Wouldn’t that stick out on Uber’s end? A driver that continuously accepts rides and then cancels them without completing a single one? They could just ban the driver cutting off his source of new clients.
There are other apps, though. The id system of the local apps are fairly lax, so the driver will just create another account. Besides, they don't always cancel rides. Sometimes they accept "manufactured" rides. E.g. once you've hailed a ride on the street normally, they might tell you to initiate a search through [ride-sharing-app] and then accept it (to maybe complete some quota that lowers their commission payable).
Beats me. Maybe they are too big to notice? Or don't care? I've done this more than once (and I don't take many Ubers). I end up paying less and the driver makes more money, so everyone is happy.
I've nothing against women in the workplace, but I do think it sucks that in most families both parents are forced to work in order to make ends meet. Universal childcare is the worst of both worlds - you miss out on all those special moments when your children are young and your kids get to be raised by a stranger. Plus the public gets to foot the bill.
I guess it works if you don't want those experiences and are happier working.
Why is that the goal? Who decided that it is an appropriate goal? This whole argument is silly for a lot of reasons, but honestly it's a bait and switch amongst other things: "Oh we'll eventually get to reduced hours, you just need to both start working now and let someone else raise and watch your children." Sounds like a scam to me.
It seems more scammy to me that universal childcare, pre-school, et cetera are twisted to mean mandating both parents work. It doesn't. Countries with universal childcare still have plenty of stay-at-home parents. What they don't have is parents, predominantly moms, forced to stay at home with their kids.
Yup. People need to understand optionality. Markets are about adjacent hypotheticals.
Right now it's not like parent needing to do other things is some low-simmering quasi-strike disciplining labor markets. It's more like the expense of having kids disciplinarians would-be parents.
A post of post-work post-scarity stuff runs through more people working. It is counter intuitive, but that is how things work. So long as people who would like to work are not, it will hang over our heads and we won't be able to shrink the workweek.
If you need some real-world evidence, see right now, at this period of record low unemployment, the one of the UAW's demands is a shorter work-week.
For the same reason that in the winter the weather people tell you the temperature, but then are sure to include the windchill factor (which makes it sound worse). In the summer they tell you the temperature and be sure to include the "real feel", which includes the heat index and makes it sound worse. Arguably, in the winter there's still a heat index and in the summer a wind chill, but that would make the news sound good, and mess up the whole strategy.
Bad news sells. Mostly it's totally made up BS. Global warming is another made up tragedy to distract us from real issues like wars, poverty, wealth disparity, care for the elderly and mentally ill, etc.
> Global warming is another made up tragedy to distract us from real issues like wars, poverty, wealth disparity, care for the elderly and mentally ill, etc.
Here I am contemplating whether to "waste" my time trying to tell someone on the Internet they're wrong, or just shake my head at the "deluded idiot" (my point of view, it could be wrong) and go on with my day. I wonder what the dangers are of people doing the latter and people walking around confidently with "false beliefs" (again, my point of view, could be wrong)
But you mention wars, don't you notice how weather has had a big effect? For example there was a bad Russian heatwave in 2010 which destroyed grain yields. Food prices all over the world went up, and in north African countries this contributed to the Arab Spring revolutions [1]. Is it just a freak weather event? Can we attribute it to climate change? Can't we accept digging up carbon/methane and burning it creates an atmosphere/planet that slowly becomes inhospitable to humans?
Well, I also want to talk about refugees fleeing crisis countries, but I'm too lazy to look up the citations right now. I contemplated just abandoning this reply because of that. This sounds obnoxious but consider it a gift that someone is still willing to tell you that you might be mistaken, rather than shake their head at what you wrote and walking away unnoticedly.
>Is it just a freak weather event? Can we attribute it to climate change? Can't we accept digging up carbon/methane and burning it creates an atmosphere/planet that slowly becomes inhospitable to humans?
I think it's all 3. The problem is that, like anything remotely political in our current environment, one side says it's 100% one source, and the other says it's 0%.
The transition is going to be very expensive, and normal people (hardly getting by) aren't willing to get even poorer when they can't be sure it will help in the grand scheme. Our leaders are doing nothing but talk, they're the worst individual offenders. And globally, there's a "tragedy of the commons issue" at the Nation level, where those who continue to burn fossil fuels are going to get ahead.
Until these things are addressed, telling us repeatedly that it's getting warmer falls on deaf ears.
People often claim this, but I don't think it's true. I think news organisations on average underplay the threat from climate change.
What actually sells is confirming people's world view. Telling people "everything's fine, look at these silly scientists panicking over nothing" seems very popular with a large segment of the population.
I haven't watched recently but at least in the USA, local news is always a parade of crimes, accidents and fires with sports and weather to round out the 22 minute run time, but as you write, climate change was non existent since it's hard to adapt to the few minutes of video and sentences each story got. One would get the impression that there is a lot of crime and fires in the local area from the sampling bias, and my understanding is this where a large percentage of old people and less educated get their news so it sort of reinforces a lack of urgency to these people about climate change.
Oddly, NYC is archipelago city, and the only way from Long Island/Brooklyn/Queens to New Jersey is via Manhattan, hence the congestion. I guess one could take the huge detour via Staten Island, but the Verrazzano already has a big toll.
Considering that the Cross-Bronx parkway is the road with the worst traffic in the entire country, you can't "easily" cross the GWB (but you can do so after sitting in traffic for several hours). And the privilege of this traffic nightmare is a $17 toll for the GWB ($13.50 if you have EZ Pass).
It’s absolutely worth it if you can afford it, which the rich world can. But personalised medicine forces us to face, in stark and dollarised terms, the inequity of healthcare access across the world.
Personalised medicine has high cost floors. The factors which would enable a triple order-of-magnitude reduction in its cost would sooner realise massive savings elsewhere, which means it’s unlikely a niche cancer treatment would be prioritised.
> requires them (by law) to offer a payment plan that works for my income level
Which is a rich-world perk. (That, to be clear, we absolutely should offer our people.)
Side note: do you have a link to more on this law? Currently dealing with an uninsured friend for whom we’re pooling resources for a medical treatment.
But then we end up with the OOM Killer, which is awful - randomly kill the biggest process because "reasons".... It would be better if the OS could say no.
In this case, the OOM Killer would be better, because a parent process is allowed to sacrifice one of its children, so the browser could kill the least-recently-used tab instead of itself.
If allocation predictably fails, you don't need an OS-level OOM killer to kill least-recently-used - you could just do said killing manually on failed allocation yourself. And you'd be able to do so in a much more controlled manner too while at it, instead of hoping the OS does what you want. (and if an OS/stdlib wanted to, such behavior could be made the default operation on allocation failure)
Right, it wouldn't help when one process wants more memory but you want an unrelated one to get killed, but the question here was about a browser killing one of its own tabs instead of the main browser process dying. (though, for what its worth, in the case where processes themselves can't decide how to free memory, I, as the user, would much prefer to be given the option of what to kill anyway; linux completely fails to do that, and given that overcommitting affects DEs too, it'd be pretty complicated to allow for such a thing)
not dynamically chosen though, at least in the case of earlyoom; whether to prefer killing the browser, or a random long-running process that has built up a couple gigabytes of RAM usage (or even just a bunch of small processes I don't need) will entirely depend on the intent (or lack thereof) behind the process, and what's currently happening in the browser.
Without over-committing, you could be preventing something that would work anyway. With it, the OOM could (often does) pick the biggest process that could very be using its memory legitimately AND be the most important process of this machine too.
I never heard of the Boots Theory before now, but I don't think it applies to the MTA. They buy the top of the line. And will build their own parts if it doesn't exist. It's not unusual for subway cars to run for millions of miles and last decades. The R32's were deployed in the 1930's and lasted until the early 2000's [0].
I am a New Yorker, and have seen the MTA do maintenance at night or over a weekend. Or, if things are desperate, during the day.
I don't know the real issues either, but always assumed politics played a big part.
> They buy the top of the line. And will build their own parts if it doesn't exist. It's not unusual for subway cars to run for millions of miles and last decades. The R32's were deployed in the 1930's and lasted until the early 2000's [0].
That doesn't seem to contradict th idea that they've spent far more money maintaining obsolete equipment when buying new would be cheaper overall. (Not really "boots theory" though).
It’s worth noting their entire switching infrastructure is human run mechanical switches and the tech are dated enough the MTA can’t even reliably know where a given subway car is. By comparison, most subway systems have a computerized switching infrastructure with real time computerized tracking of cars, saving quite-literally millions of man hours a year of work.
