How CockroachDB Does Distributed, Atomic Transactions - <AUTHOR> http://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/how-cockroachdb-distributes-atomic-transactions/ <comment><USER2> This is the transaction protocol from Google Percolator - with slightly different wording. I don't know if that's a well known fact but I was surprised they did not even mention it. OSDI Paper on Percolator: [https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi10/tech/full_papers/...](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi10/tech/full_papers/Peng.pdf)

Percolator is the processing system Google uses to manage its search index incrementally. It's built on BigTable which provides cell-level linearizability, similar to what CockroachDB seems to achieve by using Raft.

What CockroachDB calls "intents" are per-value columns called "write" in Percolator and ordered by BigTables timestamp system. Percolators "master lock" is rebranded to "switch" and, tada, there you have CockroachDBs fancy lockless algorithm.

Edit: Amazon DynamoDB, too, uses a very similar approach to this in their client-driven transaction implementation [https://github.com/awslabs/dynamodb- transactions/blob/master...](https://github.com/awslabs/dynamodb- transactions/blob/master/DESIGN.md)

It would be interesting to have one of the CochroachDB guys comment on the novelty of their approach.

<comment><USER3> Post author here:

In terms of Google products, CockroachDB much more closely resembles a combination Spanner ([http://research.google.com/archive/spanner.html](http://research.google.com/archive/spanner.html)) and F1 ([http://research.google.com/pubs/pub41344.html](http://research.google.com/pubs/pub41344.html)). However, while we do share many traits with these systems (a consistently replicated, transactional key/value store with a SQL interface), our internal transactional model is actually quite different.

If you're interested in some of the papers that inspired CockroachDB's transactional model, we have mentioned a number of them in our design doc ([https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/de...](https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/design.md#lock- free-distributed-transactions)).

As for Percolator, that system is not a general purpose database but an "incremental processor" for large datasets (such as a web crawler). While it does use a snapshot transaction system internally, it appears to use real exclusive access locks, which CockroachDB does not use. Our write intents are not locks, because they do not guarantee exclusive access to a resource (I've expanded on this in another comment on the blog: [http://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/how-cockroachdb- distribute...](http://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/how-cockroachdb-distributes- atomic-transactions/#comment-2232720938))

We are not claiming our transaction model to be exceptionally novel, this post is just trying to shed light on a specific property of that model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thank you for sharing your strategy for concurrent transactions. It's a very interesting topic :)

I see however some possible pain points in this strategy. My main concerns are:

* This looks to me a lot like some poor (no pun intended) form of MVCC ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiversion_concurrency_contr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiversion_concurrency_control)). Basically, it supports only two "V"s, the "on" and "off", while "normal" MVCC implementations support as many as required.

* Related to the above, I don't see how you can support more than one overlapping tx with this strategy. Sure, I'll keep tuned for the next post on this topic, but I fail to see how --without exclusive locking-- it could be done based on these principles.

* Every read seems like it needs to check the switch. I understand this might be expensive, specially if there is a concurrent modification in progress. Keys are co-located in the node, but they still require random access.

* It looks like even aborted transactions require writes to the database. And every transaction requires at least two writes (the write intent and its consolidation to the key). I don't expect good performance here.

Please help me clarify these questions, specially if I'm missing something. Hope it helps anyway. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> Hi there, blog author here!

This blog post is not a full description of CockroachDB's transaction strategy. If you're interested, you can find a complete rundown of our strategy here: ([https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/de...](https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/design.md#lock- free-distributed-transactions)). However, that is a very terse document: this blog post was an attempt to expand on one of the basic ideas behind our design. My goal to clearly explain how we approach atomicity, without broaching the complicated topic of Isolation.

That said, I will attempt to address some of the pain points you raised:

* Cockroach does use a full MVCC system; writes are "append-only" and we keep the full history of values for each key. Keys can be queried at a timestamp, and every write explicitly specifies a timestamp as well (each transaction is assigned a timestamp, all writes will use the same timestamp). With this system, each transaction operates on a snapshot of the database.

* Our strategy for overlapping transactions is straightforward: if two concurrent transactions have a conflict, one of them will be aborted and retried. Write intents (in combination with another component, the "read timestamp cache") are used by conflicting transactions to discover each other. Once discovered, the decision of which in-progress transaction gets aborted is deterministic - each transaction is assigned a random integer "priority", and the transaction with the highest priority always wins the conflict (unless one of the transactions has already committed).

* Every read does need to check the switch _if the key being read has a write intent_ ; reads of plain values (with no in-progress transaction) do not need to check a switch.

* Yes, aborted transactions can write intents to the database in our current system. However, the second "write" (consolidation) happens asynchronously, and is not required for the transaction to function correctly. It should only be noticed if the key is accessed again by another transaction before it is consolidated. For committed transactions, I don't believe this is a particularly high price to pay.

A system that doesn't write aborted transactions to disk would be considerably more complex; I think it would involve two commit phases (I. The transaction has been "committed" in memory, and can no longer be aborted by other transactions II. The transaction must successfully commit all changes to disk in an atomic fashion). You likely could get some additional performance (if disk latency is a sufficient bottleneck), but it would be hard won in terms of complexity.

<comment><USER4> Hi, thanks for the reply!

I will read the more detailed document. It would probably make more sense to me.

From the description of MVCC that you say, it looks like you're storing the whole replicated state machine that you have via the Raft protocol. If txs are assigned such a timestamp, I agree that could operate as a full MVCC system. Good.

Regarding the overlapping txs, it makes sense once you say you're aborting txs. Without that, it sounded really difficult to achieve without locking.

When you say reads only check the switch if there is a write intent, where is exactly that "switch"? I understood it's not with the key, but rather at some other random location. If that's the case, I insist that you require two reads: one for the key, the other one for the switch. Os is the switch co- located with every key?

Regarding the aborted txs, I can't argue without numbers, but I'd like to see those. I mean: you may abort txs voluntarily (I want to ROLLBACK) or involuntary (there's a concurrent conflict). That may or may not be a high number. But all of those would be written to disk, so it might become a high price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'll be interested to see the further details discussed in the isolation post, which might answer some questions.

This is basically the same how the DynamoDB client transaction library works. The two major problems with that library are:

* High write amplification (7N for DDB, probably similar for CockroachDB)

* Poor throughput under contention. This is mostly due to the immediately abort conflicting pending transactions policy, which could be changed if contention is frequent (client side exponential back off is probably good enough for most cases). The special sauce they didn't mention might also help here.

</comment><comment><USER6> Could you have picked a worse more disgusting name?

You want people to feel good when they think of your product, not repulsed.

<comment><USER7> You may also want to hint that user data will survive even a nuclear winter.

<comment><USER8> I think a nicer name would be RoachDB. But CockroachDB/Cockroach labs is quite a memorable name, more so than roachdb for sure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So they do it without a lock by using a "switch" instead. What is the difference? Or is it the same concept as a "lock" but they've just created a whole new confusion around terms by trying to be different?

Edit - there's an answer on the blog's comments. Apparently it differs from a lock because " it won't prevent any operations from executing, it will just properly order them"

</comment><comment><USER10> Why didn't you go down the route of Paxos Commit for your ACP versus the Yabandeh-style ACP? I realize that they have very different semantics, but Paxos Commit seems to have (nearly) all the same properties, and benefits without a single key, that basically acts as the "coordinator" for the transaction (a process as opposed to a key).

</comment><comment><USER11> I look forward to a Kyle Kingsbury (Aphyr) "Call me maybe" post. eg. [https://aphyr.com/posts/324-call-me-maybe- aerospike](https://aphyr.com/posts/324-call-me-maybe-aerospike)

</comment><comment><USER12> This looks very interesting, but I still don't get how do they avoid concurrency on the switch:

"The switch cannot be concurrently accessed – reads and writes of the switch are strictly ordered". If not with a lock file, maybe a log-based architecture?

<comment><USER3> Post author here!

The on disk part of the "switch", our transaction record, can only be accessed internally. There are only a small number of operations to perform on it - create it, read its value, and a small number of deterministic "read-then- write" operations. For example, in the case of an "abandoned" transaction, a later transaction may want to read the abandoned transaction record, see if it is still "pending", and then mark it as "aborted" if it is.

Our runtime orders all such operations on the same record so that they are completely sequential - that is, even for a "read-then-write" operation, it must completely finish before any other operation can occur on that key. This is done using basic runtime synchronization primitives (mutexes, channels, etc).

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Looking forward for the next post!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The writeup mentions that concurrent attempts to update a row will be discussed in a future post. The simplified discussion here says that a writer who encounters a write intent of an uncommitted transaction aborts the concurrent transaction.

I believe also that non-repeatable reads would be a potential problem. A transaction could read a row, then read it a second time; if a concurrent, committed transaction mutated the row, the repeated read will return a different result.

I believe that both these problems would be solved by MVCC which I suspect is the next blog post.

But I'm not super great at distributed DB stuff, so please correct me if I've misunderstood!

<comment><USER3> Post Author here!

Your understanding of this particular issue is correct: the system described in this post would not be able to provide repeatable reads.

However, as you've alluded to, Cockroach transactions use a form of snapshot isolation (implemented with MVCC) which does provide repeatable reads. And yes, that will be the subject of my next post. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love CockroachDB but the name is dismissed by many that don't know all its capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not sure if CockroachDB has multi-DC async replication, but the challenge I've always found in this stuff is ensuring the transaction also commits on remote replicas in an all-or-nothing way. Maybe I didn't read close enough...

<comment><USER3> Post author here

Sargun is correct, all of our replication is performed by Raft, which exists at a lower level than the content covered in this post. Every command executed against a cockroach key (i.e. "create write intent", "begin this transaction") is persisted to the Raft log before executing; Commands will not proceed if they are not confirmed by Raft. The outcome of all commands is deterministic, so this provides complete replication of all mutations to each key.

If you're interested, there's more information available in our primary design document: ([https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/de...](https://github.com/cockroachdb/cockroach/blob/master/docs/design.md#raft ---consistency-of-range-replicas))

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm much more interested in how they get "C" in a distributed DB than how they get "A"

</comment><comment><USER17> Interesting read, the CochroachDB guys are top notch engineers. I'm excited to see how this product develops.</comment>


Listening to music with hearing aids - <AUTHOR> http://spottedsun.com/listening-to-music-with-hearing-aids/ <comment><USER2> I have a cochlear implant and I've had several of these audio induction loop tidbits for my CI processor (hearing aid) for years. In my opinion, the wire is a PITA and attracts a lot of attention.

This spring, Advanced Bionics is coming out with a bluetooth-enabled CI processor so that I finally can be able to listen to music on my smartphone via bluetooth without having to deal with wires. I've already got the money waiting to reserve myself one of these processors.

<comment><USER3> Is it called a Cochlear Implant when Advanced Bionics makes it? Do you know if Cochlear is going to release a processor that's bluetooth-enabled?

<comment><USER4> Hmm, that's a dick move. They were called _cochlear implants_ before a company decided to call themselves "Cochlear".

Just in case: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlea>

<comment><USER3> I know there's a part in the ear called the cochlea but I thought the company just added the letter r to the word and made that their name; I didn't know the word existed before the company. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Telecoil is great, but it doesn't really compare to a $400 pair of headphones. I have this one [http://eu.akg.com/quincy-jones-eu/brand_akg/akg- headphones/q...](http://eu.akg.com/quincy-jones-eu/brand_akg/akg- headphones/quincy-jones-signature-line.html). I put them over my hearing aids and listening to music is awesome.

I am not sure whether it is due to any technological limitations in Telecoil or a $400 Telecoil would work as good as this, but I'll be sticking with my headphones for now. :)

Another alternative is to get top of the line hearing aids and pair them up with an FM transmitter (I have a Nadia and a Smartlink+ [http://www.phonak.com/com/b2c/en/products/fm/transmitters.ht...](http://www.phonak.com/com/b2c/en/products/fm/transmitters.html)). Once again, average sound quality for music but you can pair the transmitter to your phone using Bluebooth. True handsfree.

<comment><USER6> When I've used my hearing aids with phones, I've always had the impression that the audio quality is pretty bad. Telecoils apparently go back to 1947, and so it wouldn't surprise me if they were relatively poor quality either for efficiency or simply because it was the state-of-the-art back then (or the quality was limited by some other system - why have higher quality than a telephone can deliver?).

<comment><USER5> Yeah, they're great for telephones but there is too much ambient noise around them for them to make listening to music fun for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My problem is that my conductive hearing is crap but my nerve hearing is great. Doctor and audiologist recommend putting a screw into my skull to attach one of those bulky bone-conductive hearing aids so I hear everything through the nerves. I don't like the idea because they are big and apparently not shrinkable, and because they basically make everything mono. Not sure if there's other tech that is a better alternative?

<comment><USER8> I have two BAHAs (bone-assisted hearing aids). Up until a few months ago, I had only one and yes - stereo hearing was not great, but hearing well in mono was better than not hearing well in stereo. I now have one on each side and do have some stereo hearing now.

As far as "bigness" I guess you just have to weigh the ability to hear verses vanity and getting a few stares now and then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've had hearing aids for 20+ years. I occasionally try the tele-coil in locations that have them. I am always disappointed; the quality is just not there. It sounds (haha) like the OP didn't have a very good audiologist, one that did not go through the full range of options with him.

It's also possible that my loss is not severe enough to be satisfied with the tinny tele-coil quality.

I believe the tele-coil technology was developed to enable the use of phones with hearing aids. The aid, when used with an old-style phone held in a normal position, is close enough to pick up the magnetic field directly from the handset speaker. Not very useful for today's phones though.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just like mvleming, I use a bilateral personal audio cable that jacks into my processors directly.

There are two major things wrong with the post:

1) "Nobody else can hear it" - Well, no, when I was listening to music with my hearing aids (Before I got my implants), well, even the best seal on 130db music can't prevent some of it leaking out of your ear and annoying your coworkers.

2) Induction loops are extremely prone to interference. There are many buildings in which Telecoil mode gets you really raw static noise. On airplanes, it's intolerably loud - you can't use induction loops on airplanes. At all.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've had a double stapedectomy (replacing the stapes bone with a metal prosthesis) and I can't tell the difference between a $400 pair of headphones versus $100, but I can tell a difference on the low end. As my hearing is likely to degrade, this will be of interest when need to get hearing aids.

</comment><comment><USER11> An honest question: I've always referred to this condition as being "hard of hearing" but the author implies that it's impolite to call it as such. Is there a better term that we should be using?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's probably a safe bet.

It's just stupid though. Some people get offended by (for example) "hearing impairment" because... it's implying they have an impairment. You _do_ have an impairment, jeez.

It's different in groups too. I believe if you're profoundly deaf, and you sign and actively involved in the "deaf community", you're Deaf. If you're not, you're deaf. Maybe I have that backwards, but I don't really care.

<comment><USER12> Easy to knock it if you aren't living with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> What? I am. I'm the author of the post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My hearing aid has a bluetooth gizmo. Similar, but probably way better quality.</comment>


Indonesian army urged to stop virginity tests for recruits - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32743373

<comment><USER2> From the article:

 _A local plan to require schoolgirls in part of Java to undergo the so-called virginity tests before they could gain a secondary school diploma was scrapped after an outcry earlier this year._

That should make you scratch your head and yell some profanities.

There are a lot of "can't make this stuff up" news about Indonesia.

Nazi-themed cafe draws fire in Indonesia [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/indonesias-nazi-themed- sol...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/indonesias-nazi-themed- soldatenkaffee-reopens-wwii-cafe-n141631)

There's no such thing as Free Speech Arrested for calling Indonesian city 'idiotic' [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs- trending-29035858](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-29035858)

Muslims assault U.S. Embassy in Indonesia (Protesting Danish Newspaper over publications of Muhammad Cartoons) [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-19-indones...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-19-indonesia- us-embassy_x.htm)

It goes on and on...</comment>


LG's Smartwatch Shows Android Wear Operating System Has a Long Way to Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/technology/personaltech/lg-g-smartwatch-shows-android-wear-operating-system-has-a-long-way-to-go.html <comment><USER2> > Android Wear seems still in the experimental stage, but this app is not > labeled a beta.

This is the impression I get, after using one for about a week. Not only does it seem rather unfinished, it's also quite buggy (some notifications never disappear, the navigation integration is basically unusable, and there was a point where I was getting _no_ notifications and had to clear data for the Google Play Services app to get them back).

However, when it _does_ work, it works brilliantly and I'm kind of lucky that it doesn't look monstrously big on my wrist, so I think I'm going to stick with it for now.

<comment> k-mcgrady > Android Wear seems still in the experimental stage, but this app is not > labeled a beta.

That seems to be how Google is doing things now. Look at Google Glass. It's listed on the Play Store as 'explorer edition' and marketed on the page not as an experimental product but as something hikers, cyclists, photographers etc. should use. It's actually quite dishonest especially considering it costs £1,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Two things make it worthwhile:

1\. Replying by transcribed voice to Hangouts messages, including SMS, by speaking into the watch. This works even in very loud environments. That's pretty amazing.

2\. Google Now notifications that I have to be on my way to my next meeting.

It's not amazing, but it is very convenient to take notes and to-dos by voice when driving, since I don't usually wear a headset all the time when driving. This is the best general-purpose voice note-taking setup I have used.

I have not found it to be buggy. To the contrary, it handles being in and out of range of the phone very well. I never have to fiddle with Bluetooth settings to get it to connect.

I'm not that keen on the round watch-faces either. While the UI might work on a round display, there is nothing about the UI that would actually _use_ roundness in any useful way. That is, apart from analog-style watch faces, there are no other "gauge" metaphors in the UI or any other UI element that wants to be on a round display.

</comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only one that thinks voice interfaces are a scourge on technology? Leave them to science fiction. It's already bad enough with people walking around with their bluetooth headsets chatting away looking literally insane. But call me a luddite.

<comment><USER5> I use voice control for one thing: to send text messages while driving. It's a lot safer to say "text bob i will be there in fifteen minutes" then "send" than to try to type while driving. It's also (understandably) illegal to type the messages while driving in many areas!

<comment><USER6> It's telling that I find it less frustrating to find a stop sign or parking lot, than to suffer thru using speech. Error rate is too high. Getting angry while driving is no fun.

Also I can call someone with one button press on my car. Much less distracting, and much faster, than trying to text/email.

<comment><USER7> Agreed - I have yet to successfully send a text through voice commands. Or navigate. And I quickly realised it was dangerous to try, because I would inevitably have to look down to see what the phone is actually doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> having a second screen for notifications and short information bits is really useful. After a month with the LG Watch, I'm convinced this is an essential addon to use with a smartphone.

It feels really stupid now to think that my phone would make some kind of noise to inform me that something new happened, and that I should probably get it out and unlock it to check if this is maybe something I want to act on right now.

Android wear is smartly not about "an Android phone on your wrist". It acknowledges that your wrist is a great place to glance at information, that this is what watches have always been used for, and provides a dead simple interface for exactly this usecase.

It's the calculator apps and the pizza ordering apps (stupidly featured at I/O) that put this great product in danger of being misunderstood.

<comment><USER9> BTW: you can check some notifications without the unlocking step (at least, in 4.2.2).

On the lockscreen, swipe left. There'll be a "+". Unlock on this screen, and you get a choice of apps to show on it (email, messaging, calendar etc). You can have several such screens (it seems, one app per screen). A long press gives allows deletion of that screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's not clear to me what the target market for this is, esp. given you need a phone as well. A whole generation has gotten used to telling the time by looking at their phones (ironically, exactly the same gesture as using a pocketwatch). The rise of the wrist watch in the mass market is tied to some very specific events in history (lots of people being issued them in WW2). Who is going to buy this and why?

<comment><USER11> I've got a Pebble - It's much easier for me to glance at my wrist to get the date, time, weather, or to tell who that email came from rather than fishing my phone out of my pocket - especially when driving. On the downside, it's a pretty ugly watch, but when I accidently let the battery run down I miss it.

<comment><USER12> Change to a watchface that includes the battery charge. Better yet, install Pebble Canvas and create your own watch face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "oh best take my phone out of my pocket, my watch is ringing".

</comment><comment><USER14> For people who have one. What's the battery life been like?

<comment><USER15> About 3 days assuming you have the display off when it is not in use. About a day if you like to leave the screen on.

<comment><USER8> I leave the screen on and I'm at about 40% in the evening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _" operating system for wearable devices like smartwatches"_

/facepalm

Please, just focus on Glass and preferably other wearable displays, so we don't need to waste a ton of money and time on something that will never be anything other than a fad.

<comment><USER16> If someone could explain why smart watches (especially with their own OS, I get phone-pairing, but standalone just seems stupid) are a good idea, I'd be glad to read and upvote it.

<comment><USER3> They are a good idea because they expand the physical interface to smartphones.

In general mobile devices face the challenge that they can't be too large. So you will find wearables, sensors, radio beacons, and other technologies used to make the interaction "surface" larger.

<comment><USER16> OK, I get that problem, but AR glasses will solve it and many others, making smart watches and possibly any LCD displays obsolete. In my opinion, smart watches are a DOA product, no point in pushing for a market for them.

Imagine a perfected version of these with an optional front cover so you only see the displays when needed: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBo05xvSVk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOBo05xvSVk)

<comment><USER3> I've got both an LG AndroidWear watch, and Glass. At first, I thought "Glass is radical enough, and watches won't be." But I wear the smartwatch almost every day and I've only found Glass really useful for recording PoV video for tutorials and reviews. Glass needs a "killer app."

At this stage of development, Glass is too obtrusive and has too limited battery life. I could see some high-value enterprise apps for Glass. AR glasses are a step or three beyond that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't use Java 7 for anything, unless you have no loops in your program - <AUTHOR> http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/07/28/dont-use-java-7-for-anything/ <comment><USER2> "These problems were detected only 5 days before the official Java 7 release, so Oracle had no time to fix those bugs" -- this is very, very broken. They had time to _not release a version of Java with known wrong-code and crashing bugs affecting real code_.

<comment><USER3> For sure. Though, I was impressed that he got through every paragraph without even a hint of the snark that this deserves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Workaround: run with -XX:-UseLoopPredicate. ([http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler- dev/...](http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler- dev/2011-July/005971.html))

But yeah, pretty bad bug.

<comment><USER5> low priority actually:

<http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7070134>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems fishy to me. I actually got this message as well, and we're evaluating the impact - but this is a tremendously serious and obvious bug to appear in a shipping release of one of the most used softwares on the planet. It just doesn't add up to me.

Does anyone have more details than this message?

</comment><comment><USER7> Text of Uwe's message for anyone who was as annoyed by that text box as I was:

From: Uwe Schindler Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:13:36 +0200 Subject: [WARNING] Index corruption and crashes in Apache Lucene Core / Apache Solr with Java 7

Hello Apache Lucene & Apache Solr users, Hello users of other Java-based Apache projects,

Oracle released Java 7 today. Unfortunately it contains hotspot compiler optimizations, which miscompile some loops. This can affect code of several Apache projects. Sometimes JVMs only crash, but in several cases, results calculated can be incorrect, leading to bugs in applications (see Hotspot bugs 7070134 [1], 7044738 [2], 7068051 [3]).

Apache Lucene Core and Apache Solr are two Apache projects, which are affected by these bugs, namely all versions released until today. Solr users with the default configuration will have Java crashing with SIGSEGV as soon as they start to index documents, as one affected part is the well-known Porter stemmer (see LUCENE-3335 [4]). Other loops in Lucene may be miscompiled, too, leading to index corruption (especially on Lucene trunk with pulsing codec; other loops may be affected, too - LUCENE-3346 [5]).

These problems were detected only 5 days before the official Java 7 release, so Oracle had no time to fix those bugs, affecting also many more applications. In response to our questions, they proposed to include the fixes into service release u2 (eventually into service release u1, see [6]). This means you cannot use Apache Lucene/Solr with Java 7 releases before Update 2! If you do, please don't open bug reports, it is not the committers' fault! At least disable loop optimizations using the -XX:-UseLoopPredicate JVM option to not risk index corruptions.

Please note: Also Java 6 users are affected, if they use one of those JVM options, which are not enabled by default: -XX:+OptimizeStringConcat or -XX:+AggressiveOpts

It is strongly recommended not to use any hotspot optimization switches in any Java version without extensive testing!

In case you upgrade to Java 7, remember that you may have to reindex, as the unicode version shipped with Java 7 changed and tokenization behaves differently (e.g. lowercasing). For more information, read JRE_VERSION_MIGRATION.txt in your distribution package!

On behalf of the Lucene project, Uwe

[1] <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7070134> [2] <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7044738> [3] <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7068051> [4] <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3335> [5] <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3346> [6] <http://s.apache.org/StQ>

<comment><USER8> Can anyone replicate the Stemmer bug (7070134 / first link)?

I just tried it with Arch Linux and it passes on x86, even when passed -XX:+OptimizeStringConcat and -XX:+AggressiveOpts explicitly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems like the sort of thing that should have been caught in automated testing.

<comment><USER10> Also if I were to release a new version of a compiler and VM for a widely used language, I'd try to run some really big projects on top of it and see if they work fine. There's no luck of those in Java world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Disaggregated link - [http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www- announce/201107...](http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www- email@example.com%3E)

</comment><comment><USER12> Smells a bit like FUD to me. We've been using openjdk 7 in production for quite a while now with no problems. This is on million+ LOC applications using various open source software (however, not Lucene or Solr :-)).

I suggest if you're worried, test it and see what happens. This bug sounds like it will hit you immediately if there is a problem.

</comment><comment><USER13> More generally, don't use anything on the day of release... Wait a week or 2 for the bugs to be ironed out.

Surely we've all learnt that by now...

<comment><USER14> Certainly with Java (speaking from experience going back to 1.0) and most certainly with major language/compiler releases like this one (see 1.5 previously). Java almost always requires a dot-release or two after a major version to iron out the kinks. Which isn't to say don't try it, but try it in development with low expectations. On the other hand, they're usually very quick about turning out the next few dot-releases (I'd wager that it'll be 1.7.3 by September, unless they continue with the silly 1.6.0_xx version format in which case 1.7.0_03).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great way to boost the confidence of the community in Oracle handling Java...

<comment><USER16> It'll be the way they handle this bug that will make/break my confidence. If they fix this quickly enough (even though they have this bug set to a low priority right now) then I won't mind too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Oracle will kill Java

<comment><USER14> Sun had exactly the same problems with major Java releases (see my comment up- thread).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This blog format is absurd. Narrow column and a fixed width content in a box guaranteed to be smaller than the content. Plus this is effectively blog spam despite being owned by the same place as the original content: [http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/1a0d3986e48a...](http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/1a0d3986e48a9348/warning_index_corruption_and_crashes_in_apache_lucene_core_apache_solr_with_java_7)

<comment><USER19> Here's the original source for Uwe's email: [http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-announce/201107...](http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www- email@example.com%3E)

Not sure why a third level reference is being passed around.

<comment><USER18> Oh great, so I was still using some gated linked. Thanks for the original, it's even easier on the eyes than my source anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Good, loops are just gotos in disguise, and gotos are already banned in Java. This just makes the language more consistent.

<comment><USER20> Gah, I didn't remember that Java programmers have no sense of humor.

<comment><USER21> Jokes that many members could come up with have no place on Hacker News. That's the road to devolving into a community where everyone tries to out-joke each other and the actual insightful comments get buried under the jokes. Just grin at the thought and enjoy the happiness, but don't post it. It's not that it's not funny; it's just that it is too easy a comment.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Help, I'm over-extended and I can't get up  - <AUTHOR>

My parents' raised me to be a helpful person, and I've always tried to help others' when asked. It's worked out well .. I feel good doing this and learn from the experience. I'm a hacker and founder, and after having (a modicum) of success at both the requests for help have risen dramatically.
I read an article a few months ago that made it seem A-OK, that things would somehow "work out": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/magazine/is-giving-the-secret-to-getting-ahead.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
This has not been the case with me. I have learned a lot, and gotten closer to a lot of people, but I've been neglecting my own interests to do so. The problem is I can't say no. When I say can't I really mean can't.
I don't have the vocabulary or gumption to (even politely) say I don't have the time or resources to do someone a favor. I realize this is not sustainable, but I also don't want to burn the amazing bridges I have built.
My goal right now is to go from "going all out" on every request to instead add a bit of value (suggestions, intro's etc) while maintaining at least 75% of my efforts on my own projects and interests. If any of you have had this problem, please let me know how you solved it! <comment><USER2> 1.) Grow a spine.

2.) Learn to politely say no. When I say politely, I mean to give a valid excuse why you can't spend 100% of your time on said request.

3.) Offer alternatives ie: I know person X who could help you with Y, but I likely won't be able to get to this for a few months and it would be a better use of your time to talk to person X.

In my career, I've never ever had a problem with saying no so long as I am able to offer a viable alternative for the user. Just thickening up and growing a spine will make you a lot less frustrated, try it sometime. Saying no is empowering :)

<comment><USER3> I get the sense that this post is OP's attempt to accomplish #1.

<comment><USER2> Yup, just wanted to re-enforce. You have to say no.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah yes, I have had to tackle this head on in the past. I love helping people, to a fault. However it's detrimental to your progress, success & ability to continue sustainably helping people long term if you keep saying 'Yes' regardless.

Imagine 'future you' is asking you for a favour in freeing up some of your time and now that is your main focus.

As for how to say 'no' you don't actually have to! :) Instead, add a little friction into the deal to make it easier on you.

So next time someone asks you to 'build me a quick website for my sisters, uncles litter of kittens' just say 'Why sure! I'd love to help! I'll need 5 photos, a list of exactly what you want it to say, a sketch of the layout and the details of their domain/web host. Send it all to this e-mail address. I usually get to work on my free projects at the end of the month"

I usually get 'will you come and fix my computer' several times a month. I just say sure, drop it off at my house between these times on this day. 9 times out of 10, they don't even do that. The other time it's someone who genuinely appreciates it and needs assistance and when they drop it round, I've not had to spend on fuel or leave the comfort of home and it's an easy fix..

By all means, keep being helpful but make sure it's on your terms.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not entirely sure what you're spending your time on from this, but what are they asking for? Try to get the other person to do as much work as possible, so you can minimize the amount of time you're spending on it.

I'd also agree with either charging money or passing them off to someone else. I'd mostly go with #2 since you want your time (You sad "at least 75% [towards your] own projects")

</comment><comment><USER6> Keep saying yes - just also Charge money. Around a 100 USD an hour.

If someone asks for a favour then two things are known - one it is good for them because its off their mental todo list and now on yours. And secondly it cannot be mission critical to them because it is low ranked enough to be a favour. So they care that you said it would get done but oddly care less that thing itself is done.

So charge money. Say Yes - that's about 12 hours work at 100 USD/hr

You are not saying no - you are just asking them to prioritise the things they will try and do. It's a win win all round believe me.</comment>


Swedish Startup to Bring Pogo Sticks to S.F. As E-Scooter Alternative - <AUTHOR> https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/05/31/swedish-startup-to-bring-pogo-sticks-to-s-f-as-e-scooter-alternative/ <comment><USER2> I'm all for alternative modes of transportation, I love my Boosted board, I love the bike shares in the city. But I'm hitting my limit here! Maybe for Bay to Breakers?

</comment><comment><USER3> Thought this was a joke.</comment>


CEO of Uber: Gig Workers Deserve Better - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi-gig-workers-deserve-better.html <comment><USER2> It seems odd that our public discourse has settled on the following set themes:

\- Every person deserves a baseline quality of life and benefits

\- The person's employer is tasked with the above responsibility

\- If a corporation pays their workers less than the above baseline, they are bad. We should shame them, and pass laws to ensure that they pay their workers better

\- If a corporation decides not to hire someone at all, and operates with a smaller workforce by tweaking their business model, that is perfectly acceptable and even laudable

Combine all of the above, and you end up with a world where corporations go above-and-beyond to reduce their headcount, and entrepreneurs specifically avoid labor-intensive business models. Firms like DE Shaw are publicly lauded for making lots of money with a tiny elite workforce, while spinoffs like Amazon are publicly shamed for actually employing hundreds of thousands of middle class workers. All this only worsens the situation for those in the lower-middle-class in the long-term, because now they have fewer work opportunities, and less demand for their labor.

Clearly every person deserves a baseline quality of life and benefits. But instead of heaping this responsibility on the subset of corporations that hire low-skill workers, this responsibility really should lie with _everyone_. Tax billionaires, tax the upper-middle-class, tax profitable corporations, and use the money to strengthen the social safety net for low-skill workers. That would eliminate this entire mess.

<comment><USER3> This isn't how I see the discourse. The way I see it is people are starting to question if executives and shareholders deserve the pay they get. Instead of the majority of profits going to them, more should go to workers.

The author of this article was paid $42 million last year. Uber's top 7 executives received: "$11.4 million in salary and cash bonus, plus $71 million worth of equity awards." [0] Maybe instead of paying their CEO and executives that much, Uber should pay their workers more?

[0] [https://observer.com/2020/05/uber-ceo-pay-shareholder- backla...](https://observer.com/2020/05/uber-ceo-pay-shareholder-backlash- coronavirus/)

<comment><USER4> I think OP's point is that if the US had a better social safety net, this problem wouldn't be as bad.

So many people in the US - arguably still the world's most prosperous country - live on the precipice of ruin and failure because their country just doesn't give a shit about them (hence the ongoing push to make their _employer_ give more of a shit about them), and it's really heartbreaking.

<comment><USER5> >...because their country just doesn't give a shit about them...

To add insult to injury, every party involved that doesn't give a shit about them, yet benefits from not giving a shit about them, also pretends to give a shit about them.

The entire "essential worker" hero ad campaign at the start of COVID really put a bad taste in my mouth.

Few if any of the businesses that ran those ad campaigns actually cared about their workers or felt they were heroes (if they did, they'd treat them with basic human decency, which they don't). Instead, they treat them like garbage, lie to them, and lie to everyone else portraying that they somehow don't treat their workers like garbage.

Modern corporate propoganda (that's what it is, no matter what you want to relabel it) is pretty disgusting, especially in the fact that it's successful. We've really lost our humanity in this system and it's some of the subjective yet arguably "good" or positive attributes of humanity.

<comment><USER6> > The entire "essential worker" hero ad campaign at the start of COVID really > put a bad taste in my mouth.

The US does the same with their military. Drape the flag over everything, trip over themselves thanking people for service, giving 10% military discounts and giving home loans with 3% down payments....but should we pay the armed forces a competitive wage? No. It's even more cringe when all this service stuff is then extended to police and firefighters.

As if there are two classes of people in the country, those sacrificing themselves and willingly accepting less money to "serve" their country, when it's really just their only option because all the business left their town or they messed up in high school.

I don't ever want to be paid with "thanks" or "hero worship". I'll take the cash.

<comment><USER7> Is it still an uncompetitive wage when you:

1\. Don't require housing etc money

2\. Are ranked up to any degree higher than random POG

?

<comment><USER6> I don't see any of my well educated, well heeled peers recommending their children to join the military. Because their children have better options.

<comment><USER8> That may be your bubble.

There are plenty of people going to Ivy League schools who have military backgrounds.

Going to one of the military schools is highly prestigious. They aren't easy to get into in the least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are two points I think that need to be raised here:

1) GDP-Per-Capita has grown steadily and is at an all-time high [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US)

2) Real wages per capita have stagnated since the 70s [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most- us...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers- real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

So in general, productivity per worker has increased. Amazon can move more products direct to your home with fewer people than was possible in 1970. Greater and greater value is being generated in the economy due to these increasing efficiencies.

Yet the suggestion that businesses should pay their workers who enable this value proportionately gets responses that we will be squashing economic potential, dragging these enterprises down, etc.

Instead Walmart, Amazon, etc. use these great efficiencies of scale to compete on lower prices. Which totally does have economic benefits, but it also pushes out competition. Local stores can't compete with an international megacorp's productivity leverage, so we end up with a Walmart in every town and Amazon boxes on our doorstep. Is that truly an economic plus? It sure is nice in some ways, but are all those warehouse workers Amazon employs really new jobs? Or are they replacing a similar or greater number of jobs that were previously providing those same goods and services in a decentralized manor?

<comment><USER10> > Greater and greater value is being generated in the economy due to these > increasing efficiencies.

This is very unclear and it depends on what measurements you look at. Lots of economists claim we've had historically low productivity growth in the last two decades - eg Total-Factor Productivity growth has been very low (~0.5%/year) every year since ~2005.

<comment><USER6> The little device in everyone's pocket can do is much that required other people's time and labor. Purchasing travel, researching real estate markets, checking into a hotel, comparing prices, obtaining product information and reviews, etc.

If I need to find something at Home Depot or Target or Lowes, I don't need a person to help me anymore. I go to their website and it tells me exactly where the item is.

All of these little efficiencies add up to me needing fewer other people to help me.

<comment><USER10> Improvements in consumer technology is arguably offset by lots of areas of the economy becoming less efficient every year. Consider infrastructure, health care and education - those sectors require more labor now to produce the same or less output than they use to.

<comment><USER6> Declining real wages for decades are my evidence that supply curves are ahead of demand curves. I don't see why education needs more labor, the number of children will be declining for the foreseeable future. More importantly, the buyers of that labor (government) are famously stingy and with budgets already strained with pension and other debt, I doubt they're going to give up any extra wage gains.

<comment><USER11> not that we should go back, but it's worth noting that women entering the workforce probably greatly increased the supply side of the equation. Concurrently we're needing less and less people whilst also trying to figure out what to do with all this new supply introduced.

<comment><USER6> Yes, that was also a huge factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Most people are looking at this cynically, and I agree that it's a stall for time, he's trying to justify paying people the minimum because otherwise all the other greedy pigs would undercut him, etc etc.

However, my cynicism goes a level deeper. It is in Uber's best interests for laws to change and make the scene more complicated, so that all operators in this space - including Uber - have to pay more to their workers and have more encumbrances.

Why? Well, Uber is an established operator. They have made their bucketloads of money off the back of underpaying their workers, got themselves out of startup status in a way that - if they play their cards right - no other gig operator will be able to replicate. Less competition, less disruption.

I think there is an argument that says that "gig economy" should be enveloped in laws that protect the gig worker rights and ensure fair pay and a safety net, without introducing laws that enforce restrictions on the workers. Governments should work to simplify the burdens on individuals, without creating new loopholes for the wealthy. "It's hard" is a valid statement, but not a reason to reject the concept.

But I would continue to be fully cynical of any solution that has the top gig economy CEO's seal of approval.

<comment><USER13> > They have made their bucketloads of money

I agree with your broader point, but Uber _lost_ some 8.5 billion USD last year. They're not (yet, at least) making bucketloads of money, despite paying their workers badly.

<comment><USER14> I am so confused by Uber's financials.

I do not understand what they spend well over 8.5 billion on.

Their software for riders and drivers is quite good and certainly tons of engineer-hours have been poured into the front and back ends.

Are they paying their drivers more than they're charging riders? Or have all the billions gone into their moonshot projects like self-driving cars? Both?

Because otherwise, to me it's almost like, how do you _not_ turn a profit on rides? Once they've got their app and infrastructure going (again, no small expense) then any rides they arrange should be profit.

Clearly, I am misunderstanding something about their business to an astronomical degree but I don't think I'm alone.

<comment><USER15> They're losing money every ride, or so I read somewhere, like $16 each time?

<comment><USER14> I think that's just the $8.5B loss restated as (total loss) / (number of rides), right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you are able to factor out all the despise you have for Uber, I think the article has a lot of good points.

There is no great option in between full employment and a contractor. There is a trade-off for both employers and employees in both agreements. Different people want different degree of benefits. It seems to me that everybody would win if there was more flexibility here, and this is what the article seem to be suggesting. Seems reasonable.

<comment><USER17> "There is no great option in between full employment and a contractor."

This begs the question of why there should be an option between those two things.

I'm not sure why there should be, except that employers don't like supporting employees and aren't allowed to treat contractors the same way.

<comment><USER18> As mentioned in my sibling reply, I tried to unravel the logic there and made my best attempt at an answer a while back:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11670698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11670698)

<comment><USER17> Name-dropping fallacies doesn't make your position make any more sense. Create a third option and someone will ask why there's no option between 2 and 3. Create a fourth option and someone will ask why there's no option between 3 and 4. It's non-central fallacies all the way down, until there are no categories for anything at all, because each and every single person occupies their own category, reductio ad absurdum.

So I posit that we have separate categories for very clear and simple historical reasons: we have "employees" because a set of laws came into being to push back against employer abuses, and to improve conditions for workers generally. "Employees" are not "slaves," is the primary distinction there.

But if I own a company and hire another company to provide services, I'm not hiring an employee, I'm establishing a contract, so a different set of laws comes into play to attempt to ensure fair dealing. But what if the "company" I hire to provide services is a single-person company? Is that just a fiction I'm employing to get around those laws that protect workers? Could be, so the courts have established a series of ways to determine the difference.

A contractor, for example, usually provides services to more than one company. I've done this as a software developer. So Uber might claim that because drivers can work for Uber or Lyft or other ride-sharing services, that makes their drivers contractors. Drivers claim that doing this results in serious disadvantages compared to drivers who exclusively stay with one company, so it doesn't really feel like a choice they can make.

A contractor usually has control over their own hours. If I hire a cleaning company to clean my office, I can't really tell them that they have to come at exactly 2am and work until exactly 3:30am; I give them my business hours and ask them to work outside of those. They have other offices they clean, so they choose the hours they allot to each. Uber, again, might claim that drivers can sign on or off as they will, but there is a very strong effect that has on ratings and compensation, so drivers have claimed it doesn't really seem like a choice, but a requirement.

Again, the reason for this distinction, historically, is to protect workers from mistreatment by employers while still providing the freedom to workers to have more than one client, control their own hours, etc.

The debate here is over whether gig workers _really_ control their own hours, _really_ work independently, _really_ have the benefits of being contractors, or whether that's a legal fiction used by companies to avoid treating their workers well.

If there's a need for a third category, what would be the point of that? Would this third category result in workers being treated _better_ than they are now as contractors? What advantage for employers would there be over treating workers as contractors? The general argument from the companies to date seems to be reasonably summarized as "our business model doesn't support treating our employees as employees," which is not an argument that anyone should actually care about. If there are good arguments why people who drive full- time for Uber should not be treated as full-time employees, with all of the benefits associated with that, Uber has failed to make a good case for this in court to date.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of issues would be solved with a basic social contract to all citizens: healthcare plus a small living stipend. Do that and people can Gig away. Too much is hard to change when healthcare is so attached to full-time/regular employment, and when it is hard to move between jobs/etc. for fear of loss of income.

<comment><USER20> Do you have any links to articles/discussions about this proposed direction?

I'm pretty sure I agree... and would like to further develop my opinion about ~this stuff.

It's so dumb for an individual to go bankrupt from a random health issue and/or pay a ton of money each month for "insurance" that is basically useless; and also dumb for an employer to be responsible or in control of anything having to do with an individual's health care decisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "I can't possibly act on this without being compelled to by law"

Riiiiight.

<comment><USER22> As I understand, the board could (probably would) fire him if he added a $655M expense without having to legally pay that.

I'm not sure what the alternative is here, other than becoming a social purpose company.

<comment><USER23> How about quitting?

Yeah, we all for those poor people but only if it doesn't cost us much.

<comment><USER22> You could argue he should quit because of personal ethical considerations.

But it seems like this is a broader issue regarding exploitation within modern capitalism. Not just limited to Uber.

In other words: if we allow it, it will happen. If not by Mr. Khosrowshahi, then someone else.

<comment><USER23> I 100% agree, but in this case it's just another type-A guy making an observation perhaps so he can feel good with himself but not really doing anything.

These people like to pretend they are poor empathetic souls but with no power, which is bullshit. If their ass is on the line or their business has an existencial threat, all of a sudden they know how to make the right phone calls and make things happen.

I buy what he's trying to paint, but I don't buy his hypocrisy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is rather cynical, isn't it? Mr. Khosrowshahi is suggesting that rather than finding ways of making employment more flexible, let's remain in the gig economy and re-invent benefits, conveniently forgetting how long it took to get to the benefits of employment in the first place.

The calculation is ridiculous. According to his example, if someone had been working almost full time for a year, they would have accumulated enough funds for a whopping 2 weeks of paid leave OR medical insurance -- but not both! And they couldn't have done it any other way because they wouldn't be so big otherwise.

Further, his central argument revolves around the fact that since Uber recruited drivers as gig workers promising them flexibility, their survey shows, unsurprisingly, that their drivers want... flexibility. Proof that nobody needs benefits, for sure.

Mr. Khosrowshahi isn't even trying to sound convincing.

<comment><USER25> I'm currently reading Anand Giridharada's 2018 book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" which, while not exactly revealing anything new , does present a good collection of behaviour from the elite class wrapped in a good narrative structure.

There is one thing that never changes in their behaviour; Problems are not solved by acknowledging their underlying root causes (usually erosion of regulation, civil liberties or other social contracts), but by 'inventin' our way out of the problem. Usually to the financial gain of the elite in question.

As someone currently living in a country with strong unions and regulatory agencies, I have a hard time imagining how the U.S society could have eroded to this degree over time without the general populace taking notice and standing their ground against it.

<comment><USER26> The word "elite" in this context has always bugged me. It's to good of a word to be wasted for such a label. Elite(s) should be something positive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can someone explain what the right approach would be in terms of benefits, for a typical gig worker use case:

Person with part-time job wants to make some extra money. Registers for Doordash, Lyft, Uber. When their (part-time) work ends midday, they log onto Doordash, as it's lunchtime. Deliver a few meals. Now it's the afternoon, food delivery doesn't pay, so they switch to Lyft. Do two rides, but things slow down. They log onto Uber and finish the day like this.

I am not saying everyone uses the apps like this, but this is also a use case. So who should pay and how much in holiday pay, sick leave? Clearly, this person can't be (and doesn't want to be) a full-time employee of either of the companies. Yet they work with all three.

The proposal made in this article is not a far fetched one: and it gives a possible solution for exactly this setup.

<comment><USER28> Well to me the obvious answer is that those "benefits" shouldn't be coming from the employer in the first place, especially medical.

And if you eliminate that and things like 401k, what else are you asking the employer to provide that you couldn't get for yourself with your money you earned?

But let's assume that universal medical and retirement are off the table. Why should the employee pony up for that stuff when you're only committing to a dozen hours a week with them, instead of 40? In other words, why should the company commit more than the employee does?

The article seems to be saying that the company should commit proportionally to the work from the employee. Well, isn't that what a paycheck is already? If paying them the agreed wages is "letting them fend for themselves", then the solution is obvious: Pay them properly instead, so that they _can_ help themselves.

And what about all the people who _already_ work 3 part-time jobs to get by. How is that any different, and why weren't we previously worried about that, but we are for "gig workers"?

<comment><USER29> And let's face it, if you're a gig worker you're not doing a 401k match with your $10/mo left over after expenses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The people Dara Khosrowshahi refers to as gig workers that also reside in California should be called, treated as, and receive the full benefits of employees [0]. Uber is fighting this law, and him continuing to call them gig workers only benefits Uber and other companies pretending to be a marketplace between workers and and customers.

[0] [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5)

[1] [https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/30/uber-and-postmates- sue-c...](https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/30/uber-and-postmates-sue- california-over-ab5-gig-worker-law/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_\(2019\))

<comment><USER31> "Gig workers want both flexibility and benefits."

Times have changed. People don't want stable jobs anymore. That's why the industries where workers have a modicum of power (law, medicine, finance, tech) are dominated by "flexible" work schedules.

<comment><USER32> If you offer people stable work, with good pay and benefits, pension, healthcare (in the US), you won't have a shortage of applicants believe me. This myth being spread that people want flexible work is perpetuated by the people who benefit.

<comment><USER33> It's not a myth. The article says that 2/3 of drivers highly value the flexibility arrangement. I've driven Uber for that exact reason myself. I've also spoken to many drivers and almost every single one has said something about "being your own boss" as being the key benefit. Sure, there maybe plenty of people who would love to be Uber employees but they aren't the majority of those driving for Uber today. What Uber drivers really want is more money, and the continued flexibility to earn and spend it when and how they want to.

<comment><USER34> But the alternative for most Uber drivers is not a stable job in the fields that the post you're replying to mentioned. It's probably coffee shops, fast food, call center work or similar. If your alternative is that, being your own boss obviously sounds good. The solution here is not just to fix Uber, but generally the circumstances and compensation for these kinds of jobs.

<comment><USER35> Yes, if you've never worked a scheduled service sector job you don't understand. 6am to 2pm on day, 8pm to 4pm the next and 3 days of 3p to 10pm in a row. That makes Uber look good, especially when that schedule is not known until the day before it starts for many workers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Let start by agreeing that while in some cases gig economy seems to disguise promotion of precarious jobs in name of "flexibility" it is imo obvious that employment regulations need to be updated to more contemporary needs.

That said, I can't help but read this op piece as: "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside the citadel".

This strategy is so common lately (read Facebook, Google, etc) that I wonder if these incumbents should pay a price (of being broken up) whenever substantial regulatory changes happen.

<comment><USER37> > "please raise a regulatory moat around us because we are now safely inside > the citadel".

Exactly. Competition is probably the best way to make sure that drivers get the most total compensation (regardless of whether it is coming in the form of salary or benefits). What is being described here would really limit other companies ability to compete with Uber on the terms that Uber used to compete with taxi services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I Am the CEO of Nike, child workers deserve better, it's the Government's fault.

<comment><USER39> Despite your sarcasm, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution), and it is the government's job to ensure that the factories are safe. It is also the government's responsibility, not Nike's, to provide education to children and the conditions to pursue it instead of working.

<comment><USER38> >Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution)

So Nike is the next best to child prostitution, i get it :)

But you are right, the next big question is, should a company have the right to do stuff like that. Witch would be illegal in the country where they have the HQ.

Switzerland has a really interesting discussion about that ATM:

[https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/k...](https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/konzernverantwortungsinitiative.html)

EDIT: Sorry no English version available to translate use:

[https://www.deepl.com/en/translator](https://www.deepl.com/en/translator)

<comment><USER39> It certainly is an interesting question.

From what I gathered, the initiative calls for companies to companies to respect _internationally_ recognized human rights and environmental standards.

I don't think this means that the supply chain must comply with swiss standards an regulations. For example, paying swiss minimum wage in Vietnam would be crazy.

I think there is a big disconnect when people judge the working conditions in other countries by local expectations.

<comment><USER38> No it's really about "internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards" witch should be the standard anyway, with that law you can make those corporations responsible for the shit they do in other country's. ATM that other country have to do it by themselves, an example is Kongo, but they don't do anything for obvious reasons.

<comment><USER39> When you say "no", what part are you addressing? This post seems to say the same as what I said in my last post.

<comment><USER38> Change the "No" to "Yes you are right" :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's not Ubers fault that the central banks lowered interest rates to so low levels that assets are a huge ponzi sceme, and people who don't own those assets have to compete for the crappiest jobs to survive.

I have met Uber drivers in Brazil that told me that their job got easier and their pay higher since they started working for Uber. And the CEO is wright that I would prefer renting a car when travelling if Uber would get more expensive.

<comment><USER41> Yep the Uber reality in Brazil is too different from the US. Working as an Uber in Brazil nets you more than what's available for even those that have degrees.

Also, cheap drives has made it so even poor people take an Uber, whereas taxis are only for the rich. Uber prices go up, poor people stop using Uber. I'll stop using Uber.

<comment><USER42> Is this without any incentives from Uber?

From what I've seen in India, the drivers have to work really hard and do 50-69 hour days to get a decent living.

With Uber taking a 30% cut, and the driver themselves having to cough up the repairs, etc - it does not amount to a huge jump in income.

<comment><USER43> > 50-69 hour days to get a decent living.

Wow you've seen a lot to see a 50 hour day.

<comment><USER42> _week_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> A CEO coming out and saying "we should do better" is simply an admission that they didn't and still don't. I see it as a personal failure of the CEO, an institutional failure of the company, and an attempt to give it a positive "moral" spin in the media.

This isn't about what Uber can or should do, it's what everyone else should do so Uber can be in a better light without actually changing anything.

</comment><comment><USER45> Uber Driver here:

Drivers (well, I can't speak for everyone) enjoy the flexibility of driving. We also hate the prospect of not driving and not being able to pay bills. It's truly a catch-22 situation.

However, as someone who admires tech, I find that Uber's biggest problem is not in the way it treats her contractual drivers (that's a symptom of a larger cultural problem) But in the way Uber handles technology.

The teams that handle the driver and the rider apps are totally separate. Each of the apps have slightly different nomenclature within the apps and extremely different interfaces. This makes it difficult from the get go to pick up passengers and to safely get them where they are going.

If Uber focused more on creating a great user experience and did the right things to ensure that both riders and drivers were on the same page they would begin to increase in market share.

" A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold. " -Hebrew Proverb

Uber has failed publicly to protect itself with bizarre scandals and shortermist business practices. They've failed to distinguish themselves from Lyft.

In 5 years I don't think Uber will be in the rideshare business.

<comment><USER46> Was this written by GPT-3?

<comment><USER45> "My mind is living on cloud nine and this .9 is never on vacation." -Kendrick Lamar.

Nah, my mind is just pretty wild. Sorry if it was kinda hard to read, bro. GPT-3 is for suckers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Exploit exploit exploit, when the wind turns, use your market position you have gainend and become Paulus.

</comment><comment><USER48> As the top comment says, corporations like Uber should be pushing for quality free healthcare and strong social benefits. It would help everyone and make gig working much more palatable.

</comment><comment><USER49> Off-topic, but shouldn't HN be looking at their commenting style and implementing some sort of sub-comment/ replies collapsing style a la reddit?

I collapsed the first parent comment and there's no other to read as the entire discussion now is based on that parent comment.

I think collapsing comments after a limit of replies or votes is reached will help with the contribution of new perspective to the discourse instead of everyone else following the train of thought of a single parent comment.

[https://imgur.com/M4qMWog](https://imgur.com/M4qMWog)

<comment><USER50> There's a second page with more comments (and a tiny "More" link on the original HN): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24107497&p=2](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24107497&p=2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I want to know how many billable hours from how many public relations professionals, image consultants and Uber's own marketing department went into the draft of this before the final copy was published.

</comment><comment><USER52> Isn't much of the 'gig economy' trouble because the US has no single payer health insurance?

<comment><USER53> It doesn't help - but it's not all. There's been some struggle in Norway too regarding foodora food delivery, partly around compensation for riders using their own bikes:

[https://www.svenssonstiftelsen.com/post/victory-for- foodora-...](https://www.svenssonstiftelsen.com/post/victory-for-foodora- strikers-collective-agreement-in-place)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> >"It's time to move beyond this false choice. As a start, all gig economy companies need to pay for benefits, should be more honest about the reality of the work and must strengthen the rights and voice of workers.

So why doesn't CEO Dara Khosrowshahi lead by example and start paying benefits for Uber drivers immediately instead of writing an Op-Ed about it? Why not actually implement the benefits program and then write an Op Ed about why you did it?

>"I'm proposing that gig economy companies be required to establish benefits funds which give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off. Independent workers in any state that passes this law could take money out for every hour of work they put in. All gig companies would be required to participate, so that workers can build up benefits even if they switch between apps."

Again you're the CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. Why not be a leader and lead by example? Start the fund for your Uber drivers and use that as your inflection point and build consensus based on some action you actually took.

>"Had this been the law in all 50 states, Uber would have contributed $655 million to benefits funds last year alone."

This is patently absurd. Rephrased - "had we been forced to do the thing that I believe is the right thing this would have been the outcome"

</comment><comment><USER55> Gig companies should be required to fund paid time off and healthcare programs for gig workers...? How are we _so_ desperate to avoid public healthcare and social safety programs in the US that the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company thinks _this_ is a reasonable article to write?

This is the definition of an over-engineered solution. Just cut the damn link between employment and basic benefits like healthcare and this manufactured "problem" goes away.

</comment><comment><USER56> We have finally scaled all the barriers thrown up by local ordinances and regulations, protecting entrenched industries in a sphere of cronyism and exclusion, using regulatory capture to block anyone else from joining their club. Rather than competing on price or quality, they had devolved to just trying to exclude everyone else from their business model, and they were ripe for disruption.

What a glorious day!

Ok, now to start pulling up the ladder behind us.

</comment><comment><USER57> >Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips.

At what point exactly can we state the problem as "Uber is not able to build a sustainable model".

I am all for disrupting taxis and have little love for medallions but if the alternative needs a salary level you can not live on, maybe it is just not a good model.

</comment><comment><USER58> I and friends have long been saying the gig companies should self-interestedly push for a better universal safety net, so gig works get benefits but the bill is amortized.

This is just the....dumb version of that same argument.

But maybe this is intentional, because arguing for yet another insurance pool is "non partisan", while arguing for universal heal care will make it harder to lobby both parties.

</comment><comment><USER23> That's an entertaining soundbite when your business is based on literally extract value from those poor peasants you say deserve better.

<comment><USER59> And doctors extract value from sick people. Nonetheless, a doctor might have good reasons to state that his patients deserver better. Assuming malice is not an effective counter-argument.

<comment><USER60> Bad comparison. A doctor does not make people sick (or if they do, they're criminally liable). Uber intentionally designed the contracts of those gig workers.

<comment><USER61> And Uber doesn't make people need transportation services, or make people need to earn a living by providing transportation services. It's crazy how entitled Americans have become over the past few decades that helping somebody find driving work now counts as "exploitation".

<comment><USER60> I'm not American.

<comment><USER61> I wasn't referring to you in particular sorry, just the general tone in this thread. The worst part is people are happy to make assumptions without actually even asking Uber drivers what they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Uber invented a failed business model that to ensure its success it had to employ lobbyists all over the world to subvert local democracies and manipulate public opinion to remove worker right laws. Using any tatics necessary and fermenting social unrest.

All this colossal damage, for a VC subsidize enterprise that never proved it can actually turn a profit.

</comment><comment><USER63> This is my favorite Uber messaging revision:

[https://twitter.com/neilanalien/status/627873374505562112?la...](https://twitter.com/neilanalien/status/627873374505562112?lang=en)

Maybe some business models aren't economically viable. Maybe Uber is one of those businesses.

</comment><comment><USER64> An increasing percentage of wealth in the U.S. is created by systems and automation; individual people are no longer as competitive and this is reflected in lowered wages. The trend will continue.

People who can create systems and automation still have value but the economic machinery will optimize us out of the picture eventually. We're literally training our replacements with ML.

There's no rich CEOs or politicians to blame; we're part of an optimization process designed and evolved to find and exploit efficiencies and loopholes in the existing protective framework of government and cultural/social values.

The solution is to work together as humans to correct and augment the incentives of the current economic system. Economic growth and activity is only a shadowy proxy of human happiness and satisfaction.

</comment><comment><USER65> I think that this is the tip of the iceberg. Its not just about Uber. Its not just about the gig economy in general. Its about the entire economy.

There are multiple forces at work. One aspect is the actual long-term debt cycle which people don't realize puts pressure on everything. The other thing is the effective de-regulation and loosening of employee protections.

Another part is tech monopolization.

We actually need an entirely new high tech global economic paradigm. We need to re-invent money and government with advanced distributed protocols. That will allow us to holistically and locally track and regulate resources with a universal basic income (or hopefully even a bit more than basic) while we scale-up deployment of automation.

</comment><comment><USER59> Looking at the comments, Uber is still hated despite the leadership change. Some people hear "Uber" and immediately assume and project the worst.

I think the article was well written. And I wonder what the comments would look like if this article was by the CEO of Lyft.

<comment><USER60> There's no difference. If it were the CEO of Lyft, I'd suspect that he advocates for it to price Uber out of the market and avoid new competitors. Same as Uber, just with the name tags flipped around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Step 1: sabotage any worker rights established by pushing workers into freelance/self-employed work.

Step 2: keep the money for labour costs in your pocket and become a unicorn because people with cash want to bet on the removal of worker rights.

Step 3: profit

Step 4: do some lame PR, still keep the cash. Change nothing. Because others have to do that. Just not you. All you needed was the money.

Companies following that model should not have a high valuation because they exist on borrowed time. Extorting money from a system does not make your business profitable at all, it just prolongs death.

Also... is it just me or does Uber seem highly ineffective in operations considering the amount of engineers needed for running the business?

<comment><USER67> Uber is not a successful for-profit business in the long run as they make no profits; given free money to be able to subsidize what costs there are (and operating on the backs of people who make little themselves) can exist for a long time before failing. In the meantime richly paid executives and well paid employees can milk it for a long time.

<comment><USER68> And it's not like they become poor or suffer any real consequences when their company fails after never having produced profit ever.

<comment><USER69> Capitalism without risk is da shizzle, yo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Uber wants you to believe that the cost of paying drivers as employees is that you won't be able to get a car in most places.

This can't be true.

Uber replaced a poorly run system that actually covered most places and employed it's labor force.

If Uber and other car services were forced to recognize their workforce as employees, there would be market incentives to support doing so.

Uber mentions the subsidized cost of their health plan. This is very creatively failing to mention that the American taxpayers pay this difference. Your ride may seem cheap, but you pay for it in your tax bill.

Maybe Uber thinks PR pieces like this one will convince us not to regulate them. I hope we're not that slow.

</comment><comment><USER71> Is there any reason to believe the CEO really believes this or is this just the next step in their business model: start raising the barriers to entry by making it more expensive for the competition?

</comment><comment><USER72> The real problem IMO is that government in the US isn't able to keep up with how quickly the world is evolving.

The solutions thus far are obviously not optimal. The solutions being proposed also probably have issues yet to be discovered.

What really needs to happen is a fire needs to be lit under legislators' butts TBH. I think the end result is going to be a problem either way if we end up with something that (regardless of outcomes) won't be changed again for another decade.

</comment><comment><USER73> What PR company is recommending this recipe? So much symmetry, but yes basic PR management: always control the conversation first.

"Google's Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good" [1]

"I Am the C.E.O. of Uber. Gig Workers Deserve Better."

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar- pic...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar-pichai- privacy.html)

</comment><comment><USER74> I am CEO of UBER, i have been azzramming gig workers for years, now i hacked the system, don't pay payroll tax or provide healthcare, and now i cannot afford it either because shareholders do not want to pay for it, so i need to create noise and find a bailout, and i think tax payers should do it since clearly we as a company are not willing/able.

Cherio suckers

</comment><comment><USER75> > Gig workers want both flexibility and benefits — we support laws that could > make that possible.

Whenever a company says "we support regulation" there's always an unstated suffix phrase: "that makes it easy for us to do what we want to do and hard for our competitors to do what we want to do."

</comment><comment><USER76> This is the same old Uber, desperately twisting and turning to get out of the responsibilities of an employer. Like a minimum wage. Uber is operating illegally in California, refusing to treat employees as employees after the legislature passed a law clearly making them employees.

<comment><USER77> Uber actually attempted to comply with AB5, by allowing California drivers to set their prices and giving them more freedom about which rides to accept.

Critics may argue Uber is still non-compliant even with the changes, but that's probably for a court to decide.

<comment><USER76> From AB5:

 _...shall be considered an employee unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:_

 _(1) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact._

 _(2) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business._

 _(3) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed._

Uber tries to argue that they're not in the business of selling rides, they're just a matching service. That's to escape (2). Neither customers nor drivers nor courts believe this.

<comment><USER77> That's fair, but the point is Uber tried to meet all of these. The ball is in the state's court now to test and enforce.

My feeling is (2) is overreach and has caused unnecessary collateral damage to many non-rideshare businesses. As a non-rideshare business owner myself, I hope (2) gets struck from the law as a result of the rideshare legal battles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I hope everyone sees what he's doing. If he wanted to give people a better life he could as a individual without legislation. What he's doing is putting regulation around the industry that only uber can afford to adhere to, so that no one can afford to compete with them.

</comment><comment><USER79> [https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft- driver...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft-drivers- employees-california-court-ruling)

</comment><comment><USER80> I am the CEO of Uber. I am attempting to get ahead of a unionization movement by substituting their potential demands with ones my corporation can at least control somewhat. My hand was forced to get to this position and it can be forced further.

</comment><comment><USER81> In general it shouldn't be the case that working part time disqualifies someone from earning unemployment or disability checks. It's pointlessly punitive and reduces health, happiness and productivity for the entire labor force.

</comment><comment><USER82> Now that we've grown to dominate the space by fragrantly ignoring and intentionally breaking laws, we support creating new laws that will prevent others who lack our scale and resources from entering our monopoly.

<comment><USER83> Of course. This is gate-keeping with a sprinkle of regulatory capture.

My favorite quote:

>Many of our critics, ..., believe that Uber and our gig economy peers have failed drivers by treating them as contractors, and that we will do anything to avoid the cost of employee benefits like health insurance. Given our company's history, I can understand why they think that.

Pray tell, what is this company history you're talking about? Come on, be specific. And did those policies get you the market-share you have now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> It is the government's job to legislate and provide universal healthcare/an adequate safety net. If you expect Uber to provide healthcare to its workers, many of whom _don 't_ want to be employees because that would reduce the flexibility of their work arrangement, then Uber will "hire" fewer people, raise prices, and increase average time-to-service. How is that a good thing?

Winners from classifying gig workers as employees:

\- Full-time taxi drivers who happen to get a job from Uber

\- Well-intentioned people who believe that society improves when there is an appearance of fairer labor treatment

Losers from classifying gig workers as employees:

\- Full-time taxi drivers who don't get a job from Uber because labor laws force Uber to shrink

\- Part-time taxi drivers who cannot work for Uber as full-time employees

\- Part-time taxi drivers who can increase their hours but don't get a job from Uber because labor laws force the company to shrink

\- Part-time taxi drivers who increase their hours and get a job but despise the new, inflexible work arrangement - and their kids, if they have kids

\- Millions of Uber customers who get worse service for a higher price

\- Prospective Uber customers who cannot afford the new service and make poorer transportation decisions (slower, less safe)

\- Foregone business and consumer opportunities due to people not being where they want to be when they want to be there

\- Gig businesses that never get started, gig economy innovation that never happens, and society at large

If the government provides a better safety net, then people will benefit from it no matter the job and no matter the particularities of their work arrangement (self-employed, part-time, full-time, single employer, multiple employers, unemployed...). I chose to study the California Dynamex gig worker case for a business law class and there's really no way around the terrible tradeoffs.

</comment><comment><USER85> Would Uber be willing to pay a premium initial deposit to the collective fund on the name of all their gig workers they had since the beginning.

That would assuage people skeptical about marketplace dynamics for new startups.

</comment><comment><USER86> Be the change you want to see in the world, Uber. You don't need laws to tell you to do the right thing. You are free to treat your employees (including contractors) as people and not resources to be mined. So do it.

Or, get off your moral high horse from which you claim that everybody should be obligated to treat people fairly, and until they won't, you won't either. This is morally bankrupt leadership.

Oh, and before someone says they are beholden to their shareholders. I realize that, and it doesn't mean companies need to strip mine the land in the name of profit. Doing the right thing is sustainable, and over a long enough time horizon, the most beneficial action on behalf of shareholders.

</comment><comment><USER87> I worked for Dara before. Believe it or not, he is a sincere and honest person. Yes, he cares about the bottom line (as any CEO would) but he believes what he's saying here.

<comment><USER88> Well, I guess Hitler also believed what he was saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> The Oxford's fair work foundation(1) is aiming to create better conditions for gig workers.

1: [https://fair.work](https://fair.work)

</comment><comment><USER90> Or, "We are losing billions of dollars, please have more good will for us and also make it more difficult for other companies to enter our space plz."

</comment><comment><USER91> I just searched the thread for the words 'fox' and 'henhouse' but nothing came up. Did I misunderstand the search interface?

</comment><comment><USER92> This is being written because they are worried they are losing their legal fight against forced arbitration. Because they are!

</comment><comment><USER93> I have to say I appreciate the honesty in the title, although I'm surprised that he was willing to admit it.

<comment><USER38> Tactics, it's like saying i'am the CEO of McDonald and being vegan, but i understand every meat lover out there, now both sides love you :-)

<comment><USER93> I was reading it more like "I am the CEO of McDonalds. Workers at McDonalds deserve (a) better (CEO than I am)"

<comment><USER38> True, in that case, BUT he says they are Gig-Workers and not Workers at Uber.

<comment><USER93> The beauty of English is that it is flexible enough to mean that gig workers deserve better in general OR gig workers deserve a better CEO than him, given how the title is structured.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> [https://archive.is/zlOzx](https://archive.is/zlOzx)

</comment><comment><USER95> Ah the classic, "now that we have market share, increase cost of entry for everybody else".

</comment><comment><USER96> Are trade unions still as frowned upon as I remember them to be in the US?

</comment><comment><USER97> This is fear of being regulated, I think the gig economy is low hanging fruit to regulate and tear apart to pretend they (whoever is in charge) are changing society, he is trying to frame Uber as part of the 'solution' rather than the problem.

<comment><USER98> He probably wants regulation. Once you're the dominant player, have Congress build you a moat. It worked great for financial and health industries

<comment><USER97> True but not too much, he is trying to control the narrative on regulation

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> The idea that employees can't have flexibility is BS though.

</comment><comment><USER100> What is the administration cost difference between an employee and contractor? Also, what causes the difference?

</comment><comment><USER101> I am the CEO of Uber, and I can gas-light you from the opinion section of the New York Times, because money talks. No other person is better positioned to do something about the plight of gig workers more than me, but I'm going to tell you a story about how we could all fix this together to distract you from reality. I'll throw in some blame to build up a strawman we can all tear down together, while gig workers still get the shaft and I still get my fat payday.

<comment><USER102> Yes!

Even his opening premise is flagrantly false: the problem is not that Uber has "failed drivers by treating them as contractors". The problem is that Uber has arrogated to itself all the benefits of an employee-style relationship without incurring any of the burdens.

They can't have it both ways. But their business depends on it. Switching to food delivery does not give them a way out of the pain machine. Which is why they have to spend so much money working the refs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> TL;DR:

"Hey guys, I'm the CEO of Uber! We have problems, our drivers are miserable. But u know what, lets fix everyone's problem first and then we fix ours, ok?"

</comment><comment><USER104> can't read due to paywall? what's the angle? uber is almost ruined by the pandemic. so he is looking to score some tax money?

</comment><comment><USER105> Does anyone else think its silly that a "PSA"-type op-ed thing is behind a paywall?</comment>


Why I switched from Google to DuckDuckGo; it's all about the bangs - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2015/07/03/why-i-switched-from-google-to-duckduckgo-its-all-about-the-bangs/

<comment><USER2> DuckDuckGo has a great philosophy. But, have you ever used DuckDuckGo instead of Google, Bing and other search engines? [https://duck.co/forum/thread/1902/why-i-love-duckduckgo- but-...](https://duck.co/forum/thread/1902/why-i-love-duckduckgo-but-don-t- use-it)</comment>


A Little Intro to Time Series - <AUTHOR> http://lovehateubuntu.blogspot.com/2010/05/little-intro-to-time-series.html <comment><USER2> This is a perfect example for "correlation does not imply causation"

<comment><USER3> Actually, I think the author's point is that there isn't even correlation in this case.</comment></comment>


New Arduino WiFi Shield Available for Pre-order - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Awesome, just what I needed - I bought 5 !!

</comment><comment><USER3> link?</comment>


What3words: Identify any location anywhere with just three words - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49319760 <comment><USER2> As I said earlier[0][1]:

Extreme scepticism: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20704017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20704017)

Personally, I think that W3W is a really, really bad system to solve a probably real problem.

Other submissions of this puff piece:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20723965](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20723965)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20706030](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20706030)

\</comment><comment>--

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20725818](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20725818)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20732249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20732249)

</comment><comment><USER3> It may or may not be a bad system to solve a real problem, but it's interesting to see the the IP is locked down and it's an expensive way of solving a real problem. Is it really so hard to use an app that gives you two numbers? Your phone usually knows that already?????</comment>