Lua 5.3: integers, bitwise operators, and a basic UTF-8 library - <AUTHOR> http://www.lua.org/versions.html#5.3 <comment><USER2> I hope luajit will backport the utf-8 library.

A little bit OT here but I always think the situation of lua 5.1/5.2 is just like python2/python3. E.g. lots of applications' embedded lua version is still 5.1 (Lightroom, Max 7, WoW?, Codea on iPad). Some packages like Metalua still only run on 5.1.

<comment><USER3> There are a few utf-8 libs for lua, some in pure Lua.

[https://github.com/starwing/luautf8](https://github.com/starwing/luautf8)

[https://github.com/luapower/utf8/blob/master/utf8.lua](https://github.com/luapower/utf8/blob/master/utf8.lua)

<comment><USER4> I believe the main issue is there are too many such libraries and text is such an elementary piece of exchanged data.

<comment><USER5> utf-8 is trivial. There aren't major issues with processing code points. Having several libraries is fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sadly though a huge Lua fan I tend to ignore any advancements not also made in LuaJIT for pragmatic reasons. Full-width 64bit integers would be _very_ nice but LuaJIT cannot do them sadly without boxing or widening its current 64bit tagged value approach. I'd still like if LuaJIT implemented boxed 64bit integers that worked properly with its tables (eg by interning the integers, currently box identity comparisons for table lookup are awful).

<comment><USER7> I can't imagine that Mike Pall won't find a way to make LuaJit fast with the current Lua features, together with full 64-bit integers.

Can you please elaborate (or give some link)?

<comment><USER8> I asked Mike about this a while ago. Here's what he said about the challenges of it (this was a year ago, so I don't know if this represents his current thinking or not):

"Using 64 bit integers all-over will definitely hurt tight loops on 32 bit machines -- narrowing number ranges is very tricky for the compiler. Also, the fact that int64_t is neither a subset nor a superset of a double is worrying. This kills various optimizations and may give surprising results even in simple mixed-type expressions."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's the rationale for adding integers? I thought the rationale for not having them was to keep the language simpler, and integers 2^53 and less can be store exactly as a (64-bit) float anyway. Is the rationale for adding them so Lua can have full support for 64-bit-wide integers and bitwise operations at that width?

<comment><USER10> _and integers 2^53 and less can be store exactly as a (64-bit) float anyway._

Until you divide them by three.

There is a time and a place for integer arithmetic. You could get there with liberal use of truncation, but it reads better as native integer arithmetic.

The slope is slippery, time to resist or embrace native complex, rationals, and quaternions… I only stop the list here because it is as much as I've ever used in real world code.

<comment><USER11> When did you use quaternions? (Genuinely curious!)

<comment><USER10> Minecraft-like game I wrote with my daughter. I discovered their use the hard way after having suffered through without them. Any time you are freely rotating a viewpoint or an object in 3D space, you will probably want quaternions.

Do write some good test cases though that compare to someone else's implementation. I accidentally wrote my multiplication backwards and didn't catch it for a long time. I just had a vague feeling that something was wrong every time I wrote rotation code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow - surprised it's only just getting bitwise operators ... are they not commonly required in systems that tend to embed Lua?

Thinking about Redis bitmaps, they could be very useful when available in the scripting context/

<comment><USER13> Well, Lua is only just now getting integers. Bitwise operations don't really make that much sense when you only have access to floats.

<comment><AUTHOR> Additional clarification. The integer reason was the main reason it wasn't in the language, but various libraries have always been available to do bitwise operations. Lua 5.2 included a bitwise library as part of the standard library (which is now redundant and deprecated).

As a library, there were edge cases such as what if you used the number as floating point or what happens with 64-bit.

Now with integers, bitwise operations can be put directly into the language instead as a library.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is great news .. I'm looking forward to getting this integrated into the latest MOAI client. The lack of utf-8 support up to now was definitely a little frustrating .. going to be great to get that integrated and functional.

<comment><USER15> I wouldn't call it "utf8 support". It's barely a starting point. string.xxx functions still work with single bytes, and there aren't equivalents on utf8.xxx side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it that hard to just make Lua another W3C standard, enable it in the browsers and make this world a bit better?

<comment><USER17> Well as for simply supporting Lua in browsers, aside from the obvious Emscripten/ASM.js way, which would work for practically all browsers which support JavaScript, Lua can run as a PNaCl app in Chrome/Chromium, see: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lua/nkcnhkobblkmia...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lua/nkcnhkobblkmiampcmimoemaeffjopph?hl=en)

Of course this is only a proof-of-concept which just runs a Lua REPL in the browser. I wonder if it is possible (and if so, how hard it is) to make the browser run <script language="lua"></script> code.

<comment><USER18> You need to define a DOM interface to do anything useful, which is a fair amount of work.

<comment><USER19> lua.vm.js can manipulate javascript objects. the only outstanding issue is tracking garbage (lua closures can leak into javascript).

In regards to actually doing the DOM work, craig barnes is doing great work over with lua-gumbo: [https://github.com/craigbarnes/lua- gumbo](https://github.com/craigbarnes/lua-gumbo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Fairly good news.

<comment><USER20> Why so many down-votes? The main changes can't be really backported to LuaJIT as far as I know. Otherwise I'd write "great news", then your down-vote warriors would be happy.

<comment><USER21> The HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.

<comment><USER20> Well... I'll make sure to elaborate a little more next time. Edit: Thanks for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wowwwwwwwwwww

</comment><comment><USER23> Disappointing that Lua is going down the same broken road of having limited integer types. But, then again, Lua was always about a small, simple base than correctness at all costs.

<comment><USER18> I think you could replace the integer type with an unbounded one fairly easily. Lua is designed to have changes made and it already allows other sizes of integer and float to be used.

<comment><USER24> I'd love to be proven wrong, but all Lua lets you do is typedef to another built-in type. Swapping in something like Python's long type would not be a simple matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you would probably want to do it as a userdata and not as a language mod.

Roberto addressed the idea of a infinite number type, but it has a lot of downsides which are very un-Lua like, i.e. complicated, slow (no real hardware), and interoperability problems with the C API (which is very important to Lua).

video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjqNK1jA77M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjqNK1jA77M) slides: [http://www.inf.puc- rio.br/~roberto/talks/ws2014.pdf](http://www.inf.puc- rio.br/~roberto/talks/ws2014.pdf)

<comment><USER18> Ah yes the C interface would be a problem.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Work standing up and heel pain - <AUTHOR>

I have tried to work standing up for about two weeks. I feel great except heel pain. Does anybody have some experience to lighten heel pain while working standing up? Thanks! <comment><USER2> Wikipedia suggests [1] the only non-surgical means of managing plantar fasciitis (i.e. heel pain) is the use of othotics - foot supports. Stretching your calf muscles and the arch of your foot can help in the short term as well.

But you don't want to let your heel pain get to a point where it becomes chronic - if your heels hurt, stay off your feet and don't aggravate the condition.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantar_fasciitis>

</comment><comment><USER3> Did you ever notice how some jobs are considered less desirable than others or at least in some ways unpleasant because "you have to be on your feet all day"?

I suggest (not as medical advice, just common sense):

Avoid holding yourself in any one position for most of the day. Move naturally, instead. Sometimes sit. Sometimes stand. Etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> New shoes. The soles of your shoes can easily have 1mm (1/16") of differential wear and so you wind up standing on a consistently uneven surface all day.

[Disclaimer: not science, just my experience, I have flat feet and when I experience heel pain it's to replace the shoes]

</comment><comment><USER5> Cooks, who are on their feet a lot, often wear clogs or crocks for shoes and/or stand on thick, squishy rubber mats.</comment>


Moscow Server Hosted WikiLeaks and Iran's Hackers Weeks Apart - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/moscow-server-hosted-wikileaks-and-irans-hackers-weeks-apart <comment><USER2> The Daily Beast is owned by a company partially controlled by Chelsea Clinton. Keep that in mind when reading their reporting on WikiLeaks / Russia.</comment>


Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/10/21362460/uber-lyft-drivers-employees-california-court-ruling <comment><USER3> Lots of HN comments are here like "I know people who prefer to be contractors", "My sister's neighbours little brother actually doesn't want to be treated with respect by Uber", blah

This is utter nonsense. Being a contractor means being self employed. You don't get paid leave or sick pay. It's a risk taking and doesn't make any sense in the gig economy where the wages are close to minimum rates.

If you are truly self employed then you have a skill which you can market, you can charge fees which allows one to put money aside for things like unpaid leave or sick days.

If you are truly self employed then part of your job is building customer relationship, building up recurring customers, increasing your business through marketing, word of mouth, etc.

You actually have to do entrepreneurial shit.

Uber drivers are NONE of this.

They clock into an app which belongs to someone else and they have no share in. They can't hand out business cards to customers or market their services on a board somewhere. They sit and wait until their master (Uber/Lyft) assigns a ride to them. Then they have merely the chance to accept/decline it. They can't even negotiate their own fees. That itself is fucked up. It's complete nonsense in extremely disingenuous by anyone here to suggest that an Uber driver is a self employed contractor and that this is good for them. They get paid shit and can't save up like a real self employed person, because they also have no say in the ride prices.

Fuck the gig economy. All gig workers are slaves and we should treat each other with more dignity and upgrade them to employees. It's our bloody duty as a decent human being.

<comment><USER4> _> All gig workers are slaves and we should treat each other with more dignity and upgrade them to employees. It's our bloody duty as a decent human being._

Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what _passengers are willing to pay_. E.g. even though yellow medallion taxis often _cost more than Uber_ (especially for suburb trips) -- those yellow cab drivers were _not employees_ with benefits like unpaid leave and healthcare.

I believe what this really comes down to is that _society_ is not willing to pay the higher prices for drivers to be treated as employees. Same situation as not willing to paying higher prices at hair salons so hair stylists are full employees (instead of being contractors) with healthcare. It does seem like constantly blaming Uber for mis-categorizing employees conveniently shifts the blame from the society/customers. The extra money to pay the drivers comes from the passengers.

Let's look at comparison cases: The city of Austin TX temporarily banned Uber from operating there. A non-profit rideshare (RideAustin[1]) was formed. Even though they don't have to implement the same business practices as Uber/Lyft, it's interesting that the RideAustin drivers _are also independent contractors and not employees with full benefits_. Also as far as I can tell, there is no worker co-op owned by the drivers anywhere in the world that treats members/drivers as employees with benefits. Why is that?

Serious question about the framing of ethics: if (some) drivers see an arbitrage opportunity because potential passengers think Uber-with-employee- drivers "charges too much" so drivers _willingly choose_ a rideshare co-op that treat them as contractors to undercut Uber, are the co-op drivers being unethical towards the Uber-drivers-as-employees?

Yes, a judge can force Uber to convert everyone to employees but that same judge can't force potential _customers to pay higher prices_. The alternative entities of RideAustin and driver co-ops shows there's a limit to prices that ride shares can charge.

[1] [http://www.rideaustin.com/](http://www.rideaustin.com/)

<comment><USER5> > I believe what this really comes down to is that society is not willing to > pay the higher prices for drivers to be treated as employees. Same situation > as not willing to paying higher prices at hair salons so hair stylists are > full employees (instead of being contractors) with healthcare. It does seem > like constantly blaming Uber for mis-categorizing employees conveniently > shifts the blame from the society/customers. The extra money to pay the > drivers comes from the passengers.

Generally I'd argue that society/customers, and in particular employees/'contractors' don't have all that much leverage over big companies, especially ones that capture a market. That's why we have regulation.

Blaming the customers for not keeping track of everything and going for the cheapest option is like blaming climate change on the consumer. It's technically sort of true, but practically speaking it makes no sense.

Consumers will keep buying cigarettes, marketeers will keep marketing them via entertainment channels, and tobacco companies will keep rolling in the money and do everything they can to encourage all this. But taxes, anti-smoking campaigns and government-enforced restrictions on where you can smoke have made a /ton/ of difference over the years.

There seems to be a trend to have 'flex-workers' (contractors) where in practice they all quack like employee ducks, without many of the benefits and guarantees. It mostly feels like a loop-hole and /of course/ the average consumer will go for cheap and convenient when they can. doesn't mean it's a good thing for society (and in particular the workers).

<comment><USER6> Businesses want more profit. Consumers want to pay less. Workers want to earn more. Pretty much always.

This doesn't always result in an optimal outcome. Market power, externalities, information asymmetry, etc.

This is why we have regulations. Forcing the society and Uber to pay for drivers to be treated as employees seems like a very reasonable outcome. If they don't like it they can hire less drivers, but the ones that remain will at least have some minimum standard of living that developed countries pride themselves for.

<comment><USER7> What does it mean to be "treated like an employee"? I'd like regulation to give everyone healthcare. Are non-employees not worthy?

<comment><USER8> The biggest difference in the US is that "treated like an employee" also means being paid a minimum wage. As an employee in the United States, your employer is also responsible for paying a portion of your social security and medicare taxes, and for making sure taxes are properly withheld from your paycheck.

Even before the gig economy became a big deal, businesses like yoga studios would attempt to classify their skilled teachers as independent contractors so they could pay them well below minimum wage, but take away their ability to teach at the location if they taught somewhere else as well. Hair salons and yoga studios sometimes go so far as to charge their independent contractors rent, which would make sense if these people were truly renting the space and could freely take their clients elsewhere, but these businesses also frequently limit the contractors' ability to collect personal contact information.

When I volunteered to help people with their taxes, a large number of Uber/Lyft/DoorDash/etc. drivers were surprised to learn that not only did they have to pay large amounts of income tax that would usually be automatically deducted from their pay check, but they also had to pay double the social security and medicare taxes because they had to pay the employer and the employee portions. Companies that classify their workers as independent contractors in this way are taking advantage of the fact it can take people up to a year to realize that taxes and car maintenance will take what little income they have made.

<comment><USER7> > Companies that classify their workers as independent contractors in this way > are taking advantage of the fact it can take people up to a year to realize > that taxes and car maintenance will take what little income they have made.

When I drove pizza delivery, I discovered car maintenance took what little income I made. I was a W2 employee, paid less than minimum wage, because I earned tips. Independent contractor status isn't the only method for surprising people.

I take issue with the paternalistic idea that an employee is more deserving than other types of people. The commenter above said, "This is why we have regulations." I interpreted that as beginning a discussion of what regulations we should have. If that was incorrect, I'm sorry for causing confusion. If that was the intent, then I'll reassert that focusing myopically on the distinction between an employee and a contractor is ignoring much better solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions.

Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers would like to be employees. But surely some (also non-insignificant) portion would prefer to be contractors for Uber and Lyft and keep the legal protections that come with that.

These articles always make it seem like it's a no-brainer win for all drivers no matter what, but it's never seemed so clear cut to me.

<comment><USER10> Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.

<comment><USER11> I get what you're saying, but I don't think "setting their own rates" has anything to do with it. Any driver would be able to set their own rates by going at it alone, completely independent from a ride share company. They would create their own service and charge what they want.

However, because the drivers choose to participate in the Uber/Lyft marketplace and benefit from the network affects that they have created, it follows that Uber/Lyft would have a say in the cost of goods sold in that marketplace. Just because the drivers can't set their own rates doesn't mean they aren't independent contractors.

If I hire you to mow my lawn, we mutually come to an agreement of what time and price you would perform the service. Just because you want to work for $100 / hour doesn't mean I'm willing to pay that. And because I'm only willing to pay a certain price only for your services doesn't make you an employee.

I think it's that simple. Uber/Lyft have a price they are willing to pay for services. They even allow their drivers to pick their own schedule (unlike my lawn service example). Drivers are not setting the price directly with the customers, they are getting paid by Uber/Lyft, but that doesn't make them employees.

<comment><USER12> In your lawn care example you used the word "mutually". That is a difference between the Lyft/Uber relationship with drivers and your relationship with the lawn care contractor.

Maybe if Lyft/Uber allowed drivers to bid on rides drivers would become more contractor-esque? But then the latency would be much higher for users. The system would likely also regress to the proposed price, as well, since drivers would likely just accept the price proposed by the platform to save time.

<comment><USER11> You are expecting that Uber/Lyft creates an "auction" environment in order for their drivers to be considered contractors? In my world view, an auction is not requirement for a driver to be considered independent. Drivers can:

\- drive on their own schedule \- drive for competing ride share services (concurrently even) \- drive for themselves \- not drive at all

Seems very independent contractor. Uber/Lyft created a marketplace; drivers are agreeing to drive within the constraints of that marketplace. They can also create their own customer relationships and ride share marketplace if they choose.

If Uber/Lyft imposed restrictions on things like who a driver could give rides to or restricted concurrent ride share engagements, then that starts to feel like an employee. Rates have very little to do with it, in my humble opinion.

<comment><USER13> Part of the whole argument is not only whether drivers are technically employees or contractor but also whether Uber/Lyft are stretching those category so much that neither is a good fit for the situation.

As far as I understand one of the problems is that the drivers' market is so saturated that both Uber and Lyft can act as if they where monopolies (or maybe monopsonies). They can technically move to a competitor but that applies no pressure on the market.

Again, what makes this situation tricky is that it is essentially creating a new kind of employement-like relationship that current laws and regulation do not really account for.

<comment><USER14> This is not true, moving to a competitor definitely applies pressure and keep both companies in check.

<comment><USER13> This is only true if either company ever risk running out of (good) drivers. As I understand it currently there are more workers than jobs, so if a driver decides to cut ties with one of the oligopsies they are unable to get the same amount of work from the competitor.

So: "moving to a competitor definitely applies pressure" -> true; "keep both companies in check" -> false

<comment><USER14> There are not more workers than jobs, ive worked in the industry and this is a fact. Workers on ridhailing platforms come in varying levels of quality and amount of hours they can supply

You are thinking too much about just workers, when actually the smalelst divisible unit is hours. There is portion of drivers that barely ever switch, and then there is another portion that are constantly looking for the better deal, switching through outh the day. Its a scale.

So to keep drivers happy and on your paltform, you need to implement bonus schemes or have certain base pays.

Im not sure why so many people feel that they can comment on how the ridehailing platforms work without having any real experience in driving for them or working for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The consequences of this ruling are probably not going to be known for a while. This is certainly bad for Uber & Lyft insofar as it will greatly increase their operating costs. The question is what effect the ruling will have on drivers.

Uber is not a profitable company with fat margins like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple or Netflix. I don't see any way for Uber to absorb the increased costs that come with full employment without reducing the number of drivers and increasing the cost of rides in California.

The change in employment classification means that drivers will no longer be able to choose when they work. Uber will choose when they work, and for how long. The barrier to becoming an Uber driver will increase. Currently, in most cities it's possible to sign up to drive entirely online and basically just requires a license and a completed background check. Going forward people who want to drive for Uber will have to interview like any other job, probably in- person with a resume, and jump through the many hoops which that process entails.

My guess is that for new drivers who can pass the interview and existing full- time drivers who don't get laid off this will bring a big improvement in quality of life and provide some much-needed financial security and benefits. The rest will be out of a job.

I think it's unfortunate that some kind of compromise couldn't be reached which would have provided some economic security for these workers while accounting for the real differences between gig work and regular employment.

<comment><USER16> Profitability should have no bearing on whether drivers are classified as employees or contractors. If these companies can't turn a profit while complying with the law then they don't have a viable business model. That is entirely their problem.

Furthermore, the assumptions you make regarding future hiring practices are unfounded. Nothing stipulates that resumes or interviews, let alone in person, would be required to extend employment.

<comment><USER17> > If these companies can't turn a profit while complying with the law then > they don't have a viable business model

Are you seriously telling me that if people don't interact freely in the way bureaucrats want them to interact, then those people should, by law, not be allowed to interact?

Big Brother knows best, huh.

<comment><USER18> What is a minimum wage?

<comment><USER19> A minimum wage is nothing more than a mechanism higher skilled workers use to command higher wages at the expense of lower skilled workers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The judge does not understand what a "gig" is. Uber drivers can choose to drive one, twelve, or zero hours in any given day. They can suddenly stop working by simply not accepting any more ride requests. It's the ultimate remote, self-directed, self-managed job.

An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired.

Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis. The company counts on an oversupply of such drivers to meet demand and does not need to manage the supply other than to continually recruit more people.

I suspect this ruling will be overturned, if not in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then in the Supreme Court.

<comment><USER21> > Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and > equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis.

As far I know, this is not true. Uber dictates the prices that drivers can charge, they cannot set an arbitrary price for their own labor. Is that not the case?

<comment><USER22> Uber has been rolling out a feature to allow drivers in California to set their own prices, and today rolled it out to the entire state. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uber- calif...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uber-california- driver-rates-new-policy-pricing-money-wage-a9613286.html)

<comment><USER23> Small correction: not today, this article is from over a month ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's interesting how often Silicon Valley companies blitzscale an unsustainable business model and then leave public investors holding the bag. In the Uber and Lyft case, the time bomb was the regulatory issue. Which investors should have known about, given that these companies have been breaking the law since day 1. Tesla with their full self driving is also an example of this dump the risks on the bag holders pattern.

<comment><USER25> To be fair, the founder didn't want to do IPO and according to rumors that was the reason why he was kicked out. All the toxic workplace stuff was just a narrative tool to make it happen more easily.

Also, it's a public market. No one is "holding the bag". This may be true if Uber crashed before the IPO because private investors can't easily sell, but once on the public and liquid market, it is the public investor's own choice to invest or divest in these companies.

<comment><USER26> > All the toxic workplace stuff was just a narrative tool

That's a pretty bold claim. What of all the reports of a toxic workplace? I've heard first-hand accounts.

<comment><USER27> I think he was arguing that the execs at Uber didn't really care about the toxic workplace stuff until Uber's founder said he didn't want to IPO, then they used it as a way to kick him out.

So basically the workplace is toxic, but that's not the real reason why he was kicked out (according to the comment you were replying to).

<comment><USER16> He effort you have him ousted was led by Bill Gurley of Benchmark and several other VC investors in Uber. Essentially the board asked him to step down and he did.

<comment><USER25> If you look it up, there are plenty of articles of rumors saying that the VCs schemed to kick him out because they wanted to IPO and the founder didn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their drivers to work for Lyft, and vice versa.

If this is the case, I think Lyft will die very quickly because as far as I know, most drivers prefer Uber over Lyft.

<comment><USER28> IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[ _] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work.

[_] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.

<comment><USER25> But it's not a "spare time". A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. A lot of drivers have both Uber and Lyft apps running and take the ones they prefer at the moment. Some have become tired of this and just choose Uber.

If Uber or Lyft are required to legally hire these drivers as employees, they will probably develop a technology to track the drivers so that they won't take a Lyft call when there's an Uber passenger nearby, for example. This effectively means lockin.

Also, Uber (or lyft) may even compensate these behaviors by giving the drivers base salary as long as they don't take their competition's calls. Of course, this is until one becomes the dominant player and the other goes out of business.

<comment><USER28> > A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next > Uber call or Lyft call.

Under an employee model, they would do this while on the clock of a particular company (and being paid by it). Sure, Uber could choose to employ a driver for 16 hours a day, but they'd have to pay for that time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So I think the biggest question here is whether, as an employee, Uber/Lyft can set hours for a driver. Some specific implications:

* Will we see employees (drivers) get a say in their shifts? An employee can be asked to work a 3AM - 9AM shift for example.

* Can not arriving to shifts on time be grounds for dismissal?

* Can refusing a shift be grounds for dismissal?

* Can incurring unapproved overtime be grounds for dismissal?

* If a driver is incurring overtime, is that reflected in the pricing that consumers pay?

* Can Uber/Lyft systemically set employee hours to like 29 per week to avoid FTE status?

* Will multihoming (ie working for multiple "gig" apps) be grounds for dismissal as a conflict of interest?

I see a lot of ways Uber/Lyft could retain significant power over drivers.

<comment><USER30> > Will we see employees (drivers) get a say in their shifts? An employee can > be asked to work a 3AM - 9AM shift for example. > > Can not arriving to > shifts on time be grounds for dismissal? > > Can refusing a shift be grounds > for dismissal?

If Uber requires someone to work a "Shift", then they have to pay them for that shift regardless of miles driven. Uber doesn't want that. I don't believe the state is requiring Uber to pay hourly and Uber almost certainly doesn't want to pay people hourly either so none of this is relevant.

> Can Uber/Lyft systemically set employee hours to like 29 per week to avoid > FTE status?

This is what most low-wage jobs do so why wouldn't they?

> Will multihoming (ie working for multiple "gig" apps) be grounds for > dismissal as a conflict of interest?

Maybe. But since a big chunk of the appeal of working for Uber is flexible hours that work around the hours of other jobs or responsibilities, why would they?

If Uber prevents drivers from doing other gig-jobs, they will have a hard time finding drivers.

<comment><USER31> > I don't believe the state is requiring Uber to pay hourly and Uber almost > certainly doesn't want to pay people hourly either so none of this is > relevant.

Pay may be calculated based on metrics other than time, but must be at least the minimum wage, which is based on time at work. For employees, if you want to pay on trips/widgets/sales/whatever, you have to also track hours. So, yes, the state is requiring Uber to pay hourly.

Uber may allow flexibility of when you're on the clock, though they won't have to, but you can bet they'll require a certain amount of productivity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers

What would prevent Uber and Lyft from continuing to let employee drivers set their own hours?

<comment><USER33> Nothing, but since now they have the added cost of health insurance, minimal wage, etc, it would make more sense for them to arrange pre-set shifts for the drivers to optimize for supply/demand based on time of the day.

Some drivers would like that arrangement, especially if that's their full time job. But some drivers who do this for supplemental income may not be able to meet the demand of the new fixed schedule set by Uber/Lyft.

<comment> munk-a I think Uber & Lyft are just using flexible hours as a red-herring. They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees - no where does it say "Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders". They're just griping that they need to start paying benefits.

<comment><USER33> >They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees - no where does it say "Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders".

I don't think you understand how a business like this works. For a customer serving business, they need to make sure they are staffed appropriately.

Would it make sense for a restaurant to offer all of their staffs "flexible hours"? Is it ok for the waiter to show up at 3am when he has trouble sleeping and just get paid doing nothing?

It's not about 9-5, but it's about when the customers show up.

<comment><USER34> I seriously doubt there's anything in labor law which would prevent Uber from allowing flexible (fractional) hours to their workers, so long as those hours pay at least minimum wage.

Uber isn't against this because it would make it impossible to run their business, they're against this because they're being forced to pay into things like unemployment which will make it more difficult for them to be profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So if Uber & Lyft lose their appeals, I'm taking bets on how long it will take before they cease operations in California. I'll set the over/ under starting at 65 days.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure they will stop operating completely, but I have a hard time imagining this will be good for a large number of drivers who do it part time, or for consumers.

If they have to be employees, then I imagine Uber/Lyft will only want to keep the most productive drivers around. The ones who do already do it full time. They will likely have to enforce real working hours/ actual schedules, based around demand.

This means any of the fringe drivers, who do it part time for supplementary income will be out. They might not have the option anymore of just turning on the app and working a little bit when they decide. This will mean less choice and higher prices for riders.

<comment><USER36> What would happen if both Uber and Lyft would stop providing the service in California? Would other States follow with that kind of legislation or would it make them less likely to introduce such legislation? I can't imagine the customers would be too happy with Uber and Lyft gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The relevant statute:[0]

2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) 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. (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

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

<comment><USER38> This seems to pretty conclusively result in Uber drivers being employees, then. Specifically, in B. It's going to be hard for Uber to argue that driving cars is outside of the usual course of Uber's business.

<comment><USER39> I actually don't think that point B is the ones they failed off. They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them.

The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers. For example, they don't allow users to choose their own drivers. They also don't allow drivers to price their ride.

<comment><USER38> >They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them.

This doesn't stand. If YouTube hired every single YouTuber as a contractor it would be forced to reclassify them as employees. Because Uber doesn't facilitate connections between two third parties, it facilitates connections between clients and their contractors. If drivers on Uber were neither contractors nor clients and if contractual obligations were between drivers and riders then it would make sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The corollary to this is that Uber and Lyft will now be able to exert more control over drivers.

Contractors have certain legal freedoms that employees do not, such as setting their own hours, being able to turn down work, driving for both Uber and Lyft, etc -- that last one seems pretty common.

I wouldn't expect those freedoms to last long after they are reclassified as employees. After all, this is Uber and Lyft we are talking about. We know how they behave. Now the government has both increased their operating costs and given them the ability to exert more control over their drivers.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again.

It's like they want the medallion taxi system again.

<comment><USER42> Regulation, in general, exists primarily as a response to exploitation.

If drivers felt they were getting paid equitably, had fair dispute resolution, had access to benefits, etc., there wouldn't be a need for this.

<comment><USER43> The parent's point brings up the fact that the medallion system wasn't particularly beneficial to all drivers (or riders); medallions are good for medallion-holders, which are usually taxi companies.

<comment><USER44> Has anyone suggested the solution to this is to make another medallion system? It seems like the OP was putting the cart before the horse.

<comment><USER41> The medallion system was regulation at its worst. I'm suggesting we look to our past so we don't repeat it.

<comment><USER45> How is California enforcing it's laws a repeat of a medallion licensing system?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It seems inevitable that the government will make reactionary, uninformed decisions. The question is, how do we revert to normal (a freer market) and begin to teach those in power some basic economics lessons? I'm not hopeful that an op-ed by Uber's CEO will help. Perhaps it needs to look more like a grass-roots movement.

<comment><USER47> This doesn't sound reactionary or uninformed at all. There's a decision that the benefits of stable employment are more important than flexibility. You can be free to argue whether it's better or worse bit it's not about ignorance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I find it really interesting how rigid this all is. No one is willing to accept that Gig-work might be a thing and that we need a third category of work to cover it. It seems to me (the outside observer) that the US labour market is deeply dysfunctional. But the best anyone can muster is trying to force Uber drivers into the OTHER deeply dysfunctional category...

</comment><comment><USER49> The reality is that these "gig economy" jobs are neither "Employee" nor "Contractor".

It's a new kind of working relationship, and jurisdictions insisting on one of the old categories can't really have a modern gig economy.

</comment><comment><USER50> Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing.

Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?

<comment><USER51> Regardless of whether this decision is correct or not, Uber's financial situation is of their own making and shouldn't factor in to the ruling.

<comment><USER50> Fair enough, the court's job is just to interpret the law; it's the law I object to. But a lot of people advocating for these types of laws make the moral argument that companies are exploiting workers. Given the evidence, I think that's a pretty difficult case to make in good faith.

<comment><USER52> It seems like a very easy case to make. Regardless of whether the abstract corporate entity is losing money, Uber's founders, employees, and early investors have all done very well for themselves.

<comment><USER50> How does it follow that someone was exploited for that to have happened?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a company's business)? Do any employees working at Uber or Lyft currently do any driving?

Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.

<comment><USER54> >Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.

Can't you use this excuse to bypass that clause altogether? eg. a pizza restaurant that classifies its delivery drivers as contractors: "their business is making the pizza. delivery is not their business".

<comment><USER55> I mean it's that how contracting is supposed to work? If your core competency is in making the product expecting you to become experts on delivering it too is crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> What I'm guessing will happen if Uber/Lyft are forced to treat drivers as employees is that those driving full-time will be hired and everyone else will be let go. The employees will lose some control over what hours they work and may be forced to sign non-compete agreements (not sure if that would fly in CA).

What I don't understand is why Uber/Lyft don't just allow drivers to set their own prices. Whatever their pricing algorithm is it cannot possibly be better than an efficient market of riders and drivers bidding on trips.

<comment><USER57> Probably because they would end up losing money, drivers would be willing to work for less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> There's a lot of discussion in this thread about whether or not it's a good idea to force Uber and Lyft to classify drivers as employees.

I think that discussion is a tangent the real issue.

California's elected officials already ended that discussion by writing it into law. If you live in California and don't like the law you can call or write your representative and see if they'll repeal or change it.

But that law is the law. It seems unlikely that Uber and Lyft will win this appeal.

What we have here are two corporations ignoring the law because they don't agree with it, and the "hire lawyers to endlessly fight this" number is lower than the "paying payroll tax for all our drivers" number on the spreadsheet.

Just my opinion, it's frankly disturbing how many people are ready to jump to these companies' defense. They're proclaiming imminent disaster, that this business model can't possibly work with W2 employees, but I doubt that's true.

Nothing stops Uber and Lyft from allowing their W2 employees to make their own schedules, and nothing stops them from hiring directly from the app with quick approval. They just don't want to pay their share of the payroll tax, and they don't want to provide family and medical leave that their upper caste employees enjoy.

</comment><comment><USER59> From AB5 (and yes, I posted this in another topic today, but few here seem to know it.)

...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.

#2 is the key issue for Uber. Uber claims to be merely a booking agent, not a ride service. This is not believed by their customers, drivers, or the courts. Nor is it the message on Uber's web site, which says "Sign Up to Ride - Reliable rides in minutes". Uber is in the taxi business.

Uber has been trying to get around #1 by allowing drivers a bit more flexibility. A tiny bit. Not too much.

</comment><comment><USER60> Seems like crux of this disagreement is that there is a large group of drivers that do it full time as their primary source of income, and they want protection from all the part time gig workers that flood the market and depress their earnings.

Changing to employee model will result in fewer drivers (better protected), but lose out on the gig workers or even those doing multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

</comment><comment><USER61> Before just randomly spouting out whether you personally feel like Uber and Lyft are employers, it might be helpful to look at the ELI5 criteria California lists at [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_IndependentContractor.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_IndependentContractor.htm)

> Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an > independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the > following conditions:

> The worker 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;

> The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring > entity's business; and

> The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, > occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work > performed.

It's not enough to just say "they feel like they don't work for Uber" you have to put forward a more coherent case than that.

<comment><USER62> This is oddly specifically drafted to capture gig economy workers like this.

My employer employs people (on a permanent ongoing basis) who meet some of these conditions to be classed as an independent contractor...

<comment><USER63> As stated, all three conditions must be met for a worker to be considered a contractor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of traditional > benefits like health insurance and workers' compensation

This is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Most other developed nations have affordable, if not universal health care that isn't tied to their employment. The status of Lyft/Uber drivers wouldn't be as much of an issue if this was solved.

</comment><comment><USER65> This debate seems to be about what's a user vs. a contractor vs. an employee. Does the fact that I walk a Google device around enabling Google to record rich profitable data, in exchange for extracting some value from their services, make me a contractor or an employee? Because for sure it doesn't sound like it makes me a user.

Edit: spelling.

</comment><comment><USER66> It would be interesting to let passengers have a slider that let them show how price sensitive they were and the drivers were able to set a minimum price for total (driving to passenger + driving to destination). Maybe you'd be willing to wait for 15 minutes if Driver B would be cheaper than Driver A, even though Driver A was 3 minutes away.

Even better (if drivers are really treated as contractors) would be to show you the rates from Driver A, Driver B, and Driver C and you can pick one:

Driver A: 23 minutes, $20 Driver B: 35 minutes, $15 Driver C: 30 minutes, $18

The issue for Uber/Lyft is they're focusing on the ride and that's nice - <USER2> don't know that drivers rejected me since they're just showing the ride cost from Point A to Point B. But that ignores actual driving time for the drivers, plus that they might end up in an undesirable area.

</comment><comment><USER67> If you think about this dispassionately, the biggest _likely_ effect of implementing this is as follows:

Uber rides become more expensive.

That money largely will go to the government in the form of various payroll taxes.

No one will remember this in a couple of years.

Because of the forgetting, we will in the future be skeptical that labor compliance was so important to the price. The idea that gig workers could have ever existed without all this compliance will seem alien and barbaric.

If anyone suggests removing all this compliance, they will be called a free market purist.

It's odd, because I think most people actually think what is going on with gig workers right now isn't horrible oppression, but rather adults agreeing to working conditions and having a ton of freedom.

I don't think we will see it that way in the future. And I don't think we will ever be able to deregulate this after the fact.

<comment><USER68> I mostly agree, but shouldn't the competition between states in the US be able to lead to the best solution? Maybe that is overriden by the large variance in the bag of different things (regulations etc.) one gets from being in one particular state vs another. This does not play well with the low dimensional action space of moving from one to another state.

Maybe it is time to think about "virtual" citizenship so there is competition between states on may distinct levels

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> 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.

American taxpayers pay for Uber and Lyft driver's subsidized medical plans and other public benefits they receive because they are not paid as employees with the right to organize. Your ride may seem cheap, but you pay for it in your tax bill.

<comment><USER70> If you mean taxi drivers, apparently they were usually contractors, until this new law was passed, anyway.

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s- gi...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gig-work-law- targets-Uber-and-14565001.php)

<comment><USER69> Thanks for pointing this out - in SF there was an intentional effort to destroy the employee taxi driver system in the late 70s. This is talked about at length in the article you linked to.

Many other places still have working employee systems for taxis. SF could too if they wanted to change this law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I don't know how a judge can so cavalierly grant preliminary injunction in this case when the facts have not been examined.

Anyway, it must be due to the recent law passed in California. Ultimately the citizens of California determine its shitty laws, and they can enjoy their rideless future and the bad old days of taxi cab monopolies because they went along with taxi medallion holder propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER72> i hate living in california so much. it's terrible being tied in a place due to family despite terrible governance

</comment><comment><USER73> As usual, these laws show the broken underlying system and then trying to patch it with more broken patches.

</comment><comment><USER74> I'm sure someone has thought of this, but why don't we have ridehailing apps where the contract literally is between the driver and the passenger(s)? The app can merely suggest a rate but the driver can set whatever price they want. The app takes a very small finder's fee.

<comment><USER75> What if drivers can't make a living wage using such an app because there is too much supply driving prices down? The app will be crucified for "exploiting drivers"

<comment><USER74> Why would there be any more or less supply than what's available via uber or lyft and why would the app be at fault when decisions are made by the driver? Now there are more choices you can be your own contractor or work for uber/lyft as an employee. People who have older cars and can charge less may drive down prices but I think there will always be a market for being driven in newer cars, suv's, luxury cars, etc. You can schedule rides ahead of time and set contract breakage penalties. All these can be suggested by the app but again it's up to the final decision made between the customer and driver.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> This has been going back and forth too much. I am not even sure why single person (judge) wants to make such sweeping decisions. These drivers work on their own whims. They may decide to show up or not. They can cut short day anytime. Uber or Lyft don't require them to start their shifts and work 40 hours a day. The drivers don't commit to any full time work schedule. So at best things are muddy and lawmakers needs to come together instead of individual judges start writing laws according to their individual whims and philosophy. This will most definitely be get challenged and ultimately SC will not want to hear this anyway so it's just massive waste of time for everyone. Only lawyers are getting rich in the process.

</comment><comment><USER77> Bear in mind that these ridesharing companies are basing their entire business model vs taxis not on some dumb app, every taxi company tries to get you to install its app. Instead its innovation, is reducing labor and capital costs in order to offer cheaper rides than taxis to corner the market. In order to reduce capital costs, they have workers bring the cars. To reduce labor costs, they pay less. Uber is a cash inferno and they have been fighting against employee status because for various reasons the workers get paid more overall.

</comment><comment><USER78> Honestly, I've lost track of the actual argument in this app-taxi space. Is it primarily health insurance? What is the employee benefit that is the crux of the issue for the average driver?

</comment><comment><USER79> What does this mean for other on-demand type of businesses like Handy (on- demand cleaning) that also employ Independent Contractors? Would they bring on their ICs as employees or would it be too cost-prohibitive and thus they'd opt not to operate in California?

Finally, California tends to set trends for the rest of the country. Would we see other states go the California way and change classification of ICs to employees?

</comment><comment><USER80> Drivers in less population-dense areas such as my own keep both the Uber and Lyft apps open in order to fill enough time. Would this still be possible if they were an employee?

</comment><comment><USER81> If I were Uber and Lyft I'd dropped the issue in California and instead of paying drivers directly, pay intermediary companies with full time drivers on their payroll.

</comment><comment><USER82> I would agree that someone who drives for Uber about 40 hours a week is effectively an employee, however it leaves out a lot of drivers who only want to offer certain rides at certain time. For example, if every weekend I drive to my vacation home, which is in an area not practically reachable by public transport, and offer a ride, does that make me an employee? That's nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER83> Why doesn't Uber just let Californian drivers set their own rates? Would it really be such a huge deal to their business model if drivers could set their own price per mile, or similar? Uber still takes a percentage cut and I assume the free market cost would work out to be in the same ballpark as Uber's pricing model.

</comment><comment><USER84> Uber provides a platform connecting riders with drivers, not employment. The driver is employed by the rider.

The driver is free to work his or her own hours, routes, work or not work etc.

Uber overseas the platform to ensure it operates properly and there won't be victims.

There are many of these platforms. It makes no sense to force LinkedIn classify job seekers as employees.

</comment><comment><USER85> One of test in so called ABC test says

"B test requires that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business"

Isn't this a bad test in the first place. Let's take game studios, they need contract developers for a game, wouldn't that make them fail the test and make them an employee?

</comment><comment><USER86> What a lot of people in this thread dont seem to understand is that the article is not making the case for Uber/Lyft drivers to be classified as employees (traditionally cab drivers have almost always been self-employed contractors), its simply reporting that under the current arrangements, Uber/Lyft drivers clearly _are_ employees. Legal scholars frequently cite the ability to set a price as a key criterion for being classed as a contractor. Maybe all Uber needs to do is to introduce some kind of "bidding" system in order to maintain the status quo. (They probabably wont though because Ubers entire value proposition to its shareholders rests on its ability to drive down the pay and conditions of its drivers)

<comment><USER87> You know because of this regulation, uber already introduce price setting to drivers.

This is literally what drivers do today in California.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> To satisfy the "C" of "ABC", I reckon this provides an opportunity for small companies to start up, with drivers as employees, to contract out driving work for both Uber and Lyft.

</comment><comment><USER89> I kind of hope that both companies just decide to not shut down the app in California. Otherwise I'm nervous that other cities might end up subsidizing the California market.

<comment><USER90> CA subsidized others before. Time's up

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I'm not surprised. Uber and Lyft try co classify their workers as contractors when it comes to taxes and benefits, yet undermine workers abilities to actually be independent contractors when it suits them to do so. If you want to be a platform that helps connect drivers with passengers, then be that app. You can't then go in and set rates, not pay per client, not give contractors the ability to work for the customers they want, etc. These companies have such a strange culture of hubris and trying to skirt the law, its only a matter of time for that to catch up with them.

<comment><USER91> Part of the reason Uber and Lyft work so well for riders is due to how they structure the relationship between drivers and their platform. Drivers are required to conform to the platform's payment structure. This enables predictable up-front pricing for rides before they are even requested. This enables the surge pricing system, which rapidly ramps up supply to match surges of demand.

Drivers can decline rides at will, but if a driver excessively declines rides there is punishment for this. This makes perfect sense as the platform calculates projected rates and surge pricing based on driver availability. Unnecessarily declining rides provides a poor user experience for riders, and riders ultimately can choose to take their business elsewhere. This means drivers need to be disincentivized to decline rides in order to maintain the quality of the platform.

Ultimately the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience. The benefits arguments are more interesting, and maybe there does need to be a system for driver benefits like health insurance if they are working full time for the company, but ultimately these costs will fall squarely on consumers.

<comment><USER61> If your points are true, then all that really means is that there is a structural, economic incentive to not be structured as a platform and that the old model, of having cab companies with drivers who are employed by that company, is the most naturally efficient structure. That's fine, except for the part where they claim their employees are independent contractors, which would be tax fraud if they didn't try to structure in plausible deniability as best they could. That was the criticism I started with: they want to treat their workers as independent contractors when and to the extent that it benefits to do so, and they want to treat them like employees when it doesn't. "the relationship between driver and platform is structured to ensure a consistent driver and rider experience" \- yes, that relationship has a specific name and that name is "employer." Uber and Lyft want to employ drivers to work for them, but want to avoid paying taxes on it. This is a dangerous game they're playing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> There is another post on the front page from The CEO of Uber. It seems like the NY times article was written as a way to control the narrative?

</comment><comment><USER93> Look to history to see why Uber/Lyft/gig-economy is a backwards step for society. We've been here already.

Historically low wage rise. People lining up hoping to be picked for the next piece of work.

It ended up with the labor movement to fight for 40 hr weeks, protections for employees etc.

Uber hasn't done anything new in terms of labor use. Merely communication and organisation.

But society judged the labor use to be a poor outcome in the past so where do we think it will go now?

</comment><comment><USER94> "Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers" _laughs in german_

</comment><comment> dmch-1 These companies were losing billions already. What will happen with them now?

</comment><comment><USER95> Uber and Lyft are exploiting a system never intended for low paid workers.

</comment><comment><USER96> I can't see Uber not doing everything they can to fight this

</comment><comment><USER97> 1099 contracting is a cancer that's eating the entire sub-$50K job market. Most of my friends are 1099 contractors and every single one of them wishes they weren't.

</comment><comment><USER98> dont contractors get to write off their car? if they are employees they no longer get write offs correct?

</comment><comment><USER99> I hope they retroactively collect unemployment tax from both companies. They've been playing this shell game for long enough.

</comment><comment><USER100> Funny, unlike whatever these busybodies in California are doing, I'm actively working to go the opposite direction in my own life - from full time work to the gig economy. I'm hoping to write about this some more, but so far so good a year and a half in. Here are a few directions I'm working towards:

      - 40 hours -> 20 hours or less
      - boss -> employee-owned
      - office -> remote or shared workspaces
      - set schedule -> set our own schedule
      - being on call -> tech to free us from obligation
      - brands -> anonymity
      - benefits -> societal evolution towards public healthcare
      - egalitarianism -> shared prosperity
      - job security -> a scalable job market in the gig economy
      - scraping by to make rent -> substantial cashflow (donating plasma, Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, Airbnb, etc etc etc)

I think that last point is the one that the status quo will go after, since they always start with the $$$. I'm dismayed that California has chosen to go this route, as they used to be at the forefront of tech and innovation.

The above points are loosely based on concepts from Burning Man (although I've never attended, sadly). Mostly regarding humanism and decommodification.

Can anyone think of some more points to add, or other sources of cashflow?

</comment><comment><USER101> Interesting that Dara wrote this holier-than-thou opinion piece as this came out. I find it hard to think this is a coincidence.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara- kho...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi- gig-workers-deserve-better.html)

</comment><comment><USER102> California gets more stupid by the day, I have no words for how stupid this is.

</comment><comment><USER103> Uber CEO: "Gig workers deserve better!"

CA: "Uber drivers are employees, how bout dat?"

Uber CEO: NOT THAT MUCH BETTER....

</comment><comment><USER104> "Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers"

Doesn't this lawsuit prove otherwise?

<comment><USER105> This lawsuit isn't being filed by drivers, according to the article it's being filed by "the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, along with city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego".

I mean drivers may or may not prefer freelancing, and certainly Uber will say whatever supports their case, but I don't think the State suing Uber proves what drivers want in any way.</comment></comment>


A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70 <comment><USER2> For anyone else who may be wondering, the Washington Post estimates that this would affect ~16,000 households and generate (on the high end) $72 billion annually in additional tax revenue.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/05/ocasio- co...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants- higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that- raise/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.23b0363836a7)

<comment><USER3> Doesn't seem like much of an impact then.

<comment><USER4> The government is currently shut down over a $5B disagreement, so I'd say $72B isn't something to scoff at.

<comment><USER5> The disagreement would likely persist even if it was $5M. I haven't heard anyone object to the issue because of its price. The US government spent $4T last year. So yeah, an extra $72B does seem like a drop in the bucket.

<comment><USER4> 7-8% of our budget deficit is not a small number. $72B would let you triple the NIH's budget, quintuple NASA's...

<comment><USER5> Looked at from the deficit, I suppose. Though I'm not persuaded by arguments based on what extra funds _could_ do; there's a lot we _could_ do by just rearranging the already ginormous amount the government collects. It's not going to happen, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This isn't going to do much but hurt professionals like doctors, lawyers, software developers, traders, small business, etc who work for income.

The truly wealthy people do not gain their wealth through income. They get it through capital gains ( stocks, homes, asset value increases ). Capital gains ( long term ) are taxed at 20%.

<comment><USER7> I find it hard to believe that any of the professionals you list make $10 million in taxable income. There are a few outliers but to act like all lawyers and doctors would be poor from a 70% rate over $10 million is just wrong.

Your sentiment that the truly rich make their money outside of a typical paycheck is correct though. It's a balancing act of how do we tax people who have accumulated so much wealth in capital vs taxing capital so much that people don't invest in it.

I don't pretend to have the answer there but spreading disinformation that professional working people would be hurt by a 70% rate on every $1 over $10 million is pretty irresponsible.

<comment><USER6> Please, stop using talking points like "disinformation". So sick of it. The point is that if you create a new tax bracket that is $10 million, there will be many new tax brackets between $10 million and the current top tax bracket of $500K. It is extremely naive to believe that creating such a high tax bracket will be a one off and it's extremely naive to believe creating such a high tax rate won't drag the lower ones a tad bit higher.

Just like lowering the highest tax bracket and tax rate lowered the tax brackets and tax rates below it. Creating a new highest tax bracket will do the opposite.

But then again, it's my opinion not "disinformation".

<comment><USER8> Why couldn't just a new tax bracket at 10mil be added? No need to stretch or modify any others.

<comment><USER9> Seriously. These are things that are defined. There is really nothing stopping us from saying "Ok. Up to 500k is unmodified. Here is the curve that will be created above that level".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't really follow this conversation, but just by eye-balling Twitter it's astonishing how many people do not understand how marginal tax rates work.

<comment><USER11> It's also amazing how many people on Twitter clearly do not remember the 90s where we raised the top marginal rate and experienced an unprecedented run of economic expansion.

<comment><USER12> I remember the 90's. I think it takes a revisionist to say raising the top marginal rate was what caused the economic boom. I would guess the big drivers were low oil prices and that dot com thing.

<comment><USER13> > I remember the 90's. I think it takes a revisionist to say raising the top > marginal rate was what caused the economic boom. I would guess the big > drivers were low oil prices and that dot com thing.

But it doesn't take a revisionist to see that shows that raising the top marginal rate won't doom the economy, like many incorrectly claim.

<comment><USER12> No, it takes a person given to speculation. I think it's disingenuous to use the dot com era as your example because of the shear magnitude of value that was being created during that time period.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find the poll kind of funny. Of course it is going to be in favor of taxing people who make more that $10 million. Odds are if you polled for 70% tax rate for people over $1 million it would swing the same way. Why?Because it does not (directly) affect most of us as most dont make that much money. So it is easier to let the people above us do the heavy lifting.

The estimates i have read online say that it should raise like $70 to $100 billion a year. However does anyone here really believe someone making $40 or $50 million a year are not going to find tax shelters for their income and are going to stand paying 70 cents on the dollar in taxes.

Also when the article states they make more they should give more. What about a lottery ticket winner. Like the one who won $1.6 billion, so like $1.1 billion of that would be paid in tax. That is a great scheme for the governement.

I just dont think it will generate the money people think it will and will incite more class warfare.

<comment><USER5> > However does anyone here really believe someone making $40 or $50 million a > year are not going to find tax shelters for their income and are going to > stand paying 70 cents on the dollar in taxes.

You'd think so given how frequently the "it was once 91%!" phrase comes up. Regardless of tax rates, the amount of GDP gathered from taxation revenue has been pretty stable: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This would never pass due to Grover Norquist & Americans for Tax Reform's strangle-hold on the Republican party. They have a "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" they leverage Rep. candidates into signing. When they are elected, if they ever vote for anything that could be viewed as a tax increase, ATR campaigns heavily against them in the next election.

<comment><USER16> This tactic may work in the 90s and 00s era where crowdsourced campaign funding and modern online organizing didn't yet exist.

Nowadays people can pressure their friends and family to vote and dilute lobbying pressure.

How impactful was the Norquist crowd in 2018?

<comment><USER17> A lot of the GOP seats that were held in this past cycle were in very, very strongly held districts. Those are the politicians that are most worried about upsetting the Norquist based SIG. Furthermore, as long as the Senate is still majority GOP it really doesn't terribly matter to the GOP even if it was 80%+ Democrat in the house. They should be generally comfortable that the judicial branch is now solidly in their favor for decades even if they lose an entire branch now.

You can talk about policies all you want but the GOP are substantially better politicians than the DNC could ever hope to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Currently the top tax rate is 37%. Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal > that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for > individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?

This simple yes/no question doesn't allow an accurate response. How about splitting it: Would you favor/oppose the rate hike if other tax rates were reduced? Would you favor/oppose the rate hike even if other tax rates weren't reduced? Or, to put it another way, would you favor giving the federal government more money via more taxing on the rich without any reduction in other taxes?

The difference in the answers will often tell you what side of the financial political line people fall on and their confidence in government. Of course, even this is too general of a question.

</comment><comment><USER19> Even if this became the law no one with more than a half of brain would ever pay 70% tax. People earning north of $10M usually have a team of tax advisors, and a lot of options of avoiding income tax: offshore companies, charity foundations, etc. The discussion about this is just a distraction from more pressing matters.

<comment><USER20> So, in summary, what you're saying is "we shouldn't try do to anything about it because the really rich people are going to find loopholes anyway"? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm actually trying to confirm that that's your point.

<comment><USER21> Close the loopholes, not hike the taxes.

<comment><USER22> "Loopholes" are often things that benefit society though. It's sort of an indirect tax. Like donating to a charity. Basically the government is saying that they'll lower your tax burden if you use your money in a way that benefits society as a whole instead of just enriching yourself.

<comment><USER19> Thing is, the very existence of a company benefits society as a whole: it produces and trades goods that people need and want, and also gives stable source of income for sometimes dozen thousands of its employees.

That's why we should be carefull with excessive taxes for bussiness - if some companies go bankrupt, or lay off 20% of their workforce as a result it might be a net loss to society.

And before you start arguing that sometimes companies make money on shady things: yes, they do, but then you don't punish them for that with taxes, there are criminal laws for such things.

<comment><USER22> There are thousands are companies that exist solely as a tax dodge for some other company or in order to prevent paying workers at a different company. Some companies exist to just play games with money on the market, which has at best only very indirect benefit to the society as a whole and has a definite chance of being a harm to society. Some companies exist simply to drain all of the money out of other companies before they go bankrupt.

None of this is illegal, but it's hard to argue a benefit to society in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you frame it as a simple question, then sure almost everyone would say tax someone else at a high rate and they will assume they will pay less tax. But, if you go by how it actually will work out in the real world... Ask if you support a 70% tax on the highest incomes, if it results in less tax being collected on high incomes and MORE being paid by the lowest incomes, then it probably would not get such a high percentage. Need to lower the tax rate for higher earners, so that everyone works harder, pays more tax and yet gets themselves into a LOWER bracket. If you want to tax something, tax luxury goods and contributions to political candidates.

<comment><USER24> The motivation is the money, not the rate of taxation on your income above a certain threshold. People still work to be somewhat richer even if there's a headwind. History and logic demonstrate this. The point at which the rich say "meh, screw it" is short of 100%, but it's not like we need a regressive set of tax tables to get people to work.

<comment><USER25> There are different sets of motivations for different people.

Saying this differently and with purposefully fake numbers, if (at your current pre-tax income) increasing your income by 50% would only give you 5% of that in cash you can use, would you really do that? Or do you have alternative use of your time (like leisure) that would give you more happiness?

You may say you would, but the reverse calculation then applies: if you would lose 5% extra cash by cutting your pre-tax income by 50%, wouldn't you do it? Many people would. Just look at the number of people who want to work 4 days or less.

Of course this assume income is a function of time spent working but it is very often the case.

The resulting elasticity will be different for everyone, but there will be a non null elasticity at the population level.

<comment><USER24> I don't see where we disagree.

<comment><USER25> We disagree in that at any non 0% tax rate, some people will respond by adjusting the amount of work supplied.

The effect may only be measured at the population level to take into account the difference between people, even if we can predict it is likely to be very low close to 0% and very high close to 100

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It appears I am in the minority.

I do not support raising taxes on anyone. I support cutting spending and removing most government programs. Raising taxes has always had the impact of removing disposable income which impacts businesses and eventually impacts the individual. [1] I would rather see all government expenses become fully transparent, in addition to showing all money spent on lobbying down to the cent. Every government project should have public documents that detail a full project break-down and what money what spent specifically on what.

[1] - [https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/social- studies/fisc...](https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/social- studies/fiscal-policy-and-economic-growth-governments-unique-situation)

<comment><USER27> You're not at all in the minority: the (interesting) US president was elected in large part because enough people were sick of ever-expanding federal government that they got to the polls and voted.

<comment><USER28> What a strange take.

The 2016 campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the size of the government. Trump's campaign promises included $550 billion federal investment in infrastructure, deporting all illegal immigrants, and providing health insurance for everybody, paid for by the government.</comment></comment></comment>


Small trial finds hydroxychloroquine is not effective for treating coronavirus - <AUTHOR> https://news.yahoo.com/small-trial-finds-hydroxychloroquine-not-124054137.html <comment><USER2> This article's a step above garbage. Half of the 11 patients had cancer; another had AIDS and several more had diabetes. Even more importantly, there's no information about how long patients were suspected to be sick before starting hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin. Anti-coronavirus medications don't regrow lungs after they've been already been damaged by coronavirus.

The paper could've been very useful with a paragraph per patient of case history, but as-is it's exceptionally mediocre.</comment>


Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4 Released - <AUTHOR> https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-bridges-hybrid-multi-cloud-deployments-latest-version-red-hat-enterprise-linux-7 <comment><USER2> Really happy with my move from Ubuntu LTS to CentOS 7.

QA is so much better. I had so many production breaking bugs with Ubuntu, especially on bare-metal.

RPM packaging is more fun than DEB. I'm even using it for application deployment with tito[1].

Even the software deployment story got better thanks to the Software Collections ([https://www.softwarecollections.org](https://www.softwarecollections.org)). Rock solid base OS and an up-to-data application stack.

CentOS on the servers + Fedora desktop is a great combination, since you can re-use your whole build infrastructure and skills for your workstations.

[1]: [https://github.com/dgoodwin/tito](https://github.com/dgoodwin/tito)

<comment><USER3> > QA is so much better. I had so many production breaking bugs with Ubuntu, > especially on bare-metal.

Is it (Fedora) much better on the desktop? I dumped Win10 a couple months ago to go back to Ubuntu for the first time since PulseAudio broke everything horribly and I swore off Linux on the Desktop forever (haha), and I was shocked to find that the UIs of both Gnome and KDE have if anything _more_ rough edges than when I last saw them as far as usability goes, performance (UI responsiveness mainly) is generally mediocre to poor, and that both are at least as unstable/buggy as before (KDE significantly worse than Gnome in that regard, though neither's good).

I'd consider jumping ship to an RPM-based distro for the first time since 2004 or so if the desktop experience is less... well, bad, frankly. Going back to Win10 isn't an option. What a garbage fire.

<comment><USER4> Try something simple like i3

<comment><USER5> As a user of i3, it is anything but simple. Outside the standard DEs, you vastly complicate things like power, network, and display management. It's possible to build out a fully functional environment with i3, but it is far from simple.

<comment><USER4> For the pieces you mention, I use tlp, connman and xrandr. Yes they have a small learning curve and I wouldn't recommend them to everyone, but they are stable and not likely to change (whereas Apple/Microsoft/Redhat are constantly reinventing their UIs).

Building out a desktop environment from ones own choice of components is much more aligned with the Unix philosophy.

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree that building your own DE is a fantastic way to operate, but the point remains that it is in no way, shape, nor form simple.

It's taken years for my own collection of tools to stabilize enough that it isn't painful to juggle ethernet/wifi/mbim connections. So that my displays are properly laid out (automatically) when I get to the office and plug in my monitor. So that my laptop consistently sleeps when I close the lid, instead of continuing to run in an enclosed bag. So that GPS on my cellular card is usable at the same time as an internet connection. So that Java applications run properly (don't forget to tell your window manager to lie about its name!).

Now that I've wasted so much time over the last decade tweaking and tuning this environment to make it stable and mine, I wouldn't give it up for the world -- and suspect I _can 't_ give it up at this point without massive changes to my workflows.

<comment><USER4> You are quoting me out of context. I originally said i3 is simple in a reply to a post complaining about KDE and GNOME, both of which are hugely complex installations of numerous libraries and services. So complex in fact, that they cannot be made to work reliably. Granted i3 provides substantially less functionality, but this comes from being _simple_.

Your examples above are mostly common configuration issues, easy to find with Google. Even a Windows user would likely need to Google many things (e.g. disabling forced updates, privacy settings, registry hacks).

I'm also skeptical that Gnome or KDE will make it significantly easier to solve such configuration issues. Do they even allow settings to be easily moved to another machine? Unfortunately Linux in general will always need some tweaking to work with specific hardware.

<comment><USER5> You provided absolutely no context to go with what was quoted.

You replied suggesting a specific window manager (a single component within a desktop environment) to a post lamenting the rough edges in popular modern DEs. You made no indication that your recommended replacement offers no way to hot plug a monitor, connect to the internet, or even launch an arbitrary application without installing and potentially configuring additional packages. These are very basic features folks have come to expect in a DE.

Making this sort of recommendation is throwing the user headfirst into a painful situation likely to give them an extremely negative impression of i3.

<comment><USER4> > _You provided absolutely no context to go with what was quoted_

Not explicitly, but I never said configuring or using i3 was simple. It is a very valid point, but is does not refute the fact that i3 is itself simple.

> _You made no indication that your recommended replacement offers no way to > hot plug a monitor, connect to the internet, or even launch an arbitrary > application_

I should have written more originally yes, but I have since given my recommendations for these. So why bring it up again?

> _Making this sort of recommendation is throwing the user headfirst into a > painful situation likely to give them an extremely negative impression of > i3._

This is Hackernews and I was replying to knowledgeable posters. I think it is safe to assume they will look into it first without getting into a "painful situation".

Although you do raise some good points, I feel it is your posts that have given an overly negative impression of i3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Notable point: Red Hat are effectively declaring btrfs has no future.

From the release notes: "The Btrfs file system has been in Technology Preview state since the initial release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature and it will be removed in a future major release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux."

[https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en- US/Red_Hat_Enterp...](https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en- US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap- Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.4_Release_Notes-Deprecated_Functionality.html)

<comment><USER7> That's bad, Btrfs has really grown on me, especially the ability to mix drives of different sizes in a RAID configuration.

XFS is just not flexible enough, I don't like to be unable to shrink a partition once created.

It looks like I'll be back to ext4 and various kludges then.

<comment><USER8> Or, assuming you get over your partition resizing fetish, just stick with XFS. It's as close to bulletproof as you'll find on Linux.

<comment><USER9> Yet to gain data checksums though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A very big change, although not widely reported, is the update to OpenSSL 1.0.2k, which brings ALPN to RHEL & CentOS.

This in turn allows HTTP/2 on Chrome to work again if you're using Nginx as a TLS proxy on your server.

Some more info here; [https://ma.ttias.be/rhel-centos-7-4-restores- http2-functiona...](https://ma.ttias.be/rhel-centos-7-4-restores- http2-functionality-nginx/)

<comment><USER2> Another big change is SELinux support for overlayfs, which means you can use the overlayfs2 driver with Docker without disabling SELinux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing that is souring me on RHEL+clones is Red Hat's habit of yanking drivers for SAS and SCSI controller cards. On my home file server, CentOS 7 is the end of the line unless I buy a new HBA.

Then there was the old Dell server at a customer's site that we were planning to use for a development/testing system. It had a perfectly functional PERC/4e RAID controller, but Red Hat yanked the driver in 7.0, never mind that Ubuntu Server works perfectly on the same hardware. We ended up picking up a cheap refurbished desktop to use as the development box.

<comment><USER12> This is one reason I don't run RHEL on bare metal, but only on a VM(ware) host. I know it's not free, and not cheap, but I'd rather not hassle with issues like that.

<comment><USER13> ESXi is most definitely free if you can live without the enterprise features.

For example, in many setups a max of 8 cores per VM is sufficient, and IIRC there are no longer memory or storage limits for the free tier.

The web admin (which replaces phased out vCenter admin interface) is pretty decent. Between that and the cli you're sorted for most non-enterprise use cases.

But yeah, if you need vMotion and all the other orchestration features, the licensing is...far from free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone know how much a lag CentOS is normally behind Red Hat releases?

<comment><USER15> About a month:

      7.0: 4 weeks
      7.1: 3 weeks
      7.2: 4 weeks
      7.3: 5 weeks

Source: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#CentOS_releases](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#CentOS_releases)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does it come with python3 installed by default, like recent Fedora?

<comment><USER17> No. And it won't be until (at least) RHEL 8. It's available from SCL[1] and IUS[2] though.

[1] [https://www.softwarecollections.org](https://www.softwarecollections.org) [2] [https://ius.io](https://ius.io)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nice.</comment>


Belgian Lab Brews New Chip Recipe - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/05/belgian-lab-brews-new-chip-recipe/ <comment><USER2> Everybody knows that III-Vs are faster. Everybody also knows that they are extremely, extremely expensive compared to silicon.</comment>


Can You Stop Using Story Points? - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/can-you-stop-using-story-points-ac36449ffa10 <comment><USER2> If you decompose all stories to the point where they are all one-point stories, then yes — you can get rid of story points in favor of story counts, because they are one and the same thing.

But not all stories can be broken down like that.

Having just two stories in a sprint looks seriously imbalanced, unless you know that they are monster stories that you haven't been able to further decompose.

Using just story counts is fine in the grander scheme of things and for longer term planning.

However, unless you are rigorous and extremely persistent in always breaking down your stories to the smallest possible units, then I don't see how you can do efficient tactical sprint planning without using story points.</comment>


Statistical Modeling to Find Olympic Cheaters - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120810-dispelling-olympian-doubts

<comment><USER2>
        BBC Future (international version)

        We're sorry but this site is not accessible
        from the UK as it is part of our international
        service and is not funded by the licence fee.</comment>


Show HN: HN Detox – Hacker News Daily Newsletter - <AUTHOR> http://hndetox.com/v2 <comment><USER2> UPDATE: Fixed now.

FYI - I'm getting a connection timeout.

      curl -v http://hndetox.com/v2
      * Trying 188.8.131.52...
      * connect to 126.96.36.199 port 80 failed: Operation timed out
      * Failed to connect to hndetox.com port 80: Operation timed out
      * Closing connection 0
      curl: (7) Failed to connect to hndetox.com port 80: Operation timed out

<comment><AUTHOR> The domain has forwarding set up, please try: [https://www.hndetox.com](https://www.hndetox.com)

<comment><USER2> That works. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those wondering, it's built with Meteor, Mongo and my jobs queue package: [https://github.com/msavin/SteveJobs](https://github.com/msavin/SteveJobs)

<comment><USER3> Which makes the website absolutely blank if you have Javascript turned off. For such a simple website, why use JavaScript at all?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm happy to share the reasons:

\- with Meteor, I have all my services (front end, back-end, etc) in one place, running on one dyno, with automatic deploy via GitHub

\- my Meteor set up has stylus, minification, etc, configured

\- I have libraries for routing, state management, and etc handily available

Ultimately, it's a choice based on personal productivity and convenience. The whole project took me a couple of days, whereas with the JS ecosystem, I'd probably have to spend that time configuring tools.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone use the "I'm Feeling Lucky" feature on Google search? - <AUTHOR>

Come to think of it,I have not once used the feature and haven't met people that use it. Do you use it? <comment><USER2> Google has said they leave the Lucky button on because people like it being there, not because people use it. Actually, only 1% of all searches use the Lucky button. It's left there to make Google seem more human and easier to relate to, as told by the woman-of-the-moment Marissa Mayer.

[http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/are-you-feeling- luck...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/are-you-feeling-lucky-google)

<comment><USER3> Funnily enough, 1% of Google's searches is still an astronomical amount of usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> All the time. I installed a Chrome extension that triggers the "i'm feeling lucky" result when using the Omnibar.

I look up baseball player stats all the time, and the search on those site stinks. So I can just use the Felling Lucky on a query like "fangraphs jose bautista" and it will take me immediately to the page on the site I want. Saves me a click, since I'm usually pretty confident I know what the first result is.

</comment><comment><USER5> All the time. I made it a search engine in Chrome, so if I type a ">" followed by a search term, I go directly to the first result. This is really handy for everything I read regularly: > hacker news > reddit > qc > boing > dangerousminds etc etc. Saves loads of time. Instructions here: [http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category- topic/chrom...](http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category- topic/chrome/discuss-chrome/Y1So8rpT-Og)

</comment><comment><USER6> "I'm feeling lucky" is no longer usable for most people as Google Instant shows the first page of results as soon as you start typing (unless you have javascript disabled). Back in the day I don't recall using it for much either than Google bombed results as a joke (ex: searching for "french military victories")

</comment><comment><USER7> The only time I used "I'm Feeling Lucky" was when I was searching for 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction" and it auto-linked to <http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/>

I think that circulated sometime around 2002.</comment>


Facebook is shutting down M, its personal assistant service - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16856654/facebook-m-shutdown-bots-ai <comment><USER2> ...Facebook had a personal assistant service?

<comment><USER3> It "only ever became available to about 2,000 people living in California", so no.</comment></comment>