks to understand that. Cities didn't limit hotels to "Preserve the Character of the neighborhood" or some other hippy crap. They did it to stop this kind of rent seeking garbage. People have to live where the jobs and rich folk know that. So they can pay damn near anything because they know they can rent it back to somebody and make a profit. Sure there are limits, but they're frighteningly high.
This crap should just be shut down. Just like this crap was shut down when I was a kid and we called it sub-letting.
This is all just a classic misdirection technique. That campaign to call those kids who got shot up Crisis Actors in a False Flag operation was the same thing. The point is to steer the debate away from gun control and put the pro-gun control side on the defensive. Get them arguing about absurd things like violence in video games and conspiracy theories. Worked too. Even the left wing press picked up these stories and ran with them.
The funny thing is IIRC these techniques were invented by the Soviets. To be fair though it was Karl Rove that popularized their use in the Republican party.
Web apps that used to break constantly now push 5 9s uptime. My bluetooth devices work now and don't disconnect all the time. My cheapo phone doesn't reboot or drop calls all the time. PC manufactures don't intentionally sell me bad ram. VIA motherboards with buggy chips fixed in drivers are a thing of the past. I just bought a new board/CPU this year and I installed the extra drivers for performance, not stability. And is anyone here old enough to remember when ethernet wasn't 100% plug and play? Or the gymnastics needed to install a new videocard in Windows 98?
Tech is maturing. Getting 'good enough'. The cut off point is when it's cheaper to make the product work than it is to field the calls. That eventually happens to all tech and it's doing it faster than it used to. Yes, you still have a job, but I'll wager there's a ton of things you used to have to fix and don't anymore. That doesn't free you up to do other things, that lets your company lay off some of the guys who did them.
Now, the argument is the company will expand in more productive areas, but that only works if there's demand for products and services. But as folks get laid off that demand decreases. We're not a supply side economy because, well, there's no such thing. Companies respond to demand.
in a nut shell. It's always the other guy that gets screwed. It's so common there's a meme for it.
Plus, I can never seem to get people to understand survival bias. As in "I've survived layoffs so it must be because I'm so damn awesome, and not because I got lucky as hell".
But Christ people, even if your job somehow _isn't_ the one automated away everybody else is going to be gunning for the few jobs left ya know?
It's like the man said, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas
nobody wants dead customers. Plus any damage sufficient to kill is sufficient to dent the car. Again, more cost.
Now, that said, none of this will prevent them from doing the following calculation:
Take x cost of making self driving car safe.
Take y cost of paying settlements to the deceased relatives.
If x - y is positive, don't bother making the car safe.
This is why we need government regulation. We (mostly) do it today with regular boring old cars.
We encourage self expression but also shit all over a big portion of our population (economically speaking). The result is vandalism. They're not thinking in terms of stopping progress. They're just angry. Usually because they lack good economic prospects.
Countries like Japan deal with this by discouraging expression. They also have unusually high suicide rates. I suppose we could also not abandon a large chunk of our population to economic desolation, but, well, that costs money. And we're nothing if not cheapskates.
before prices start coming down... maybe. Also cell phones are apparently using GDDR5 now which isn't helping.
it's sold to management. When it to sales know your audience. If a guy comes into a truck dealer with a hot wife and he's looking for a $15k plain white work truck you ignore him and sell the wife a $60,000 Cadillac.
you managed to take a clever and talented woman's story and twist it into a screed against equal pay for equal work.
The takeaway isn't "girls should stop complaining because they can write code too" it's "girls should complain because they can write code too and multiple studies show they're paid less for it".
And it's not "men are paid more" it's "Women are paid less". That's the important distinction everybody misses. The point is _always_ to pay workers less.
MIT's data is limited because Uber won't release stats. That means the MIT guy ran a survey with questions. By changing the questions you can get different results. That's basically what's in contention here is the questions being asked of the drivers. We'd need Uber to open up their books to know what's really being paid.
I'm assuming you don't live in America. If you do you're kind of naive. There is virtually no one enforcing labor law in this country. If there was this MIT study wouldn't exist. Uber would be required to open up their books to prove they pay minimum wage. They're not, hence the reason why we're debating the methodology of an MIT survey vs working off actual data.
If Uber really wants to prove what they pay they can release hard numbers in their SEC filing (where lying is a crime that is actually enforced, since it could hurt the shareholders). Me? I'm inclined to believe that original $3.37 number. It's probably worst case, but if the worst case wasn't what's happening why does Uber work so hard to hide their numbers?
If there's any serious threat they'll fold the corporation and pay out little or nothing. Then they'll 're-open' on paper without so much as a name change. That's if they don't just keep the lawsuit going until the parties settle out of desperation or die of old age.
We're a country that poisoned out air for 50 years so our engines wouldn't knock. Autonomous vehicles have so much profit potential that nothing is going to stop them. A few highway fatalities here and there certainly aren't.
still make less than minimum wage. That drives my wages down (and yours too). These Uber drivers aren't dumb, they're desperate and unlucky. They know they're getting screwed and the first chance they get they'll take a real job with real benefits. Ones like you and me have. Ones that will now pay less because we're competing with sub-minimum wage employees who also have no benefits.
Also if you're not willing to abandon 41% of the population to abject poverty that raises my taxes (to subsidize the low wages).
This has absolutely nothing to do with feelings. This is about the cold hard reality of our economic system. Stop using straw man arguments. They work, but not in your favor. You'll get screwed by Uber and the gig economy along with the rest of us.
41% of their drivers make less than min wage and 4% make nothing.
So even if you game the numbers (by changing the survey questions, which is how Uber got those numbers) you still get a shit sandwich...
for my kid. I used to buy about $120/yr worth of iTunes cards for her. Now I pay $5/month for Apple Music. She's in college so I get a discount, and once she graduates she's on her own :).
nothing beats it. Seriously, you'll never meet a company that'll turn down a contract from the Pentagon.
maybe there's something wrong with a society whose only answer to advancing technology that reduces the need for labor is lower wages and lower standard of livings.
why would anybody care if you ban it?
For any given program f running on Microsoft Windows it will halt if you let it run long enough.
it said the median was $3.37/hr. Worst case is that you make nothing, and the study said 30% of the drivers were living that 'worst case'.
I'll point out that Uber and it's ilk are bypassing employee protection laws that folks literally died for. Tempers can get a little high as a result. It's easy to forget all that if you've worked in tech your whole life, have a college degree and avoided the worst of the layoffs; which to be blunt a lot of us /.ers have.
it was the part where 30% of the drivers made nothing when maintenance was factored in. I've heard Uber called a payday loan on the maintenance of your car.
I'll say this, I've taken 5 Ubers in my life and 3 of them were recently laid off folks trying to make rent with cars bought from when they were employed.