Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | matthewowen's comments login

Oxford to Edinburgh takes about 6 hours on the train, going via London. The bulk of that is on the London - Edinburgh train (a nice 4.5 hour block).

Oxford to Birmingham is about 1hr15 if everything goes to plan. Parking, going through security, boarding, etc is, generously, at least an hour. The flight is about 1hr15. It takes 30 minutes to get from the airport to the city centre (but you'll also have to navigate your way through the airport to get to the bus.

Adding that up comes to at least four hours, and could well be closer to five. So you actually saved at most two hours, and possibly as little as one. However, you probably had a pretty miserable journey (whereas on the train you could have relaxed for four hours with a good book and a nice cup of tea).


Well, OK not technically a day, but practically speaking it bought me around 7 extra hours in Edinburgh, which felt like an extra day in comparison to having to spend 8 hours+ on the return train journey.

There are many other practical factors about my specific journey your comparison doesn't include, such as the fact that I don't actually live in Oxford, so I need to get the bus to Oxford station (in which time I can get 90% of the way to Birmingham Airport by car), the times of day I was travelling, connection times, and travel time at the other end of the train journey. (And if you factored in Oxford's marvelous road works, that's probably another 4 hours saved right there ;-)

As for a miserable journey... last time I went to Edinburgh by train it was so overcrowded they simply cancelled all the seat reservations altogether, because people couldn't get to their seats. So I stood/squatted/sat on luggage in a crowded hot train for hours. Not fun at all. I knew would be busy. That's why I bought a "reservation"!

The plane journey was a doddle by comparison.


If the only valuable asset of the company is the talent, and the talent is composed of at will employees, then the company doesn't have a valuable asset.

The extent to which the equity-holders can reasonably expect money is the extent to which the company-held IP is valuable in and of itself (or, to a lesser extent, valuable when combined with the expertise you get by hiring the team).

-----


Uber (and other 1099 companies) don't want to do that, because their businesses are based on moving risk from the company (employing employees that they might not need) to their labor force (you can work whenever, but the amount you get paid is solely dependent on the demand that we may or may not generate for you).

-----


But if you want to work at hours convenient to you, then you probably won't make much money.

Most people aren't out driving people to the airport at 5am for the fun of it. For people who drive Uber as a primary source of income, sure there's some notional freedom. But in practical terms, there are times that you can productively work at and times that you can't.

Same thing goes for PostMates.

-----


So in other words, the flexibility of those hours stays roughly equal. If someone is relying on Uber for their primary source of income, the 30-hour cap might be a definite turn-off.

Now, it's not a given that Uber will institute that, but I think the way the laws are worded in this country every single part-time employer has that policy just to avoid future liabilities.

-----


Kinda frustrating though, because Buffer's salaries are very low (esp in SF and NYC). So to whatever extent they're anchoring standards or w/e, they're anchoring them to a very low level.

-----


I think the point he's making is that it isn't as though the European Parliament is "standing up against" the EU or whatever: the parliament is part of the EU; you could rewrite the headline as "EU rejects EU plan".

That view may not fully capture the subtlety of the matter though.

-----


I don't think anyone here is saying that he shouldn't be allowed to say it: merely that he shouldn't say it.

You're still allowed to think that people are idiots/assholes for saying things. You're still allowed to put pressure on them to change. None of these things are at odds with the speech being legally protected.

-----


People have this strange idea that running a red light is strictly worse than breaking the speed limit.

It isn't. I ride a bicycle. I don't run red lights as a general principle, but if I'm at a quiet intersection which I can see to be clear, I don't think coming to a stop and then cautiously proceeding is a terrible thing to do. It's significantly safer than breaking the speed limit on city streets. I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars. The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car.

-----


In Virginia if a bike waits for 120 seconds[0] and no cars are there, it's totally legal to run the light. Bikes tend not to trigger the light change.

(I know this reads as "if no one sees you, it's ok". But it actually is on the books)

[0] http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-833 section B

-----


The "quiet street" scenario is almost certainly not the one that's being addressed by people who get irked by red-light runners.

-----


> People have this strange idea that running a red light is strictly worse than breaking the speed limit.

If you mean the posted speed limit, it usually legally is since the posted speed limit is, in many legal regimes, not actually a mandatory limit, whereas the red light is.

> I also think it's worth noting that many intersections are designed for cars.

Yes, particularly, the relation between normal speed on the road, the distance at which the signal is clearly visible, the timing of the signal, etc., are designed to provide cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc., crossing the intersection safety from, particularly, cars passing through the intersection in other directions. Bikes, pedestrians, cars, etc., violating the rules governing entrance to the intersection are negating that design.

> The safe way to proceed through those intersections is not necessarily to behave like a car.

There's probably an argument that it is in some circumstances safer for a bike to behave like a pedestrian than like a car, sure, as both the size and speed regime may be closer (especially, in the latter case, when coming off a stop) to the former than the latter.

OTOH, there's a reason that pedestrians generally aren't supposed to cross against lights, either, so that doesn't really justify blowing through a red light.

-----


In most areas the posted limit is the actual, statutory limit, and exceeding it by even 1mph is violating the law.

-----


> In most areas the posted limit is the actual, statutory limit, and exceeding it by even 1mph is violating the law.

In most states, yes; OTOH, many of the exceptions are large (both geographically and by population) states like California and Texas, so "most areas" is a little bit less clear.

-----


I blow reds on certain intersections to avoid people making right turns into me.

Most of the time it happens on one-way-crossing-one-way where the driver next to me is looking left, not thinking they need to look right because traffic on the cross street is one way.

-----


I've been yelled at in similar situations. For "riding in the middle of the road" when I'm simply not riding in the right turn lane. It's never safe to put yourself in a position where you are going straight and a car is turning right.

VA also notes this in the law[0]. If the lane is a turn only, you don't have to ride near the curb of the turn only lane.

[0]http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-905 p4.

-----


On some big intersections when impatient drivers are waiting at lights for some time it's really dangerous to set off with them when. Because of this at such junctions I'll go during the "pedestrian" phase after all the pedestrians have crossed, proceeding slowly as not to hit someone deciding to make a run for it before the lights change.

I agree with you about taking a common-sense view to it. Whenever I've used this defense drivers typically state the rules are the rules and common-sense is subjective and we can't have people making up things as they go along. I never like this, it just seems typical of the times we live in.

-----


It isn't strictly worse, but intersections are the most dangerous part of navigating roads. You think the intersection is quiet and then bam you get T-boned by a car you didn't see--game over.

I don't personally care if bikers run reds, but be safe about it. I see plenty of them weaving between pedestrians or weaving around moving cars. That behavior is just dangerous as can be, and not just for you.

At the end of the day, it's not my spine that will get crushed if you run the light.

-----


There are spousal exemptions for inheritance taxes.

-----


Ah yes, taxes. Good point.

-----


Is this a joke? Your position is that Seamus Heaney's work (etc) isn't poetry? And that's because you don't think there's rhythm and melody to what he writes?

I find that very disheartening.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: