Just make it the company's responsibility to do that on behalf of the people it inconvenienced. Dumping the responsibility for those things on the injured party is fundamentally unethical.
Yeah, it'd be nice since this became major news nationwide news for banks to forgive any overdraft fees. Probably a bank by bank thing, maybe even case by case thing.
There's some nuance being lost here - they aren't saying they will violate the law, they are saying that their lawyers will advance an argument that the law (ABC test) does not apply to them.
I think the legislature and many on HN believe that courts will think it's absurd that Uber's drivers are doing work "outside the usual course" of Uber's business. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how well written the law was or whether California courts will include legislative intent in applying that language.
You're right about the article, I was responding to people in this thread: "broadcasting their intention [to break the law] in advance", "[admitting] that they will not adhere to the law" and so on. Those are the statements I am responding to.
Perhaps you should have indicated that's what your disagreement was, I think we agree but you misrepresent what I mean by "apply". Since it's not clear what it means to "pass" or "fail" the ABC test, and Uber is using the term "pass" to indicate that condition of the test is false (i.e.: failed), I used the term apply.
For example, when the Lemon test applies to something, it's because all of its three prongs are true. Is that a "pass" or a "fail"? That distinction I think is irrelevant to the law, but I'm sure the litigants on both sides would argue that their argument is good ("pass"), and the opposing argument is bad ("fail").
A city putting up decorations for a religious event and denying others would argue that they have "passed" the Lemon test, while articulating that one of its conditions "fails".
A litigant against such a city would argue the city "fails" the test.
I did not want to use Uber's language ("But just because the [ABC] test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it") because their job is to frame things positively for their client. Passing the ABC test is trivial - I'm doing it right now! So are you! What we care about is whether or not the test applies to something, that is, it entails some consequences, and Uber is going to argue that one of the specific prongs of the test will fail. From their view, this is a win, and this is them "passing" the test.
That's pretty interesting, I look forward to see what comes out of this! People often tend to conflate "computer science" with "professional software development" and I admit my first reaction was "so what? I routinely use just a small handful of data structures, do we really need something like this?" but seeing it visually laid out in an easily-digestible format is somehow inspiring. From a scientific perspective I can imagine discovering more advanced structures much like "missing" elements from the periodic table.
That's not a general conclusion he's pushing, it's what he thinks would be a likely conclusion if two other hypotheticals are met:
"if it is indeed less than a millimetre thick, if it is pushed by the sunlight, then it is maybe a light sail"
It's not clear at all that he think it's likely that it's less than a millimeter thick or that it is a light sail. That's simply "the only thing that came to his mind" to explain the additional force(s) working on it.
Ok how about the introductory paragraph that states
> The following October, Avi Loeb, the chair of Harvard’s astronomy department, co-wrote a paper (with a Harvard postdoctoral fellow, Shmuel Bialy) that examined ‘Oumuamua’s “peculiar acceleration” and suggested that the object “may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth’s vicinity by an alien civilization.”
or another spot where he says
"Every now and then we find an object of artificial origin. And this could be a message in a bottle, and we should be open-minded."
Seems to me like he is saying it could be worth considering that maybe this is an alien object.
The goalposts are moving. Yes to "worth considering" but that's not what I was responding to above ("is likely an alien device" ... "certainly seems to make that claim").
I'm not trying to move the goal post. I'm only taking umbridge with the fact the previous poster said "No one has claimed that Oumuamua is likely an alien device". The person interviewed in the very article this discussion is about seems to think that maybe it could be. So we are talking semantics between "likely" and "possibly".
"likely", "maybe", "possibly" can all be used differently.. Especially if you take it out of context of the rest of the article.
> Man that food sure looks tasty.
> You haven't even tasted it! Why are you saying it's tasty?
There are absolutely no claims that it's an alien artifact. What he is doing is providing reasons for why checking out similar solar visitors is something we need to do.
“Every now and then we find an object of artificial origin.” Did he just admit we have found aliens before? What other artificial objects or origins have we ever found?
"
It is very similar to when I walk on the beach with my daughter and look at the seashells that are swept ashore. Every now and then we find an object of artificial origin. And this could be a message in a bottle, and we should be open-minded. So we put this sentence in the paper.
"
That quote is specifically in answer to it being a millimeter-thick light sail. An object that size that is only a millimeter thick... yeah, I might agree with his "much more likely" characterization, if the object has that shape.
Hopefully the manager of the team is also subject to performance reviews. Generally the manager of the team is responsible for the performance of the team, meaning the manager fails if the team fails or has significant problems.
This is highly dependent on company environment however and obviously can come with it's own set of motivations and problems.
Many organizations, especially larger ones, have a matrix structure in which project teams pull in resources who report to multiple different managers. So there may be a disconnect between the reporting manager and the team.
It's also just as difficult to evaluate team performance as individual performance. With knowledge workers everything is so subjective, and trying to put objective metrics on it ends up being self defeating due to people gaming the system in ways that harm the broader organization.
Strongly disagree. Waiting tables or bartending at high-end restaurants could be considered gig work. Wedding photography is gig work. I have a friend who runs a stationary side business as a "gig". These jobs, if you are able to market yourself effectively and gain a good reputation and some solid contacts, can pay extremely well. I have a nice 9-5 with benefits and stability, but my friends in the above positions earn about the same I do and work close to half of my hours.
That obviously isn't the case for everyone who does these, but I don't think you can make the claim "the pay sux" for all gig work.
Because it sets baseline standards. Yes, I think everyone knows the US does not have the best healthcare in the world. But I also think it's 100% appropriate to say if you want to practice medicine in this country then you must meet our standards. Just like a drivers license might not be valid in any country you visit outside your own.
