Thanks for the effort, I am not getting it and Google gives me nothing useful. E.g., how is it a good thing if my insurances company waives my rights to further compensation.
But see, 30k, 100k, and 300k are all the same woefully inadequate for medical liability. If you miss a stop sign, we have an accident and I as your passenger remain immobile drooling out of my mouth for the next 40 years, your insurance's 300k won't do me much good.
Thanks. I couldn't find coverage numbers for commercial transportation of people, but here's the numbers for the liability insurance a private car owner is required to have. That's the minimum coverage required by law:
7.5 mil EUR for bodily injury. 1 mil EUR for property damage. 50k EUR for financial loss.
The sums for commercial vehicles are probably higher.
oh a side note how does one drive differently with a paying customer as apposed to a family member??
It's simple insurance mathematics. The insurance for taxis is most likely simply higher because the payouts are higher. Much more time on the road, etc. And it makes sense to require that a professional driver has adequate insurance for his passengers - which is a lot of coverage if you consider that a mistake can put 4 passengers in a wheelchair for decades.
1 mil is not much though: cause an accident with 2 passengers who remain maimed for life, and you have to pay for their care for the next 40 years, plus destroyed cars, road damage, whatever. Those things simply happen when you reach a certain scale of number of rides. A bog-standard private general liability insurance here gives you 6 mil coverage for like 5 EUR per month or so.
The problem is that in Germany we generally (there are exceptions) don't like to let people die out i the streets because they made a stupid decision. These uninsured health bills will still get paid, by taxes.
Assuming 3000 emails in an 8 hour workday, 5 days a week, this is one email every 48 seconds on average, all the time. And if you compress its handling into part of the day, it means spending approx. 2 hours when you spend 2 seconds per email. How does this "represent a few seconds of distraction here and there a worst"?
I frequently come back from a week out of the office and have several thousand unread emails. Keeping up with that amount of crap as it comes in is a tolerable waste of time
You get thousands of emails a week and dealing with that is just fine unless you are on vacation?
Then you won't be reading slashdot any more either, right? Because the Sheldon Cooper characterizes epitomizes a significant fraction of the posts here - myopic, minimal empathy and a retreat to 'logic' that is really just selfish rationalization.
Thanks, I've been grappling with words for this for a while after having started to work in a really nerdy place. It's ok, but strangely aggravating, and you put it very well, especiall the last part. There's also no use in pointing it out to some people, it simply does not register, just like on/. sometimes.
Missing modpoints again so quoting the AC +1 informative:
Speaking as a university researcher...
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, but in research ethics the concept of coercion is often taken much more broadly than it might be in typical parlance.
The idea is that if the incentives for research participation become too large, someone might not be able to rationally turn down an offer, and might be compelled to do something they do not want to do. I.e., you can coerce someone with rewards that are too large, just as you can coerce them with punishments that are too large. The idea is to prevent people from feeling like they sold their soul to the devil.
Where this gets complicated is that what is considered to be a coercive incentive depends on the potential participant's circumstances. So if you're homeless, you might feel compelled to do something you wouldn't otherwise do because you're desperate. I've been on research proposals where $35 or so USD was considered coercive because that amount of money was so large for the area of the world that they were recruiting from at the time.
I'm not sure how this intersects with this story--I agree that in itself, there's nothing wrong with recruiting homeless individuals. You also don't want to deny them opportunities that others have. But by the same token, you don't want to take advantage of their circumstances to make an undignified proposal something they can't refuse (not saying it is undignified, just that it probably needs more scrutiny, which it may or may not have had).
Oddly obligatory XKCD. To rebut your snark, with a minimal breeding pool and sufficient preservation, we could live on eating each other for millions of years. Might as well be forever with those time frames.
I don't know how to determine this, quantitatively or otherwise. It's an interesting question once machine translation gets better, but for now I consider it obvious that something like Google translation does not know what it's doing. Having access to and having translated a large existing courpus of text is obviously not enough, as Google certainly has analyzed more text than a human translator does, and still is wrong whenever there is the slightest possibility of ambiguity (i.e., all the time, in practice).
Anyway, TFA was not about machine translation, but AI. A human translator who translates a text knows that he is translating a text. I am not worried that a computer will, by 2045.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the effort, I am not getting it and Google gives me nothing useful. E.g., how is it a good thing if my insurances company waives my rights to further compensation.
Sorry, not familiar with the jargon: what does "you accept it as payment in full" mean?
But see, 30k, 100k, and 300k are all the same woefully inadequate for medical liability. If you miss a stop sign, we have an accident and I as your passenger remain immobile drooling out of my mouth for the next 40 years, your insurance's 300k won't do me much good.
See, and that's why we do not want Uber to undermine what we have by simply ignoring the law.
Thanks. I couldn't find coverage numbers for commercial transportation of people, but here's the numbers for the liability insurance a private car owner is required to have. That's the minimum coverage required by law:
7.5 mil EUR for bodily injury.
1 mil EUR for property damage.
50k EUR for financial loss.
The sums for commercial vehicles are probably higher.
oh a side note how does one drive differently with a paying customer as apposed to a family member??
It's simple insurance mathematics. The insurance for taxis is most likely simply higher because the payouts are higher. Much more time on the road, etc. And it makes sense to require that a professional driver has adequate insurance for his passengers - which is a lot of coverage if you consider that a mistake can put 4 passengers in a wheelchair for decades.
1 mil is not much though: cause an accident with 2 passengers who remain maimed for life, and you have to pay for their care for the next 40 years, plus destroyed cars, road damage, whatever. Those things simply happen when you reach a certain scale of number of rides. A bog-standard private general liability insurance here gives you 6 mil coverage for like 5 EUR per month or so.
Uber only provides contacts and NOT transportation services.
How do they get paid?
I don't see the problem here.
The problem is that in Germany we generally (there are exceptions) don't like to let people die out i the streets because they made a stupid decision. These uninsured health bills will still get paid, by taxes.
3000 emails per week of course.
Assuming 3000 emails in an 8 hour workday, 5 days a week, this is one email every 48 seconds on average, all the time. And if you compress its handling into part of the day, it means spending approx. 2 hours when you spend 2 seconds per email. How does this "represent a few seconds of distraction here and there a worst"?
I frequently come back from a week out of the office and have several thousand unread emails. Keeping up with that amount of crap as it comes in is a tolerable waste of time
You get thousands of emails a week and dealing with that is just fine unless you are on vacation?
With your attitude of "the audience is dumb", you should work at a network.
Not sure how you are getting from the factual statement I made to the phantasy you are projecting on me.
The audience's actions being prompted by people with cue boards, etc., of course.
Then you won't be reading slashdot any more either, right? Because the Sheldon Cooper characterizes epitomizes a significant fraction of the posts here - myopic, minimal empathy and a retreat to 'logic' that is really just selfish rationalization.
Thanks, I've been grappling with words for this for a while after having started to work in a really nerdy place. It's ok, but strangely aggravating, and you put it very well, especiall the last part. There's also no use in pointing it out to some people, it simply does not register, just like on /. sometimes.
Missing modpoints again so quoting the AC +1 informative:
Speaking as a university researcher ...
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, but in research ethics the concept of coercion is often taken much more broadly than it might be in typical parlance.
The idea is that if the incentives for research participation become too large, someone might not be able to rationally turn down an offer, and might be compelled to do something they do not want to do. I.e., you can coerce someone with rewards that are too large, just as you can coerce them with punishments that are too large. The idea is to prevent people from feeling like they sold their soul to the devil.
Where this gets complicated is that what is considered to be a coercive incentive depends on the potential participant's circumstances. So if you're homeless, you might feel compelled to do something you wouldn't otherwise do because you're desperate. I've been on research proposals where $35 or so USD was considered coercive because that amount of money was so large for the area of the world that they were recruiting from at the time.
I'm not sure how this intersects with this story--I agree that in itself, there's nothing wrong with recruiting homeless individuals. You also don't want to deny them opportunities that others have. But by the same token, you don't want to take advantage of their circumstances to make an undignified proposal something they can't refuse (not saying it is undignified, just that it probably needs more scrutiny, which it may or may not have had).
Oddly obligatory XKCD. To rebut your snark, with a minimal breeding pool and sufficient preservation, we could live on eating each other for millions of years. Might as well be forever with those time frames.
No, It was What If and you are misremembering it.
WTF are you rambling about?
Mai-lüf-terl. Exactly three syllables...
Maybe he referred to the official "Binär dezimaler Volltransistor-Rechenautomat" which does sound as if Hitler had moved to a career in CS
Interesting, thanks. I would guess that it's a nerd thing and probably there were earlier cases, but now I am intrigued.
Yes they do, but the headline was rewritten by the /. editor, it was not mine. I do think he improved on mine though.
Now I envy your nick. And yeah, so Austrian it makes me a little homesick.
After gettin the flack for the may/May typo already, the headline was edited by the editor and was not my fault. Mine had sucked as well though
Not a German but maybe an Austrian ;) Sorry for the typo, you may have noticed that I tried to take quite some care with TFA, it slipped through.
I don't know how to determine this, quantitatively or otherwise. It's an interesting question once machine translation gets better, but for now I consider it obvious that something like Google translation does not know what it's doing. Having access to and having translated a large existing courpus of text is obviously not enough, as Google certainly has analyzed more text than a human translator does, and still is wrong whenever there is the slightest possibility of ambiguity (i.e., all the time, in practice).
Anyway, TFA was not about machine translation, but AI. A human translator who translates a text knows that he is translating a text. I am not worried that a computer will, by 2045.
Seriously? It looks up keywords and statistics regarding what other people clicked who looked at similar content.