The Door Problem of Combat Design - <AUTHOR> https://gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrewYoder/20190808/348237/The_Door_Problem_of_Combat_Design.php <comment><USER2> The fundamental problem is "player benefits from minimizing risk", which is usually boring. It happens in most genres, e.g. it's especially bad in roguelikes, where luring enemies to doors is a common tactic.

Of the proposed solutions: cover, hidden information, and enemy leashing are only obfuscating the low-risk path, not actually removing it. A good player is still rewarded for boring play, e.g. bouncing grenades at the leashed enemies.

Rewarding risk-taking is a good solution, but hard to implement in a FPS because there are only so many rewards you can give.

One-way paths are criticized for breaking exploration, but I think it's possible to get the benefits of them while still allowing exploration. Consider Ninja Gaiden for the NES. It spawns enemies when you cross certain thresholds, and crucially it does this every time you cross them, even if you already defeated the enemies. This punishes retreat by undoing any progress you made. You're forced to take risks, and it's IMO a better game because of it.

Some people call Ninja Gaiden unfair, but I think that's because they didn't understand the mechanic. You could get the same benefits while making it easier to understand, and more fair feeling, e.g.:

* Clearly mark the spawn triggers

* Visually show the triggers activating, e.g. with particle effects flying from them to the enemy spawn points

* Don't let the enemies harm the player immediately after spawning, so the player has time to react.

* Cap the number of active enemies and the spawn rate from each spawn trigger (Ninja Gaiden has sprite limits, but you can still produce absurd-looking spawn patterns by repeatedly crossing the trigger point).

Ninja Gaiden also has time limits, which are IMO an underrated method of punishing boring play. Time limits aren't fashionable in modern games, but I think they should be brought back. They're compatible with exploration by including hidden bonus time powerups.

<comment><USER3> > it's especially bad in roguelikes, where luring enemies to doors is a common > tactic.

Ah ha yes my thoughts exactly while I read the article. I'm not throwing away an hour of procedurally generated airplane time-wasting fun by walking all the way into that room, doorway is just fine for me.

The other thought I had was that old America's Army game. When actually played "correctly" it was extremely slow paced and "boring". It wasn't usually doorways (honestly doorways were more exciting because you actually had some suspense about the doors &corners hiding aspect). Rather it was just hiding in bushes and waiting to move until someone far back told you where the sniper(s) was looking and if it was safe to bolt to the next bush. For like 20 minutes, which was an eon considering if you died at the beginning of the round you had nothing to do, and e.g. CS rounds were like 2 minutes.

<comment><USER4> I didn't read it but I saw an article the other day about an army sniper getting a medal for spending 3 days crawling across a field to get a shot at a high value military target and then another 3 days crawling back out.

Nobody would play that game. (also when did he poop?)

<comment><USER5> > (also when did he poop?)

Probably before heading out and then once or twice during the week he was out there. It's not a big problem.

The more urgent question is, how did he get water?

<comment><USER6> Camelbak?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I liked the original Doom and Doom II back in the day. But it seems that I played them differently than other people, since both the 2016 Doom, and the advice given in this article, eliminates my style of game play _entirely_. I never played much of the 2016 Doom game as a result – it just wasn't fun for me. I can certainly accept that it deserved the acclaim it got, since it allowed the gameplay which other people experienced with the original Doom. But not my gameplay style.

The article talks about " _If I want my friend to fight in the arena_ " and gives " _One way path, with the drop down_ " as one possible solution. I absolutely abhor arena fights, especially with auto-closing doors or a drop down. I would always try to trigger as few enemies as possible, and would always retreat to fight them safely if possible. Why would you design levels which makes it impossible to play in this style, if some people prefer it? Why would you design a level to force a specific play style, even though they might not enjoy it?

<comment><USER8> >>Why would you design levels which makes it impossible to play in this style, if some people prefer it? Why would you design a level to force a specific play style, even though they might not enjoy it?

For the same reason someone designing a sports car will make the suspension super stiff - because they want to achieve a specific goal with their design. My grandmother would hate driving such a car as it would be uncomfortable for her, but it might be an acceptable trade-off for those looking for a specific type of experience. If you're not enjoying a specific type of game design then it simply means that the game isn't for you - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

<comment><USER9> What makes the designers intent so sacrosanct? The value of art is in how it is perceived, not the artists' intent. Often, the two are aren't in sync anyway

I also enjoy this style of gameplay. Just because it is considered a cop-out to designers looking to nudge me to be more aggressive or something, doesn't mean its an illegitimate tactic.

Or is this really about creating gameplay that looks exciting to that accursed YouTube crowd?

<comment><USER10> The point is to ensure that style of game play isn't more effective. There are cover shooters that encourage potshots from behind cover that are built to make that style of play more fun.

<comment><USER9> Those sorts of considerations should only come in to play with extreme examples... it's a very heavy-handed approach to designing gameplay. Unless you're trying to make an experience very specifically something -- which I think works only in cinematic situations -- the game should be designed in a way that accommodates multiple playstyles. A lot of people begrudge heavy- handed game-design; it ruins player freedom/agency

<comment><USER8> I disagree quite a lot - look at Doom 2016. It's a masterpiece of a game and its design does not allow multiple different playstyles. You cannot go and start sneaking around , the gameplay is extremely focused on always being 100% balls-to-the-wall, guns blazing and running around like a terminator from hell that you are. The levels allow different approaches to that style of gameplay, but fundamentally it cannot change. Does it feel like you have no agency over its dozen or so levels? No, of course not.

<comment><USER7> > _look at Doom 2016_ […] _Does it feel like you have no agency over its dozen > or so levels? No, of course not._

My original comment which brought up Doom 2016 in the first place did in fact argue that yes, Doom 2016 gave me no choice in how to play. It continually forced me into arenas where enemies spawned in a circle around me. IIRC, there were no individual enemies to trigger, only arena triggers. It also forced me to melee each individual enemy up close in order to gain any health back, precluding any long-range tactics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I believe most like playing intelligently. The goal of the level design shouldn't be to make the intelligent move less rewarding, but to make the boring move less intelligent. So I kind of disagree with the offered solutions. A more modern set of solutions might be threats pursuing from the rear that make backtracking riskier than pushing forward, mobility or offensive options that favor aggressive moves over defensive moves, or (and perhaps I may only dream) non Euclidean level design such that moving backwards is actually a different area.

Situational awareness in competitive FPS is very impressive. I want to know what it looks like in non Euclidean space where assumptions about positioning get an order of magnitude more difficult.

<comment><USER12> > offensive options that favor aggressive moves over defensive moves

Doom (2016) did this fairly well. It had a "glory kill" system, where getting very close to an enemy after doing a bit of damage to it would let you finish it off, and guarantee that it'd drop health for you. It also had a special melee weapon which would guarantee ammo drops when used. Then it also had mostly non-hitscan attacks by enemies, so you could dodge most attacks.

This all combined to make a legitimately sensible strategy when low on health and ammo be running in a zig-zag at enemies, and effectively punished you for hanging back and trying to hide behind static cover.

<comment><USER7> Cut scenes are boring in non-story-driven games. So when a game has what amounts to very repetitive cut scenes, which you yourself are forced to trigger if you want to get any health, it gets boring and annoying very fast. Add the fact that _time passes_ during these non-interactive cut scenes, and other monsters can gang up on you _while the cut scene plays_ , and you have a very distasteful recipe. It was definitely a large factor in why I never played much of Doom 2016.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> An interesting flipside of the door problem is what experience is the mapmaker envisioning? In his first example, why is the default assumption that a player would WANT to enter a map full of enemies?

Usually this comes from a half-remembered fun of perfectly balanced battles, surrounded on all sides but managing to wade through them. There is an interesting parallel to game motivations and fiction plotting: the character needs motivation to advance into uncomfortable situations, either pushed from behind or pulled by desire. When you think along those terms, everything else falls into place naturally.

<comment><USER14> They're trying to avoid the problem where maximizing combat effectiveness will minimize fun for the player.

Even if there are players who have optimal fun by door-cheesing every encounter, you likely want to ensure other play styles are at least as viable so that players aren't funneled into a one-dimensional tactic. Or that players aren't forced to make suboptimal plays just to have fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've found enemies in shooters to be really weird just idling until you show up in their vincinity. They should know you're there and be coming for you or hold defensive positions. Or they could be unaware and unprepared, running for cover and their guns when they see you.

That was twenty years ago. Reading this article made me wonder whether it's still the same today. On second though it's probably about offering a game that allows people to shoot enemies in a satisfactory way. Having enemies too smart wouldn't allow killing hundreds of them because they'd get you first.

<comment> crooked-v The current Tomb Raider series does a fairly good job at this, with a mix of 'sandbox' areas with patrolling enemies and 'setpiece' areas where they'll actively pursue you or you have to assault a prepared defensive location.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In linear single player games lowering the cost of failure is a powerful way to encourage aggressive play. Games like Super Meatboy don't even make the player wait after death, encouraging the player to keep trying immediately.

In multiplayer games, looping maps discourage tentative play. Remain in one space too long and get flanked.

I like the way World of Tanks discourages cautious play with scouting and artillery

</comment><comment><USER17> Exploiting choke points to optimise your tactical positioning is a recurring trope. Some games just expect you to do that anyway. As mrob mentioned [0], roguelikes are notorious for this; but I wouldn't call that _bad_. It's more a matter of taste. Particularly in roguelikes, you'll also encounter situations where the tactical advantage is subverted by enemies that can teleport or spawn minions behind you.

One common, but somewhat clunky countermeasure is to start the fight only once you're inside an arena and lock down the exits until the adversaries are defeated. It's present in many genres, from metroidvanias to ostensibly tactical action (e.g. the Metal Gear Solid series).

In a Quake-style FPS, having power-ups not just available, but regularly re- spawning in exposed locations is a tried and true mechanic that maintains an exhilarating ballet between risk and reward. But how could one translate the elegant flow of this gameplay loop to a more realistic (or less artificially 'gamey') setting? As Andrew says in the article, you could make more linear and scripted encounters. Which is fine for story-driven games, but limits player agency.

If you'd prefer more organic, emergent game-play, there are other options. Instead of initiating combat only upon the player approaching a set piece, opening a monster closet, or crossing a trigger, you can instruct enemy AI to patrol the potential avenues a stealthy player might take and guard the choke points a speed-runner might attempt to barrel through. From there, you can temper the utility of the player retreating. There could be speedy mobs you wouldn't want to turn your back on. Level design that enables flanking — implement a nav mesh that guides your agents to split between chasing the player down and heading her off at the pass.

But none of that is objectively superior to more predictable fights. Nor is it guaranteed to to be perceived as more enjoyable than comparatively random encounters. Ultimately, what you really should avoid is a ruleset that keeps players from having fun because the interesting game play loops you intended to happen end up being trumped by dominant strategies that are obviously better for approaching the victory condition, but more boring and tedious to execute.

The actual problem isn't with players figuring out how to exploit doorways. It's rather that moment when they resign to repeating the same move ad nauseam.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20663044](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20663044)

</comment><comment><USER18> This reminds me a bit about Christopher Alexander's work on architecture and designing living spaces — as places that shape the potential of human social and emotional interaction.

Alexander's pattern language work in architecture came to greatly influence human interaction design and object oriented programming pattern designs.

</comment><comment><USER19> Nuclear Throne solved this problem by having enemies drop health and ammo pickups which expire really fast. So if you stay at the door and keep taking potshots, you'll just run out of ammo. The only way is to rush in, shoot, dodge and pick up stuff at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER20> Give the enemies a radio. The player's goals are probably impossible when the reinforcements arrive, so the player must be quick.

<comment><USER21> Tron 2.0 and some other games by the same studio (No one lives forever?) had "reinforcement buttons" that roughly doubled a monster spawn when one of the first group managed to access the button. Still a far cry from the "direct reinforcements to the rear of the player" option that would end any playthrough quite fast, but a very satisfactory repeated sub-goal.

<comment><USER22> Goldeneye on N64 had the alarms which would, IIRC, at least accelerate the onset of enemy attacks but I think also increase numbers of attackers.

<comment><USER23> Project IGI had local and global alarm systems. E.g. with two bases on the map, alerting the first base would spawn a massive number of soldiers (a regenerating pool of 4-~15 soldiers) and some other stuff, e.g. tanks, while increasing patrols in or around the second base or turn NPCs from an idle pose to a searching pose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The author's solutions involved making the open arena more inviting, but another possibility is instead making the hallway _less_ inviting. Maybe an enemy that appears behind you in the hallway, pushing you forward. Or damaging floors, or a laser, or conveyor belt, or something.

<comment><USER25> There's a very simple Android game called Very Angry Robots, where you negotiate maze-like levels filled with robots trying to kill you. The robots aren't very clever, so you could clear any level by taking it slowly. Except that there's a slow-moving but indestructible robot which can phase through walls, which enters the level if you're there for too long.

<comment><USER2> Sounds a lot like the classic arcade game Berzerk, complete with the indestructible wall-passing enemy to hurry you up:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berzerk_(video_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berzerk_\(video_game\))

<comment><USER25> It is exactly that game! I had no idea - that is just a bit too early to have been part of my video game childhood.

The Android remake replaces the (apparently astoundingly expensive at the time) synthesized voices with samples of a small child saying "kill the humanoid", which is if anything even scarier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> As a player I prefer to think of it as the door opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER27> Article gets the perspective completely wrong. A space has meaning because a mind interacts with it. If you see the player as the only mind in a single- player game, then go make design hurdles and obstacles like an olympic sport. But videogames can have fake AI minds.

If you design a room from the perspective of a dog that needs to maximize it's needs/wants/goals/skill/desire, from the perspective of it's mind, then designing terrain so that the dog can pursue those goals in a way that is fun for the player and for "the dog" is much more intuitive. The only conflict you need to focus on is the intersection between the dog's goals and the player's story-line through the world.

Presuming your game is based on combat, then designing the space so the dog can maximize (or just play) with it's abilities and perceptions in a fight and making the room play in fun way becomes more straight forward. You look at the room you are building from the perspective of 4 paws on the floor and build a nice overhang or a cheekily placed box so that when the dog breaks it's normal goals to pursue the player, the most common response from the player (look at it, or whatever) will be intersected or guided by a fun piece of world matter.

There is nearly no meaning in his world, it exists only to express the skill of playing a game with no minds, so an emphasis on map control and resources control becomes more important than interacting with a meaningful behaviour the game actors produce.

</comment><comment><USER28> Reading this article made me think of many of the boss encounters in the first Destiny. Levels were usually a long, multi part corridor for the first half and a bullet sponge boss at the end. Many of the boss arenas were poorly designed with so many spawn points that most cover was nearly ineffective. So the optimal game play was to stand in the entry way, funnel trash mobs into the entry and kill them, go out and shot the boss for a bit until the next wave of trash spawned, retreat to the entrance and repeat. They did get better with design and started dropping you into arenas to remove the doorway.

I think the designers did fill the arenas with these mechanics to make them interesting. But so many of the main objectives included a bullet sponge enemy, that while you were addressing the objective new trash mobs would spawn in unpredictable places, and usually more than one wave would spawn during the objective. This made most of the cover feel worthless. Instead it was just as viable to fly around with you jet pack or super jump, keep moving, and hope to dodge random enemy fire.

</comment><comment><USER29> To be frank, I thought this article would be discussing the 'other' door problem, which arises in multiplayer scenarios. It's also called 'first to the button' (or post or flag).

The basic premise is: there's a button on the wall and two players are running toward it, one has higher frame rate the other has lower latency. Which one wins?

It's a problem that's been around forever & I assume it's taught at uni these days. Ironically, I didn't find much on Google (nor gamasutra), here's a similar (but not exact) real world prob: [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6241377/multiplayer- whit...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6241377/multiplayer-whiteboard- race-condition)

<comment><USER30> isn't this basically a solved problem (if tricky to implement correctly)? you have a game simulation update rate that is decoupled from the graphics framerate and give a local timestamp to every update. then the server compares the timestamps to decide which action occurred first and updates game state accordingly. if you make the simulation logic simple enough or pick a conservative update rate (I believe battlefield is or used to be 10 Hz), you can ensure that even min-specced machines almost never have to skip a simulation frame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I couldn't find a recording of the GDC 2019 talk about non linear level design the article mentions. Anyone know why GDC doesn't post all talks online but rather uploads a subset of talks seemingly at random?

</comment><comment><USER32> The real problem isn't the level design, it's that the enemy AI in such games is not smart enough and as a result can be defeated by simple tactics.

</comment><comment><USER33> I made my way through GoldenEye on 00 Agent this way. I am not sure how else it could be beaten.

</comment><comment><USER34> Make them surprise spawn in like Doom

</comment><comment><USER35> I recognise the situation but I've always considered it part of the gameplay. I mean, how else would you play when the enemies are tough?

In nearly any shooter you will soon learn that if you run into an open space carelessly you're likely to trigger lots of monsters/enemies at once and that means you're going to suffer from it. How do real-life special forces infiltrate a building with armed enemies? Very carefully, and with lots of cover.

Similarly, in a game you want to kill the enemies in small batches, ideally one by one, to minimise the risk of getting too much damage. And isn't the point of an FPS to map the whole level, corner by corner, without taking too much damage and successfully killing enemies until none are left?

You can balance taking damage with trying to speed up the game if you don't feel like going slow and secure. And you will learn places where it is worth taking a bit of damage to obtain more benefits. That's what you will be continuously balancing as a player, depending on your mood and how well you've been playing so far, and that's one element to it.

Playing the level the first time generally means slow and conservative gameplay. Further sessions in the same level will obviously make the player make more educated tactical choices. A good level will only reveal itself over multiple rounds of gameplay, and ultimately remain a good level.

In fact, tricks to prevent the player from finding cover by doorways or other obstacles are usually just irritating. You know it's going to be a hard battle in that big room ahead, and you know you can't back out to relative safety after dropping down to the lower level from that higher-level balcony you're supposed to use to enter the room. In all battles you want to have, at your disposal, some nearby place that you can retreat to, if you want, if you're low on armour or otherwise beaten down. If you're doing well you are likely to be impatient enough to stick with the safe routine by the doorway. This will let the player balance how conservatively he wants to play at any given time.

It's good to force the player to move around, though. Sprinkling ammo and health-ups around the level in small batches helps. A traditional scheme is to make the player fight for optional aids: going down a passage to get the big health pack or more ammo also means risking hitpoints and using nearly as much existing ammo to compensate. If you play good, you'll be rewarded with more than you had before. If you play bad, you just make things worse without getting any further in the level. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse to eradicate the locations of relative safety such as doorways that are really handy indeed when you need them.

Instead of forcing the player to fight without cover your level is much better off by being of non-linear nature in the first place, allowing the player to roam to any direction and choosing which sections to take out first and which accompanying enemies to trigger in each location, because that also gives enemies some routes to wander behind the player's back. Some of the enemies can be made to hear fighting and start finding their way to the player while others can be kept to wait until they see the player. The unscripted arrival of extra enemies wandering about will make the eventual game dynamic much more random and convoluted, and opens more choices for the player to make. For example, "go through the easy wing to find yourself in more trouble at some point later" vs "start taking the hard enemies down first with less ammo to avoid the level collapsing into a hellhole later".

Any level should try to maximize the player's ability to balance between different tactics. Sometimes the player wants to finish off quickly, sometimes he wants to kill each and every enemy and collect all power-ups and secrets. A level can become totally different based on how it's played, and a good level doesn't force that "how".

</comment><comment><USER36> My intuition is that one can apply these principles in a flipped manner to design safer schools and other public buildings.

<comment><USER15> Let us all walk around concrete obstacles for fear of an unlikely attack?

<comment><USER37> Schools turn into parkour training gyms. Might help against youth obesity (probably saving more lifes than the shooter protection aspect...), but excludes students with disabilities.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Wing will deliver to about 100 homes in Canberra - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47880288 <comment><USER5> There's a better video of the drones here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prhDrfUgpB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prhDrfUgpB0)

Google's delivery drones combine a multirotor design with fixed-wings. It seems like an eminently sensible design to me; fixed-wing operation will be quieter and more power-efficient, allowing longer travel distances (unlike the early Amazon Prime Air videos [1]), while hover capability avoids the need to parachute the load (unlike the current Zipline drones [2]) and provides a hover-and-land-almost-anywhere capability I imagine is useful.

Presumably the winch-down-the-load design reduces the risk of a user putting their hands into the blades - not to mention reducing the risk from customers choosing an inappropriate landing location; I imagine the drone can also jettison the winch cord if it gets caught on anything. It precludes delivering directly to apartment windows - but AFAIK no-one else is trying that either.

It's a pity they haven't released clear info on these drones' range, round- trip time and weight carrying capacity. Which are of course critical to working out the profitability of a citywide coffee delivery service.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR9PoBAssw0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR9PoBAssw0) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoUBfLxZz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoUBfLxZz0)

<comment><USER6> I wonder if the winch is to prevent people nicking the drone.

<comment><USER7> Why would they? How often are delivery trucks stolen, for example?

<comment><USER8> Delivery trucks (currently) have drivers which does complicate theft.

<comment><USER9> You know, I thought of a bunch of reasons why drones would be more likely to be stolen, but it never occurred to me that delivery trucks are accompanied by people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Wing said the feedback obtained during its trials had been "valuable" and it > hoped to "continue the dialogue".

That's code for they have asked their lawyer to see what was legal and if they can simply ignore the complaints.

We continue to wage war on silence. The other day I was far the heck out there on a trail and the only things I could hear were squirrels birds and a few other things. My soul was at peace. We can't have that in cities or even suburbs any more. Instead we get BUMP BUMP BUMP from passing cars. The level of anxiety we get from cities is insane and people don't really even understand this until they are 60 years old. I'm 38 and I understand it.

<comment><USER11> I don't get anxiety from cities. I love cities. Your experience is common but not universal.

<comment><USER12> Same - I actually like city noise. It's really annoying when people assume their preferences extend to everyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's difficult to imagine that this is ok from a privacy standpoint. I mean yes, the claim is that there is a "low-resolution fitted for debugging purposes", but why would Google stop there?

There are now cameras flying around Canberra and there is seemingly not a single way for a civilian to differentiate between a Google delivery done or a fake drone used for spying. There will be no way for people to opt-out of this.

I see this will end up similar to the way people who send emails to Gmail users cannot opt out of Google being able to use their personal information without consent. You will be on camera whether you like it or not.

Canberra also supports large native bird populations, this can't be too healthy for their stress levels as this scales up.

<comment><USER14> It is surprising to me that this is the straw that broke the camel's back. There are billions of Android users that appear to be browsing the web on their phones but are actually taking pictures of you (you personally!) and uploading them to Google. There are planes flying around taking pictures. There are drones flying around taking pictures. There are satellites flying around taking pictures.

The cat is out of the bag. There are pictures of you. Not sure why that should stop drone delivery (or self-driving cars for that matter, which guess what, have cameras on them).

<comment><USER15> Are you claiming that Google takes and transfers images of the user as they browse the web on their Android device?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 133,000 Packages Lost as Google Cancels Wing Service in Midair

<comment><USER17> Doesn't repeating this trope on every Google related topic get old? We get it, they cancel projects. Hahaha?

<comment><USER18> I'd agree that it would have gotten old if this was an isolated past of Google but fact is that Google shuts downs products left and right even today, recently Google Inbox.

People will keep making fun of Google for this as long as Google keep throwing products at the wall that they don't intend to keep supporting.

<comment><USER17> Googles inclination to deprecate products is common knowledge at this point. What value is added by restating the obvious in every Google related thread?

<comment><USER16> It's an (admittedly somewhat low-value) homage to the classic Onion article.[0]

[0] [https://www.theonion.com/133-dead-as-delta-cancels-flight- in...](https://www.theonion.com/133-dead-as-delta-cancels-flight-in- midair-1819568121)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I personally expect that the first successful drone delivery service will be implemented by some sophisticated drug dealers because unlike with all these drone delivery services, they would need to be quiet and reliably deliver products instead of publicity.

<comment><USER20> Chose one:

      - <USER2>
      - <USER3>

<comment><USER21> That's only true for multi-rotors. Fixed-wing drones can be fairly quiet.

<comment><USER22> Especially if they glide over the target, release the payload with a parachute, and only restart the propeller(s) once they're a ways away.

<comment><USER23> No need for a parachute with the payloads that drug dealers are dropping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> No one talks about the noise. Every time I read about drone delivery, this major aspect is omitted from the discussion but I believe it would be a nuisance to have drones droning around all the time making a huge amount of noise.

Airplanes make a lot of noise and it is still a hot topic in neighborhoods adjacent to airports.

Little hobby drones make some noise but when you've got a drone lifting 5kg of weight, it's going to make a tremendous amount of noise.

<comment><USER25> ~1/3rd of this article is dedicated to noise. :)

 _Trials of the drones had attracted complaints from residents in Bonython, Canberra, who said they were noisy and intrusive.

The Bonython Against Drones campaign said the devices could be heard from "a long way off, both coming and leaving".

"When they do a delivery drop they hover over the site and it sounds like an extremely loud, squealing vacuum cleaner," the group said on its website.

In response, Wing said it had developed a quieter drone. The aviation authority says Wing must use this quieter drone for its commercial service._

<comment><USER26> "quieter" doesn't mean "quiet". I am very doubtful that they can reduce it to bearable levels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Wow that noise is terrifying. Compare: [https://youtu.be/oU4Rk0NATNs?t=168](https://youtu.be/oU4Rk0NATNs?t=168)

<comment><USER28> Or the Mike Patton version: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgex1ukrsko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgex1ukrsko)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ignoring the noise, politics, and financial feasibility of this, we sure are living in the damn future.

<comment><USER30> Noise is already solved in the one they're using in the commercial service, per the article. Politics also were cleared, as the aviation authority there gave them permission. So yes, financial feasibility remains.

<comment><USER31> > Noise is already solved

The article simply says they have a quieter drone than their first one

<comment><USER30> Fair, but it's at least solved to a degree with they have permission to use it commercially. There could be other standards for what's considered solving the problem, but that seems like a reasonable one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The design of the drones is interesting.

I've though that the original Project Wing design (flying wing that transitions 90 degrees for vertical hover) would have been more efficient. Or a larger version of the E-flite X-Vert VTOL:

[https://www.horizonhobby.com/x-vert-vtol-bnf-basic- efl1850?g...](https://www.horizonhobby.com/x-vert-vtol-bnf-basic- efl1850?gclid=CjwKCAjwy7vlBRACEiwAZvdx9rloOrrq_gmUq3V812ZqovBKKwQENX-9CJ4S2dCslGrB3cNP_FQjeBoCMssQAvD_BwE)

<comment><USER33> I suspect they're still headed that way long term, and just went with this design to get testing ASAP because the pusher configuration has more challenges.

The flip maneuver is difficult to integrate with their sky crane style system. You absolutely don't want to tilt your payload because that ruins lots of foods (coffee, pizza) so you either need some sort of pivot mechanism for your payload attachment smack dab in the middle of the craft, or you have to do some daring aerobatics to finish retracting the crane as you begin low speed level flight.

Their noise problem is almost entirely because of those tiny propellers - <USER4> pusher wing with a pair of much larger (10+"), slower props could be pretty quiet.

<comment><USER34> You are semi-correct. The tail sitter design was abandoned because it was too difficult/unstable to control while using the winch.

The core team that started Wing quit X awhile back and formed a new company, Skydio, which has built an incredibly cool drone for the purpose of high-tech narcissism:

[https://www.skydio.com/](https://www.skydio.com/)

[https://www.pcmag.com/review/366306/skydio-r1](https://www.pcmag.com/review/366306/skydio-r1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> You can now have shrimps literally thrown onto the barbie from the sky.

We live in the future.

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting, the FAA has announced the first drone delivery air carrier approval in the US will happen in April. I would have thought Flirtey would win this race but according to the NYT the only application listed is from Google Wing.

<comment><USER37> Strong arm lobbying has its uses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I thought this was being done in rural China since mid last year by JD.com:

[https://www.economist.com/business/2018/06/09/how-e- commerce...](https://www.economist.com/business/2018/06/09/how-e-commerce- with-drone-delivery-is-taking-flight-in-china)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-03/china- s-o...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-03/china-s-on-the- fast-track-to-making-uav-drone-deliveries)

And in Japan:

> Rakuten has been offering drone delivery in Japan since 2016 and unmanned > vehicle trials since 2018. It said that working with JD — which claims to > have racked up 400,000 minutes of delivery flight time — will "accelerate > the development and commercialization" of its human-free last-mile delivery > efforts.

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/jd-com-drones- rakuten/](https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/jd-com-drones-rakuten/)

</comment><comment><USER39> "They will not be allowed to fly over crowds or main roads."

I know this is specific to the current set of guidelines, but if I imagine this service launching in my part of the world I'm unsure how it would even work with this requirement. To go from one side of my city to the other you have to traverse a number of main roads. If you're setting up base stations all over the place to launch from to keep from breaking across main roads I can't see how this solves the distribution problem (though it may solve the "we have to pay humans to deliver packages and takeout food" problem...)

<comment><USER40> The FAA is currently considering relaxing this requirement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Are people really even considering this given how noisy it is?

</comment><comment><USER42> What's the use case besides delivering to remote areas ?

I can get Zipline's mission [0], but personal deliveries ... ? A UPS truck with hundreds of packages surely is more efficient than an army of drones in urban areas.

[https://x.company/projects/wing/](https://x.company/projects/wing/)

> "Wing is developing a new method of transporting goods that's faster, > cheaper, and more environmentally friendly"

What's the advantage compared to an electric van ?

> 27% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation.

I mean, yeah sure, but changing the last 3km of the delivery from van to drone won't change the fact that the coffee beans or new iphone you just bought came from the other side of the world via shipping containers which is 99%+ of the pollution associated to the delivery. [1]

[0] [https://flyzipline.com](https://flyzipline.com)

[1] [https://medium.com/@victoria27/heres-how-much-pollution- ship...](https://medium.com/@victoria27/heres-how-much-pollution-shipping- containers-and-freight-trucks-cause-b358cb034c70)

<comment><USER43> I imagine this would be used for Immediacy solutions. Amazon Prime Now being a great example of which.

It would cost more, but per order it's probably cheaper than a guy on a bike given guy on said bike + insurance + overheads will take a bigger cut than the drone will.

<comment><USER44> There's not much overhead on contracted Uber-eats couriers, since they are acting as contractors, not full time employees.

<comment><USER45> More often than not takeout delivery services will drive with gas-fueled cars, and reducing emissions is one of the big points the article and video [0] touch on.

0: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19633810](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19633810)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Can engineers please critique the following idea:

Design city size "Spidercam" style delivery systems [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDGAa6ww7S4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDGAa6ww7S4)

3-4 tall pylons with heavy duty winches and kevlar cable linked in the middle to hold a winch system that can lower a delivery box anywhere in the city.

1/4 inch kevlar rope weighs 2lb per 100ft, therefore a 2 mile kevlar rope would weigh 210lbs, but has a load bearing capacity of 9500lbs. So this system would allow accurate delivery anywhere in a 2mile x 2 mile area.

Potentially these could be coupled to allow transfer between areas to allow deliveries to be passed along a chain.

Multiple winches could be stacked on pylons to allow multiple sets of ropes, with winches which are near to delivery/pickup points moved downwards and to lower rope tension to avoid other winches/ropes bumping into them.

<comment><USER47> I can tell you why this will never be a thing:

the infrastructure cost is way too high. Not just the cost of materials and labor, either. I'm talking social, political, and environmental costs. people would fight this left and right.

Power lines are already considered an eye sore in many places and are required to be underground. good luck convincing people that a power line with a bunch of moving boxes on it is going to be any better. its essentially a gondola for packages and no one wants that in their backyard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm wondering what exactly Google will use this home delivery by drone tech for? Their Google Express service is nice but it's not their main business and this makes a lot more sense if it was launched by e-commerce giant like Amazon. I'm just wondering how Google will convert this tech in a viable business?

<comment><USER49> The main area Assistant is worse at compared to Alexa is shopping. They kind of need to have their own e-commerce platform. You could (eventually) combine that with drone delivery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Curious if mufflers for electric motors have been invented? Does the noise come from the motor, or from the prop cutting thru the air?

<comment><USER32> The motors themselves don't make much noise.

The noise is from the props themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> "release the hypnodrones !"

</comment><comment><USER52> To be discontinued...

</comment><comment><USER53> For a moment, I thought the drones were delivering homes, and I was very excited. I am still excited, but less so now.

</comment><comment><USER54> I just want to have a pizza delivered to my balcony one day

<comment><USER37> When in college, I once delivered to a 3rd story balcony via ladder. Anything is possible if you hire the right people. Unfortunately, this service requires a large spot in your yard. Sorry apartment dwellers.

<comment><USER55> People with the yard space will become hubs (for a relatively small fee) for apartment dwellers. Or, the drones will deliver to the roofs of the apartment blocks instead.

<comment><USER49> Or maybe windows at some point?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I guess the good news is that when Google inevitably cancels this project the barrier to entry for other companies is not very high.

</comment><comment><USER57> I can envisage a future where you have huge drones with landing pads that fly between hubs in a set amount of times.

This will then allow individuals to request a drone from a 3rd party. Load up the package and program the drone for the final destination. The drone flies to the LZ drone where it lands and waits until its main destination and then resumes flight until it delivers the package.

The drone could have a wallet where it takes the initial payment from the customer. Which a % goes to the drone operator, when the drone lands a % goes to the LZ operator and any other stops.

Having essentially P2P delivery system will be a total game changer!

<comment><USER43> I think with today's technology there's no need to build a card reader into the drone itself. It can just be handled online prior to delivery (or after successful delivery).</comment></comment>


The Lisp approach to AI (Part 1) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/ai-society/the-lisp-approach-to-ai-part-1-a48c7385a913 <comment><USER2> So, where is part 2?</comment>


FCC chairman ramps up defense of net neutrality repeal - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/fcc-chairman-ramps-up-defense-of-net-neutrality-repeal-idUSKCN1M12OO <comment><USER2> Nah.</comment>


How Estimates of the Gig Economy Went Wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-estimates-of-the-gig-economy-went-wrong-11546857000 <comment><USER2> Maybe predictions were off for reasons the article says, but the article woefully misses the biggest factor in why the "gig economy" (cringe) won't be as big as we originally thought - you can only pay sub minimum wage for so long before people say fuck it and walk away flipping you off.

These companies provided very little as far as tech revolution. They mostly rely on cutting wages and offputting risk/liability/taxes/benefits onto the workers. That's a business model that's doomed to fail. The word we're looking for is "greed".

<comment><USER3> You can only win as a "gig economy" as long as you find a weak spot (a.k.a loophole) in regulations and use it. That loophole will close, and the business will either need to expand or converge to a traditional business of the kind it displaced. AirBnB will be like any other apartment rental place. Uber will be (and is already in many places) like any other Taxi company. It should be called the "loophole upstart economy". What they do is grow at a breakneck sped into an area where there is regulation that can be abused. The trick is to grow so fast that regulation can't keep up (in the US you can even grow so fast that eventually you'll be big enough to lobby your own regulation).

As an example: In Stockholm where there are no Taxi mediallions (anyone can be a taxi or car hire service in any way they want as long as they regiser and comply with insurance, standardized meters, and other regulations) and the competition alreay has new cars, app-based booking etc - there is precious little margin for Uber to cut from, compared to a city with medallions, cab shortages, ancient taxi companies that don't offer app hauling/prepayment etc.

So how can Uber make a killing in Stockholm? Answer: they find another regulation to work around. Tax regulation. Taxis are required to enter all fares into the meter and that's reported to tax authorities. Uber drivers are supposed to enter the rides themselves into the meter after completing. The kicker is: there is a huge incentive for the individual driver to under-report the fares, and that incentive also helps Uber. This being revealed will obviously now mean that Uber will be forced to pay an estimated and much higher tax, and the drivers won't be trusted to do this themselves in the fuuture. And this will only mean one thing: Uber will pack up and leave. There is no way they can be competitive (to the extent their investors will want) without breaking either Tax law or Labor laws.

<comment><USER4> After Uber exited the Danish market, the Danish tax authority received details (from the Dutch tax authorities) of whom Uber actually paid. It turned out 99% of the drivers did not put that income on their electronic tax forms.

Uber's statement was that the individual drivers are responsible for that sort of thing. Wink, wink.

What's worse 75% of them were receiving various types of government money for unemployed people (which are supposed to be decreased if are able to find a job).

Uber is planning to return to the Danish market -- the Danish spokesperson says they will return "with integrity".

AirBnb however has agreed to automated reporting of who receives rental income in Denmark. If you agree to automatic reporting as a landlord, you get a certain tax discount.

<comment><USER5> Why is it Uber's responsibility though? Why is this different from how restaurant servers are required to report their cash tips, but basically none of them do? Should we blame the servers, the restaurant owner, the government, all of them, no one?

<comment><USER2> That industry shouldn't exist the way it does either imho. It's wrought with tax evasion itself. And minimum wage needs to be respected.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree, but again, are we mad at restaurants for following the law when the servers are the ones breaking it?

<comment><USER6> The servers in states which allow below minimum wage for tipped employees is keeping servers near starvation wages if not for state benefits and undeclared tips.

The "market" rate is partially set based on those assumptions because employees wouldn't be able to live on what they are paid thus the labor force and thus the company would collapse without an increase in wages.

In both cases its a transfer of wealth from the middle class to relatively rich owners.

The extra cash helps for when business is slow and the server has to report they made the minimum wage to the employer anyway because the employer is responsible for ensuring that the server makes state minimum if the wage plus tips doesn't equal such. Basically the employer will just fire people who make the employer actually do this.

It also helps cover the foregone wages when the employee is working through breaks and lunches even though the half hour lunch is deducted from the employees pay.

In short employers sometimes pay as little as $2 an hour x 24 hours per week.

Since nobody on earth can live on $200 a month some combination of tips from you, government benefits paid for by you, and second or third jobs makes survival possible.

Most of us are not terribly concerned if the server is paying taxes properly and are concerned that the business is basically welfare for inefficient businesses who should probably go under.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The estimates here were wrong because there was nothing to estimate at all - gig economy is a marketing buzzword for an unusually isolated yet reasonably substantial unemployment bracket. The upper bound of the bracket being the sub-minimum wage compensation that Uber pays their drivers[0] and the lower bound being the amortized cost of the cheapest vehicle that Uber lets drivers utilise for their 'gig'.

That's a really small demographic who would fit both criteria. Recently unemployed people and students come to mind.

Importantly - Uber knows this fact very well and are doing everything they can to survive until fully autonomous self driving cars reach mass production.

[0] [https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber- driver-w...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver- wages-20180518-story.html)

<comment><USER8> Uber betting everything on self driving cars may be their only hope, but it should be clear by now that their runway is shorter than the time required to bring lvl5 to market. We're not even into the real edge cases yet, and automation is still _really_ hard to get right. Maybe the tools being applied are simply not up to the task, or if they are, decades away from the maturity required.

All of which is to say that Uber is in trouble, and having been such a notoriously bad actor, will be kicked down the hill at every step.

<comment><USER9> They already killed one person. How many before execs at Uber are held accountable for all their crimes?

<comment><USER10> The entire point of a corporation is arbitrating responsibility away from a company if one employee isn't doing the job they were paid for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Gig Economy hasn't even started yet. We've yet to solve Identity (Who is this?) and Merit (Is this person qualified/competent?). Hell, we've only barely started decentralized finance let alone scalable-decentralized- organizations. Uber/Lyft/Taskrabbit/Fiverr are low-hanging fruit compared to the complex workflows most services entail.

I expect we're going to see more niche gig-economy businesses being built around more complex workflows with higher skilled labor. Lots of B2B and B2C potential when you break up services into smaller tasks that can be fulfilled. Success is providing the benefits of scale without the challenge of doing it yourself.

<comment><USER12> As someone working in this industry on the "employer"-side: Yes, I believe this is exactly whats going to happen. It's a real business pain that we don't have these kind of informations about gig workers and would pay top dollars to have them... it's only a matter of time until this becomes standard practice in these business modells... just like credit rating agencies we're gonna see it on a work-level too.

<comment><USER13> Here's a novel idea. Instead of paying top dollar for "these kind of informations about gig workers", pay top dollar for employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The study used for this article can be found here: [https://scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/publications/understanding...](https://scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/publications/understanding- trends-alternative-work-arrangements-united-states)

"Gig Economy" is a new label on an old practice. Take, for instance, nurse staffing in the United States. In unregulated, non-unionized states, nurses are staffed as-needed. Hospital administrators partner with nursing agencies, who manage relationships with nurses and contract short-term work. This market of nurses enables work-life flexibility and pays fairly well. Yet, the costs and risks continue to rise for nurses. If hospital census (# of patients) is low, shifts are cancelled up to minutes before work is scheduled to begin. Further, hospital administrators have dramatically increased the burden on nurses, increasing nurse-to-patient coverage and demanded more and more of them without assistance. Staffed nurses play the role of scapegoats, too, blaming them for mistakes and shifting risk from the hospital. There are more problems and risks for staffed nurses than ever.

Yet, despite its Gig-like behavior, nurse staffing seems to elude journalists and academics. This is only one example. There are others.

Again, the gig economy isn't a new phenomenon. It's just spreading to other sectors now because of technology innovation. We must learn what works well and what doesn't, for all involved parties. Academics and journalists are thus far failing to learn what works by ignoring legacy business activities.

</comment><comment><USER15> "About a third of what passengers pay goes to Uber for commissions and booking fees." Holy shit. That's way too much commission for a company that uses software and not actual labor to connect drivers to riders.

<comment><USER16> Hmm. Not an Uber user myself as we have cheap and reliable taxis in Germany, but how is payment handled? Does Apple take their usual 30/15% cut as with Netflix, Spotify and friends?

<comment><USER17> I'm an American in Munich, and while taxis here are indeed reliable, I wouldn't call them cheap. Ballpark, I'd say they're about twice as expensive as the Uber/Lyft trips I've taken back in the States.

<comment><USER16> > I'm an American in Munich, and while taxis here are indeed reliable, I > wouldn't call them cheap.

Compared to the stories I have heard about US taxis (underqualified drivers, bad technical maintenance, general unreliability), I am not surprised. You can't have reliable _and_ cheap.

In addition to the mentioned factors, of course Uber/Lyft can be less expensive in the US - they ditch the contributions to social security, healthcare and pension system that is _required_ for German employees.

btw, I am Munich-based too... yes our taxis are expensive indeed but so are the living costs. Can't have no taxi drivers when they don't have a place to live in.

<comment><USER17> > You can't have reliable and cheap.

Well, the ones I've taken so far in the US have been fine.

> btw, I am Munich-based too... yes our taxis are expensive indeed but so are > the living costs.

Much of my Uber using has been in the SF bay area, which is substantially more expensive to live in than Munich. It's still way cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Everyone focuses on driving which in the long run is probably going to go away as self-driving cars come onto the scene.

The best example I've seen of the gig economy is jobs that were already contract based but where it was hard to find and connect contractors with customers.

Walking dogs, small home renovation, etc. I've seen these apps make a massive positive change in the market where people are able to find more work than they code before (at roughly the same rate) and customers can find contractors willing to do the work and they are rated by past customers rather than just word of mouth.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, the problem with the driving apps is the damn greed. They could have made an improved taxi service where people still payed a fair amount and in exchange you get a pleasant, on demand taxi (without the credit card machine being "broken").

But they didn't just want to compete with taxi. They wanted more. They wanted everyone to use their service. How do you do that? Offer it cheaper and pass the responsibility to the driver. If Uber and Lyft has stayed humble they could have had profit, happy workers and happy riders. Instead they wanted billions.

<comment><USER19> > _They could have made an improved taxi service where people still payed a > fair amount and in exchange you get a pleasant, on demand taxi_

This was what Uber was. Then Lyft launched its product and, to Uber's shock, didn't get any regulatory pushback. (Most people in most American cities had horrible cab experiences. Also, the tech backlash hadn't yet begun.)

Uber probably improved the pay laws for New York's taxi drivers by bringing light to their plight. It also improved quality across the board.

This isn't a simple "they got greedy" story.

<comment> m-ee Uber originally was a black car service. Sidecar was the first company I was aware of to use the model that Lyft and UberX currently follow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Are outline urls still welcome?

[https://outline.com/rmXDJa](https://outline.com/rmXDJa)

<comment><USER21> Not in submissions but welcome (and helpful!) in comments, it seems.

I assume this is because otherwise every link would seem to be hosted (in the parenthetical trailer) by outline.com or other depaywaller instead of wsj.com, ft.com, et al.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I always loved the corporate euphemism "contingent labor" more than gig economy. It contains all the cynicism you need, right in the semantics.

<comment><USER23> The two terms reflect different segments of the market though. You'd be hard pressed to find a freelance Management Consultant willing to self-identity as a gig economy worker.

<comment><USER22> That's true, but if you were at conferences for SuccessFactors or Workday about 4 years ago, you'd have heard lots of presentations about the rise of contingent workforce and the gig economy. In fairness to management consultants, most of them are not "contingent labor". Most of them are employed by companies. I think the major distinction is that "gig economy" tends to reflect contracting individuals only, while contingent labor includes both gig workers and those who are contracting through some kind of corporate entity like an LLC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Fail. A more simple way of looking at this is sustainability of the end product. Can an Uber driver earn a practical income and benefits equivalent to the taxi driver they are replacing? Is that Uber driving willing to work in that field/position as long as the taxi driver they are replacing?

Sometimes you don't need to be a math genius to see that major economic shifts incur cost restructuring that caps growth/penetration.

<comment><USER25> Seems to me Uber has led to a huge increase in the number of hired rides. So in most cases, the Uber driver isn't replacing anything, except perhaps the passenger driving themselves for free.

<comment><USER26> Parking and gas. Uber has basically replaced parking and gas costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> [http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/how...](http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/how- estimates-of-the-gig-economy-went-wrong-11546857000)

<comment><USER28> Does Facebook as referrer get around other paywalls as well? It would lend itself as 'quick search' (i.e. by using a keyword from the adress bar) in that case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Gig economy can be a victim of its own success if it starts accounting for a significant portion of the labor force. Because of the inevitable political backlash about its business model. Once you see too many successful companies with workers scraping by, you will also see political demands to treat these as full time workers instead of mere contractors. At that point, gig economy's business model would stop working and these companies will have to live with far lower margins of the traditional industries they are disrupting.

<comment><USER30> Unless the end goal is to become irreplaceable (TBTF) and therefore insulated from political pressure.

You can see they knew this by the lobbying effort that Uber did to even get where they did so they could ignore laws without immediate consequence.

<comment><USER16> > You can see they knew this by the lobbying effort that Uber did to even get > where they did so they could ignore laws without immediate consequence.

In the US that worked (simply because US politicians can be bought off via Super PACs etc, which is absurd in itself), but in other markets (esp. Europe) they got quite a beating from regulatory agencies.

<comment><USER31> _they got quite a beating from regulatory agencies_

Not really, the British regulators and courts keep finding against them but there's zero enforcement, Uber continue operating as normal. The Mayor Of London is weak.

<comment><USER16> Uber Pop (=private drivers) got banned in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Belgium [1], Uber Black (=cars for hire, with pro driver) got banned in Germany [2]. Given that Germany, France, Italy and Spain are the Top 5 EU economies by BIP (with the half-exception of UK where Uber simply ignores court rules), I'd say "took a beating" is the most civil way to write what really happens.

[1] [https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel- konsumgueter...](https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel- konsumgueter/eugh-urteil-uber-verliert-prozess-frankreich-darf- fahrdienstvermittler- verbieten/21157952.html?ticket=ST-574798-CePbhxFdqIrGwojlzDsh-ap5)

[2] [https://www.rbb24.de/wirtschaft/beitrag/2018/12/bundesgerich...](https://www.rbb24.de/wirtschaft/beitrag/2018/12/bundesgerichtshof- berlin-urteil-uber-black-limousinen-service1.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Glad that moronic speculation is over with. On to the next one!

<comment><USER33> WeWork ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://outline.com/7RG8ps](https://outline.com/7RG8ps)

</comment><comment><USER35> It appears the gig economy will be remembered as the last stand of humans before the machines took over.

<comment><USER36> [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Related: [https://www.businessinsider.com/jp-morgan-chase-institute- st...](https://www.businessinsider.com/jp-morgan-chase-institute-study-uber- gig-economy-poverty-wages-2018-9)

</comment><comment><USER37> Insecurity wrapped and sold as "flexibility".</comment>


Ask HN: What do you do to relax your self after work? - <AUTHOR> Hi All
I get so much exhausted after my day job. When I come back to my home I get so much tired and exhausted. I do not want to sit back to my computer.
I want to take some break and relax my self. After taking break I want to get in to my side projects.
1) So what do you do to get out of exhausted feeling and refresh yourself after work?
2) How you motivate yourself to get again in something productive. <comment><USER2> Do something that uses another part of your brain. Cook a meal, listen to a podcast, clean the kitchen, go for a walk?

</comment><comment><USER3> All my friends who work in IT are saying it's good to do sport - jogging, cycling, tennis, some of them even do martial arts.

As for myself - I never found myself doing sport for longer than a week apart from chess (not a sport really...) - I love playing chess :-) Recently I was also solving some funny problems here: [https://www.codingame.com/leaderboards/global/challenge/back...](https://www.codingame.com/leaderboards/global/challenge/back- to-the-code) (found on ycombinator!)

</comment><comment><USER4> I usually do exercise immediately after work, but if I'm feeling too tired to do anything productive, and if I want to do something productive, then taking a nap helps. Maybe 30 minutes, maybe an hour.

Your schedule and/or sleep preferences may preclude this from being a useful option, but for me it both works and is sometimes mandatory if I want to, e.g., do more programming or writing work in the evening.

</comment><comment><USER5> I watch movies immediate after my work. It makes me very relax.</comment>


A Team of Engineers Invented a Brick-Laying Robot. This Is Their Story - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/books/review/sam-jonathan-waldman.html <comment><USER2> Even though it is a book review it seems more than somewhat lax to not at least talk about comparatives eg Fastbrick.

As for the books author,to not talk about other endeavours in the same field should be taken as indicative of the quality of the work.</comment>


The Dating App for People Who Travel - <AUTHOR> https://www.fairytrail.app/ <comment><USER2> Is this supposed to be a Show HN? It's a fucking landing page with no details and an email harvester. Woohoo.

Oh boy does this sound like a terrible idea to me. I mean...I want to like it. I really wish I could. But the only thing that makes first dates sane and safe is when a person can just peace the fuck out at any time if they feel uncomfortable. What am I supposed to do on the second day of my 2 day sailing trip if the other person turns out to be a piece of shit? Go home? Do you reimburse me?

Are you asking someone to be away from any safety net with a person they don't know who, because it's a dating app, has dangerous expectations? What's your don't get raped and murdered on a tropical island safety story? Please tell me that you've at least thought about these things.</comment>


Reminder: Apple's 12 Days Of Gifts Promotion Begins Tonight 12.00am - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/US/app/id777716569

<comment><USER2> I wonder if there is an ifttt e-mail recipe for this?</comment>