|
Nonsense posted:They freak out with plastic bags. horses: still the best self-driving form of transit
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:horses: still the best self-driving form of transit
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Thanks for citing a bunch of poo poo and confirming that there is no real legal teeth behind the fight against 1099 misclassification, unless of course you can provide successful cases that the DOL consulted on or any regulatory action they've taken on a wide scale to that effect. "Guidance" doesn't meet this standard BTW. The DoL doesn't need to get involved beyond guidance. They rarely take on employers and instead the vast majority of these cases are triggered by an employee or state suing. That's what happened in a bunch of the FedEX Ground cases (there were a ton all over the country) and also what is happening to Uber in CA. But here's some relevant case citations for you: McClaughlin v Seafood INC 861 F.2d 450 (5th Cir. 1988): Finds: "An employer who at least minimally regulates piece workers' method of work, but does not regulate their hours or prohibit them from working for competitors, seeks to escape the coverage of the Federal Labor Standards Act. We hold that he cannot. " Real v Dirscoll Strawberry Associates 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979): Indicates that "Economic realities, not contractual labels, determine employment status for the remedial purposes of the FLSA." and that if the worker odds to make a profit or loss are primarily controlled by the managerial decisions made by the company, that weighs toward an employee relationship even if the contract signed calls them a contractor. Brock v Superior Care Inc 840 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1988): Finds that the workers for an on-demand nursing agency are employees. Some key quotes which are applicable to uber include "the services rendered by the nurses constituted the most integral part of Superior Care's business, which is to provide health care personnel on request." and "Though visits to the job sites occurred only once or twice a month, Superior Care unequally expressed the right to supervise the nurses' work, and the nurses were well aware that they were subject to such checks as well as to regular review of their nursing notes. An employer does not need to look over his workers' shoulders every day in order to exercise control." Each of those cases includes myriad citations which you can read yourself. Radbot posted:A lot of delivery drivers are 1099s you condescending prick. No, Fedex LOST. Repeatedly. Over and over again in state and federal courts. The most recent case ended in a $233 million settlement because they had lost the appeal of another similar case at the 9th circuit and had no hope of winning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:horses: still the best self-driving form of transit To be fair horses freak out at the weirdest poo poo as well. Almost exactly like a glitchy AI
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:No, Fedex LOST. Repeatedly. Over and over again in state and federal courts. The most recent case ended in a $233 million settlement because they had lost the appeal of another similar case at the 9th circuit and had no hope of winning. And now FedEx contracts through smaller companies which totally don't abuse 1099 status themselves. Win! Please keep citing court cases at me while I see dozens of (legal, in Denver) 1099 Uber drivers cruise past my office window over the course of a day. If it's illegal it's not being enforced. Have you guys told Google Capital and Kleiner Perkins that Uber is totes illegal? Radbot fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I thought the trouble with Uber was that they were counting drivers as employees when it was fiscally convenient to them, and as contractors otherwise. Is that not the case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Farchanter posted:I thought the trouble with Uber was that they were counting drivers as employees when it was fiscally convenient to them, and as contractors otherwise. Is that not the case? they count them as contractors but treat them like employees
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:If it's illegal it's not being enforced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yes, that was their point exactly. All I got was people quoting court cases at me and screaming "it's illegal", all I see is Uber operating with impunity. Sounds like it doesn't loving matter if it's illegal or not. Uber is also explicitly legal in my city, I don't know who their "army of lawyers" would be fighting against here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:All I got was people quoting court cases at me and screaming "it's illegal", all I see is Uber operating with impunity. Sounds like it doesn't loving matter if it's illegal or not. And Uber is explicitly illegal in my city, if we're keeping a tally on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 22:17
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Radbot posted:All I got was people quoting court cases at me and screaming "it's illegal", all I see is Uber operating with impunity. Sounds like it doesn't loving matter if it's illegal or not. "Might as well not pass any laws at all, says senate"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:All I got was people quoting court cases at me and screaming "it's illegal", all I see is Uber operating with impunity. Sounds like it doesn't loving matter if it's illegal or not. The thing about governments in general is that sometimes they can be slow to get their rear end moving but you absolutely do not want to be in their way when they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:...and yet, Uber drives on The Trail of Tears happened, ergo the Supreme Court never ruled in favor of the Native Americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Sao Paulo just voted on the prohibition of Uber. In a 43 to 5 decision, it was prohibited. EDIT: My bad, 43 to 3. nerdz fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
tsa posted:I'm honestly a bit confused by the driverless car thing though, do people not realize they are already roadtesting this poo poo with normal traffic? And on pretty crazy roads as well, it's not like they can only have the thing go down the block or something. They've tested them on a subset of driving conditions which may include "most" driving conditions but most isn't close to enough. My commute this morning: 2 crossing guards 1 traffic cop in a confusing construction site 1 construction detour 3 stick out and block one lane because I've waited drat long enough left turns 18 other things my brain handled effortlessly which I didn't register as even being a challenge No plastic bags blowing across the street All good weather Automation in cars is here now and quickly improving. Driverless cars are a dream. MIT Technology Review posted:The car’s video cameras detect the color of a traffic light; Urmson said his team is still working to prevent them from being blinded when the sun is directly behind a light. Despite progress handling road crews, “I could construct a construction zone that could befuddle the car,” Urmson says. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/ Again, though, a lot of these problems are going to end up being solved without fancy solutions. We're probably going to have cars that can be remotely stopped by police within the next decade or two anyway, so it's logical that you'd just outfit traffic cops with devices that either signal automated cars or that automated cars can at least detect and recognize. That's way easier than trying to figure out a method for getting a car to recognize someone waving their arms around, which is something that it doesn't really make sense for an automated vehicle to do anyway. Truly driverless cars probably aren't nearly as close as a lot of people would like, but they're not nearly as far away as you're implying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Again, though, a lot of these problems are going to end up being solved without fancy solutions. We're probably going to have cars that can be remotely stopped by police within the next decade or two anyway, so it's logical that you'd just outfit traffic cops with devices that either signal automated cars or that automated cars can at least detect and recognize. That's way easier than trying to figure out a method for getting a car to recognize someone waving their arms around, which is something that it doesn't really make sense for an automated vehicle to do anyway. "we'll just fix it by equipping everyone with a sensor" is possibly the dumbest solution i have ever loving heard and i work for a startup
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
let's be clear - the 'easy' fix for autonomous vehicles involves: 1. a country-wide network of sensors on a common carrier accessible to every man, woman and child with special sensors available for all law enforcement/military/first responders/whatever 2. everyone that owns a car having a car that interfaces with these networks through a common standard and communicates with aforementioned sensors over a common carrier 3. completely banning any car that doesn't have the appropriate technology from public roads yes this is totally a thing that will happen in our lifetime
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
when I said 'within a decade' re: autonomous trucks, i meant 'within 10 years from now', btw. that said - nothing I described in my previous post is impossible, certainly. IEEE is working on specs for autonomous vehicles - V2V and V2I protocols, frequencies, standards, etc. it'll get there, eventually. maybe 25 years? uber is not going to be saved by self-driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Driverless cars are the tech industry as a microcosm. Vast amounts of capital and brainpower being expended. But no questioning whether or not the result will benefit the population or just serve to make everything marginally worse off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Again, though, a lot of these problems are going to end up being solved without fancy solutions. We're probably going to have cars that can be remotely stopped by police within the next decade or two anyway, so it's logical that you'd just outfit traffic cops with devices that either signal automated cars or that automated cars can at least detect and recognize. That's way easier than trying to figure out a method for getting a car to recognize someone waving their arms around, which is something that it doesn't really make sense for an automated vehicle to do anyway. Infrastructure overhauls are possible and conceptually simple but not coming soon either. They do represent the quickest path but dedicated lanes and signals allowing operation on certain controlled paths overlaps closely enough with existing buses and public transport that the pull for that won't be too strong. There may very well be other creative models for niche cases like autonomous trucks that drive the highways and then have a driver hop on for the final delivery. But that's not quite what people imagine when they talk about driver-less cars today. It's also worth observing that people's tolerance for risk and faith in technology is at a recent low. This isn't the 60's where the vision of the near future involves flying cars and faith in institutions is high. This is an era when negligible risk from GMO's or vaccines is intolerable for many people. People will ignore news of 10 deadly human car crashes a day but as soon as it's automated it's going to be a different story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
The problem with the tech industry is that it relies on constant improvement of technology. There always has to be a new thing to sell, basically. But everything i've read has indicated that technology progress is slowing down/plateauing. Look at the amount of progress over the past 25 years: all we have to show for it are cell phones, apps, social media, etc. Fusion power has been "20 years away" for 60 years. Computer technology has evolved but that seems to be stopping now. The next 25 years are going to have even less innovation and progress than the previous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The problem with the tech industry is that it relies on constant improvement of technology. There always has to be a new thing to sell, basically. But everything i've read has indicated that technology progress is slowing down/plateauing. Look at the amount of progress over the past 25 years: all we have to show for it are cell phones, apps, social media, etc. Fusion power has been "20 years away" for 60 years. Computer technology has evolved but that seems to be stopping now. The next 25 years are going to have even less innovation and progress than the previous. computer technology is not stopping. we're now working on chemical computers, biological computers, probabalistic computers, and quantum computers. there's a ton of space to innovate in computation still, on both the hardware and software side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The problem with the tech industry is that it relies on constant improvement of technology. There always has to be a new thing to sell, basically. But everything i've read has indicated that technology progress is slowing down/plateauing. Look at the amount of progress over the past 25 years: all we have to show for it are cell phones, apps, social media, etc. Fusion power has been "20 years away" for 60 years. Computer technology has evolved but that seems to be stopping now. The next 25 years are going to have even less innovation and progress than the previous. There is also the fact that at a certain point you get all the low-hanging fruit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The problem with the tech industry is that it relies on constant improvement of technology. There always has to be a new thing to sell, basically. But everything i've read has indicated that technology progress is slowing down/plateauing. Look at the amount of progress over the past 25 years: all we have to show for it are cell phones, apps, social media, etc. Fusion power has been "20 years away" for 60 years. Computer technology has evolved but that seems to be stopping now. The next 25 years are going to have even less innovation and progress than the previous. No it's a mistake to think that technology isn't advancing. Especially when you consider how many engineers and scientists are coming out of the developed world. The number of people working productively on complex problems is going up rapidly. And so is the productivity of those people. The problem is a fundamental one of diminishing returns, low hanging fruit and sometimes unrealistic expectations [we don't have flying cars but the internet came out of nowhere]. Just the small amount of computing necessary to produce the spreadsheet and basic databases was legitimately disruptive 40 years ago. Now those problems have been solved and bar is exponentially higher. Same goes for basically every other field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it's a mistake to think that technology isn't advancing. Especially when you consider how many engineers and scientists are coming out of the developed world. The number of people working productively on complex problems is going up rapidly. And so is the productivity of those people. The problem is a fundamental one of diminishing returns, low hanging fruit and sometimes unrealistic expectations [we don't have flying cars but the internet came out of nowhere]. I didn't say that we were getting collectively dumber or anything. But like you say, there is the fundamental problem of diminishing returns and lack of low-hanging fruit. That's why technology is stagnating. Not that this is a bad thing. I'm actually kind of glad that we're entering a kind of indefinite stasis. We're stuck with what we've got and nothing is going to get noticeable better, so we have to start getting smarter about how we live. No space travel, no robots, no nothing, just us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Driverless cars are the tech industry as a microcosm. Vast amounts of capital and brainpower being expended. But no questioning whether or not the result will benefit the population or just serve to make everything marginally worse off. It's hard for me to imagine how unlikely success would have to be for it not to be "worth" trying to solve this problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:We're stuck with what we've got and nothing is going to get noticeable better, so we have to start getting smarter about how we live. No space travel, no robots, no nothing, just us. There have been huge gains in progress in all kinds of things. For instance solar power and electric cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I didn't say that we were getting collectively dumber or anything. But like you say, there is the fundamental problem of diminishing returns and lack of low-hanging fruit. That's why technology is stagnating. Not that this is a bad thing. I'm actually kind of glad that we're entering a kind of indefinite stasis. We're stuck with what we've got and nothing is going to get noticeable better, so we have to start getting smarter about how we live. No space travel, no robots, no nothing, just us. Technology is not stagnating. At all. In any conceivable way. You seem to be confusing Moore's Law, which only applies to the number of transistors on a IC, with the collective advancement of humanity as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:More people die from car accidents every year than died in the entire vietnam war. Car culture is a fiscal, cultural, and environmental disaster. Making it cheaper and easier to drive cars will only make the incentives to gently caress things up worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
"But everything I've read has indicated that technology progress is slowing down/plateauing. Look at the amount of progress over the past 25 years: all we have to show for it the entire sum knowledge of human history, readily available at my fingertips at a moment's notice on a device more powerful than all the supercomputers from 25 years ago. But where's my hoverboard, man?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Car culture is a fiscal, cultural, and environmental disaster. Making it cheaper and easier to drive cars will only make the incentives to gently caress things up worse. actually, it'd be much cheaper to have fleets of autonomous EV's ferrying people around with no single private owner, but collectively managed and maintained through taxation and we'd leverage our existing infrastructure rather than trying to build rail everywhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:actually, it'd be much cheaper to have fleets of autonomous EV's ferrying people around with no single private owner, but collectively managed and maintained through taxation and we'd leverage our existing infrastructure rather than trying to build rail everywhere If this was the case buses would be flush with money and not mobile hobo toilets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:actually, it'd be much cheaper to have fleets of autonomous EV's ferrying people around with no single private owner, but collectively managed and maintained through taxation and we'd leverage our existing infrastructure rather than trying to build rail everywhere Cheaper than individual car ownership yes. But the cost of suburvan roads and diffuse infrastructure is bankrupting cities. Letting people hop in automated cars for hours a day at current subsidized driving prices is a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:"But everything I've read has indicated that technology progress is slowing down/plateauing. Look at the amount of progress over the past 25 years: all we have to show for it the entire sum knowledge of human history, readily available at my fingertips at a moment's notice on a device more powerful than all the supercomputers from 25 years ago. But where's my hoverboard, man?" That knowledge doesn't give you much power in the face of institutional inertia. A fancier phone every year fits into the paradigm of consumer capitalism - political/economic reforms that apply this new level of interconnection are something else. Boot and Rally posted:If this was the case buses would be flush with money and not mobile hobo toilets. You can't hail a bus and having a smartphone app for schedules/tickets is only so useful if the service is underfunded. Full Communism, Smash Bourgeois Pretentions, yadda yadda. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Yeah we're now just scratching the surface on things like programming DNA to our whims or literal robot arm prosthetics. There's still plenty for us to do
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:If this was the case buses would be flush with money and not mobile hobo toilets. I disagree. I don't think they'll exist soon but if they did driverless cars would be different enough to offer a legit challenge to our current model of ownership. If I'm not driving it it's less mine. I'd be more willing to share or rent and the economics and liability issues become much more favorable towards that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I disagree. I don't think they'll exist soon but if they did driverless cars would be different enough to offer a legit challenge to our current model of ownership. Does this really scale well? What do we do with all the cars required for rush hour when it isn't rush hour? Will my boss accept "the car I hired was defecated in, so I had to wait for a clean one" without photographic evidence? Can you be more specific about who owns what and when it is available for them to use?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
What is the mechanism to ensure that these hypothetical autonomous cars are not constantly filled with vomit, poo poo, piss, cum, etc? I mean on a bus there's at least the bus driver and it takes a break at a depot periodically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Spazzle posted:Cheaper than individual car ownership yes. But the cost of suburvan roads and diffuse infrastructure is bankrupting cities. Letting people hop in automated cars for hours a day at current subsidized driving prices is a terrible idea. Cities don't usually pay for that infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:46
|
|