Is there any benefit to Rails 2? - <AUTHOR>

Ok, so I bit the bullet and bought the Agile Web Dev book that some people suggested here (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=101571 - thanks for that by the way!). It's a really well written book (so far), but uses Rails 1.8, not Rails 2. Is there actually any benefit to using 2 over 1.8? <comment><USER2> Plenty of benefits; improved support for REST is a major one, but there are tons of little fixes that make life much easier. The link in chaostheory's comment is a good overview, or (if you feel like spending $9 more) you can buy Ryan Daigle's Rails 2 PDF at <http://peepcode.com/products/rails2-pdf> \- Daigle runs a well-respected blog that keeps track of the newest developments in edge, so was able to pick out the most important things to write about.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you might be confused between Ruby and Rails.

Ruby's current version is 1.8.6, while 1.9 is nearing an official release and 2.0 is still very experimental at this point.

Rails' current version is 2.0.2, but the last release on the 1.x branch was 1.2.6.

I'm going to assume that you meant Rails 1.2.x versus Rails 2.x. Yes, there are a lot of advantages. Mainly though, there aren't really any disadvantages- there's no reason _not_ to use Rails 2.0.

<comment><USER4> The huge disadvantage is that there's a lot of misinformation in tutorials now. The first page :scaffold section of just about every beginning Rails tutorial is broken in Rails 2.

Lots of little things are changed. Some of them are confusing and hard to decipher when tutorials and message boards say things should be working when they're not.

<comment><USER5> Forget about online tutorials... they're all skimpy and short on details. Just get Obie's book 'The Rails Way.' It's definitely THE BEST book on Rails available today.

[http://www.amazon.com/Rails-Way-Addison-Wesley- Professional-...](http://www.amazon.com/Rails-Way-Addison-Wesley-Professional- Ruby/dp/0321445619)

<comment><USER6> That's why Java is still in the lead...

Edit: is that the Obie from the "do you think we are stupid" thread?

<comment><USER7> Yes, the very same Obie... And I agree... I just got the Rails Way, and from what I have seen so far, leagues ahead of any other book out there...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> yes besides bug fixes there are performance improvements - db caching, new features (in production all separate css files are combined automatically into one), and so on

<http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2007/12/7/rails-2-0-it-s-done>

</comment><comment><USER9> The agile web dev with rails book is junk. Get Obie's 'Rails Way' book like nickb suggested.

And yeah, there's some good new stuff in Rails 2.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do Chrome and Firefox only support SHA1 for cipher suites? - <AUTHOR>

I want to shut off all crypto methods that are a security issue on my company's web server. We use nginx.
We have a 4096 bit RSA key, signed with SHA256, use a 4096 bit dhparam, have only TLS 1.0[1] and up enabled, and use !3DES:!AES128:!aNULL:!eNULL:FIPS@STRENGTH for our ssl ciphers.
See the ssltest output for my site to see what various browsers do (scroll down to Handshake Simulation): https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=exelion.net
Why does current Chrome and current Firefox only support SHA? If I do !SHA in ssl ciphers, no browser can connect due to lack of compatible cipher.
Now, scroll back up to Cipher Suites. I support cipher suites with SHA256 and SHA384, clearly. So what gives? Why doesn't Chrome and Firefox allow those? And if you look closely, they still don't do GCM either.
[1]: It took Android browser until 4.4 to support TLS 1.2, Firefox 24 ESR doesn't do 1.2, all the web spider bots don't do TLS 1.2, MSIE 10 and lower don't do 1.2, Safari 6 on OSX and Safari 5 on iOS don't do 1.2.
Android browser in 4.0-4.3 being unable to do 1.2 is the only reason I still leave 1.0 enabled. <comment><USER2> Qualys SSL Labs fails to load the link you give me reason, "No secure ciphers supported." Which I think is a bug because I've gotten that twice today.

When a browser and web server agree on a cipher suite its not necessarily the most 'secure', just the first they agree on.

This is largely controlled by the client. Who basically iterates over their list (from lowest to smallest).

Do you have 0x002F? (128bit AES DHE).

No.

And you continue to count upwards. By the time you reach more powerful suites that use SHA256/386 (~0x0080-0x0090) you've paste SHA-1 w/ AES256 using Diffe- Hellman exchange, and SHA-1 w/ RC4 using Diffe-Hellman. The two most common (and one is arguably secure) suites used (RC4 makes up a good 40% of all TLS traffic).

Your only real option I think is to black list SHA-1 crypto which _may_ cause issues.

<pure speculation>

Smart phones may disable SHA-256+ methods because of extra computing power needed.

</pure speculation>

<comment><AUTHOR> SSLTest was having connectivity issues. Try again now.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Learning programming without math? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I've tried learning programming in a few months(well, maybe years, depends how you count). I got a problem though, every single book I read using mathematical problems in its examples. I'm in elementary school, and I haven't done any advanced mathematics yet so some of this stuff is completely new to me. It forces me to focus on the math instead of the programming, and it feels that is the source of my failures. Is there a way to learn programming without math? <comment><USER2> This isn't answering your question but it seems others are and it's still good to say:

Spend some time learning maths.

I don't mean to say you shouldn't continue advancing in programming and I understand that you're in elementary school which is supposedly teaching you maths on a standard track but you are clearly a self-starter and would do well to advance independently.

Schools teach maths poorly. They generally focus on rote mechanics at a slow pace with very little to keep the interest of anyone and this is a big reason people (a) think they are bad at maths and (b) hate maths.

My elementary school barely advanced beyond arithmetic but, thanks in large part to programming, I independently advanced much faster than that. I still regret not pushing myself to go further but at least I got to spend most of my K-12 education ahead of the mathematics track.

I have no idea where you are in mathematics since "elementary school" is very broad, but BetterExplained (<http://betterexplained.com/>) is a great place to get some started. It can even give you a better grasp of addition and subtraction, let alone more advanced topics.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a hidden distinction between the calculations and the computations. Calculation is the arithmetic, computation is the administration: logic, order of operations, variable management, data structure, etc.

You don't need much calculation ability to be a good programmer. You absolutely need good computation skills, especially logic.

Maybe you can use programming to teach you more advanced maths. Matrices are a bizarre concept to me, but I understand arrays very easily.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're looking for a book that is fun to read and very approachable "The Little Schemer" would be a good choice. The book teaches some pretty important concepts. Also, it has the benefit of not assuming that the reader knows much at all about either mathematics or computers. However, the book is also not very practical. It will certainly help you think more clearly about programming, but it's more akin to a very long brain teaser than an actual programming tutorial.

Another approach might be a book that focuses on making simple games rather than doing math. The Land of Lisp[1] might be a fun place to start. I haven't read it personally, but it might be worth a look.

[1] <http://landoflisp.com/>

</comment><comment><USER5> That's actually a very interesting in general. "Programming" is a vague concept though. You can code a lot of things using only very simple algorithms and data structures. Most of the paid projects I worked on for the past year were not exceeding (eastern-european) high school level of mathematics.

To answer your question - maybe try to pick up books that focus more on programming language and simple algorithms than mathematically complicated things. The first one I've got when being a kid was a classic _The C Programming Language_ by Dennis Ritchie.

</comment><comment><USER6> It is so weird. When I read a book about programming, it's examples weren't math, but things like "Build a Contact List" or something like that.

You should try that kind of things. Although that depends on which language are you working, I would encourage you to look for tutorials which doesn't involve maths. Internet is full of those too :-)

Good luck with that!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply! :-)

I've read HTDP and K&R, and a little bit in Learn you a haskell, may you tell what books you've read that contained such examples as you mentioned?

<comment><USER7> Those are all quite academic titles, aimed at computer science students who may end up writing complex algorithms. The overwhelming majority of programming titles expect no mathematical knowledge beyond basic arithmetic. You've chosen titles which are excellent for a serious student intent on mastering computer science, but they're very hard going if your aspiration is to be a working programmer. I would suggest choosing a project that you'd like to achieve and look for books that help you towards that end - as I said, practically all of them will require no significant mathematical knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes. I learn math to supplement my programming. What would you like to program?

</comment><comment><USER9> How old are you?</comment>


Ask HN: how to make recurring outgoing payments - <AUTHOR>

Ok, I have stripe for processing credit cards and it looks great.  I would like to be able to handle payments for my customers and send them money on a recurring basis.<p>I haven't found an easy way to do that.  Should I just cut them checks?  I'd love a service like stripe for handling outgoing payments as well. <comment><USER2> I assume you are in the US. Cheques seems to be usual within the US, but I find them a nuisance when I am there, and people outside the US generally hate cheques, which are very expensive to negotiate. Here in Germany, I shred US cheques for less than $100 and ask to have the money sent to a friend to the US instead; small cheques are simply not worth the bother.

A better way to handle this is to set up a wire transfer authority with your bank: you might need an overpriced business account to do this, but I have set one up with a regular home account. The way it worked for me, about 10 years ago, is that I needed to go into the branch to authorise each recipient account, but once I had that, I could make transfers with a phone call, with a PIN for authorisation. That was convenient enough, I dare say that most banks today have internet interfaces that might be more or less convenient than that.

If you are invoicing to Europe or other countries in the IBAN network (i.e., mostly S.E. Asia), consider getting a dollar-denominated account with a European bank: the fees for wire transfer should then be much lower than other routes.

Money brokers offer cheaper rates for wire transfers than retail banks. My wife uses E-Trade for international transfers and likes their service.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, US. Sorry to make the assumption!

All payments would be domestic, at least at first. But I would love to make it international at some point. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I implemented a site that had this requirement. Much like the suggestions already here, we found that PayPal was the easiest route.

We used a standard Merchant account (Authorize.Net if I recall) to handle incoming money. For the outgoing money, we had a script that we ran monthly that would calculate the amount due to each member. We then sent that money to each user's paypal account (we required a paypal address upon signup.)

I, too, wish there was a better solution, but I am not immediately aware of one.

I was going to recommend talking to Sahil Lavingia [<http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=sahillavingia>] (Gumroad, etc.) as Gumroad does payouts to users based on the items they sale. If I recall correctly, their incoming payment system uses Stripe. It appears that Gumroad also uses Paypal for paying users, though speaking to Sahil may still give you some additional insight.

Best of luck, I hope this info helps.

</comment><comment><USER4> Same amount to each recipient each month?

If you're with a major bank (BOFA, WF, etc), you can schedule payments with your bank via their online banking.

The original question implied an API for outgoing payments, but since that doesn't exist (afaik), you can ease the burden. For payments that vary in amount, most major banks allow you to add a payee once, then whenever you know the amount/date a payment will be due, you can schedule it. Ideal? Probably not, but I find it much less painful than checks+stamps+USPS.

</comment><comment><USER5> The easiest way is probably mass payments with paypal. [https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_batch-payment- ove...](https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_batch-payment-overview- outside)

<comment><AUTHOR> That looks good. It would be like an affiliate program.

I don't know why I have an aversion to paypal, though. I just want "stripe for payments". I don't think it exists, though.

<comment><USER5> Paypal isn't ideal for getting money, but for giving money, it doesn't get any easier. Mostly everyone has a paypal account, so adding a paypal email address field to their profile allows for easy scripting of the payment file build process.</comment></comment></comment>


Hacking Soundcloud: Creating an Interactive Track (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://haywirez.com/hacking-soundcloud/ <comment><USER2> You posted this on here 7 times?

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR: They use the Soundcloud API to replace the audio track based on user engagement with the song on the platform.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, the point is that the API couldn't be used for this. So it automates a browser.</comment></comment>


100 Technical Things Non-Technical People Can Learn to Make Their Lives Easier - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/100TechnicalThingsNonTechnicalPeopleCanLearnToMakeTheirLivesEasier.aspx

<comment><USER2> Funny that he lists having an MBA as an argument in favour of intelligence. That's not my experience.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you think it's worth learning Java in 2019 for web development? - <AUTHOR> I work with JS and PHP and I want to find jobs outside startups. I'm worried that they might all be working with legacy systems and really old Java versions. <comment><USER2> It doesn't have to be old or legacy just because it's build on java. Java plays a huge part of modern enterprise in large parts of the world and its remained rather relevant.

To get back to what you're asking, however, it depends on your local job market. In my area 95% of all back-end development is done in Java, C# or PHP and there are almost no web-development jobs that doesn't require you to know one of those languages.

In other areas it might be Ruby or Django, so the best way to answer your question is frankly to look at the job listings for the jobs you'd like to take.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hit up [https://www.indeed.com/](https://www.indeed.com/) and simply search "Java" with your area. That will tell you a lot about whats on offer in your region (assuming you are US?).

Corporate America has a gigantic investment in Java technology and while some of it is legacy stuff, even those companies still need new products and that work is also done in Java.

Java is the tech stack that companies who's core business IS NOT software are using. In my opinion its absolutely worth learning ( if you already know PHP, Java wont be much of a stretch for you - enjoy having a dedicated Collections lib! ).

Java is not broken so nobody is in a hurry to fix it, save for startups enamored with Node in the last several years. HN can be kind of an echo chamber at times but I promise you companies are not interested in walking away from their Java investment because Rust/Go/Python etc.

Java is a close 2nd behind Python here: [https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-top- program...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-top-programming- languages-2019)

</comment><comment><USER4> Almost everyone is on Java 8 now, and people are warming up to the new release cadence of bi-yearly releases of Java.

Even with Java 8, you get streams, lambdas and powerful Collection classes.

Personally, I've worked on sizable projects involving Java and have been amazed by it's performance and versatality. It's a construct that might go out of fashion for a while but will remain the backbone of most companies out there. My personal take is that Java is evoling at a rapid pace and this will only do good to the language.

</comment><comment><USER5> How do you define "worth"? As far as compensation goes, working with the legacy systems that nobody else wants to touch is a great way to rake in money. There are plenty of Java shops that aren't reminiscent of Dilbert's office.

If you value working with cutting edge technology there are new and interesting Java platforms, but you would undoubtedly be better off learning something more modern.

</comment><comment><USER6> Slightly OOT

[https://www.theserverside.com/opinion/Microsoft-vs-IBM-A- maj...](https://www.theserverside.com/opinion/Microsoft-vs-IBM-A-major-shift- in-Java-support)

IBM is pushing java away while Microsoft is welcoming its community with open arm. Not sure what is Microsoft planning for it though.

</comment><comment><USER7> Corporate America has lot of project implementations using Java and Microsoft C# technologies. We keep hearing if Java is relevant for some many years and yet there is a lot of demand in the fortune big companies.

At least in NorthEast, I get bombarded with lot of emails from recruiter with Java, C#, SQL, Oracle etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> All big companies have HUGE java teams/projects. Its battle tested for distributed systems, has legions of developers who can do any task you ask for. Java is where the big bucks are.

</comment><comment><USER9> While it might not be "hip" to get into Java these days, it is still taught in CS (typically you start with C in year one and Java in year two or three).

The U.S "startup scene" appears to be somewhat of a monoculture, following whatever is the latest coolest thing that they've heard of, but it's not representative of the ecosystem at large.

TL;DR yes there's a lot of well paid work in Java, it's "uncool" because of asshat developers like that go "oh java, ewww" on the internet.</comment>


Update on AB5 - <AUTHOR> https://www.uber.com/newsroom/ab5-update/ <comment><AUTHOR> Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software.

In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't want a job, but depending on the scenario you can be punished if you don't want to take a job.

Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders.

<comment><USER2> > Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of > their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for > cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate > the quality of the service for riders.

I'm going to go with yes. The only times I use ride sharing services (Lyft, not Uber) are in high-density situations like getting to and from the airport. Depending on the hour there will be dozens to hundreds of drivers hovering in the area trying to get rides. As soon as "rider available" appears on screen a dozen different drivers are mashing the accept button.

Up until a year or two ago, the drivers would then see where I want to go and then call me on the phone to say they didn't want to go there, telling _me_ to cancel the ride they had accepted. I systematically refused every time so that (usually after a few minutes) they would give up and cancel it themselves. This would usually happen for 2 or 3 drivers in a row, making ride-sharing a miserable experience for me.

I assume the cancellation penalties have been made much more serious, because this hasn't happened to me in a while now.

<comment><USER3> This comment doesn't make sense to me (as a part time Uber driver myself).

First, the driver doesn't see your destination until he picks you up.

Second, there is no competition or reason to rush to "mash" the button, the ride request is exclusive to you as a driver for the 10 seconds that you see it.

<comment><USER4> Drivers often call you and ask you where your drop location is. Depending on your answer, they often cancel. Or worse, ask you to cancel. I've even had cancellations after I've sat in the car.

<comment><USER5> Doesn't that basically give them a bad mark and cause the software to no longer give them rides? I mean that's grounds for firing if it was a regular taxi company.

<comment><USER4> I'm not based out of US, so the experience will vary. My understanding of drivers getting bad marked is that here the demand for Uber at peak times is still larger than the supply, hence even though you might be penalised via de- prioritisation, uber would still get you a ride to fulfil. They are also penalised by being given lower pay incentives. But talking to most drivers, the trade-offs of cancelling are worth it for them, since they often cancel drop locations from where demand would be lower, or to far off places where they wouldn't get another ride to complete, or have to go out of the way to return to the area they generally are comfortable operating in.

Whenever I've raised this issue with Uber(via their absurdly bad support feature), I generally get an automated response in the line of "We're so sorry for the bad experience, we understand that this has caused you a lot of trouble... We take your feedback seriously..", etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words.

I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.

<comment><USER7> I totally agree. I'm neutral on Uber, but their advertising is that you book an Uber ride. You don't use Uber to find a driver you like and then hire that driver from now on. Basically, the drivers are treated as the fungible part of providing service to the passengers. Contrast with Airbnb where owners can treat it like an advertising network to market their rental room, and it's totally reasonable to expect that a good experience will lead to more business for that homeowner specifically, not just the app in general.

<comment><USER8> As a matter of fact I know of one person who met a driver through Uber and decided to hire them daily to get to their job without going through Uber ever again. I think that this is extremely rare and that everything in Uber is set up to prevent something like this. Same thing goes for Airbnb and the obfuscation of emails.

<comment><USER9> It is rare. The reason Uber and Lyft don't have the same "work outside the network" problem that Wag / Airbnb does is because when you want a ride you want it now. If you had to wait for your "personal" driver to free up, you'd be waiting... or have to deal with scheduling in advance.

You schedule dog walks and lodging in advance, so it is quite tempting to cut the middle man out once you find what you like. Not so with transportation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I feel like it's pretty clear that gig economy jobs don't neatly fit in either of the existing categories of workers: they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want) or contractors (you clearly have very little negotiating power or information in choosing your work or guaranteeing your wages). Attempts to munge them into one of those categories are just doomed; a new category is needed.

Failing that, if they are to be counted as individual contractors they should be able to negotiate like those: without one-sided deceptive deals.

<comment><USER11> Ridesharing companies, Labor, and the California legislature missed an opportunity to identify a third type of employee. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, and the most objective truth (to me) suggests that rideshare drivers honestly sit somewhere between employees and contractors.

The politics of what has occurred here is probably the pendulum swinging too far, but in the right direction: the classification of 'contractor' just isn't correct to describe these workers, and the legislature did its best to rectify that.

<comment><USER12> > the legislature did its best to rectify that.

my experience is that this is hardly ever true in politics. Legislators are generally balancing what they think is right (or what they think voters think is right) with what is in their own self interest (such as getting re- elected). As a result, they most often do their best to serve their own self- interest first and foremost. They raarely try to rectify something if rectifying it is at odds with their self-interest.

Rectifying this situation would likely involve some third category "somewhere in the middle", but that's not what we got.

<comment><USER13> They would be more like contractors if economies of scale favored open cross compatible ride sharing platforms, instead of proprietary institutions and and oligopoly.

If there were 10 ridesharing apps, and any customer could reach any driver using a different app, would you still consider the driver as having not negotiation power? The driver could uncheck "allow riders from uber" if they didnt want uber provided leads. Ride hailing should be as open as SMS, and then drivers AND passengers would gain power in the relationship. By using government to benefit consumers and shun proprietary lockin, the issues could be solved without creating a new employee class. The root need for that class in the first place is Ubers anti-competitive side.

<comment><USER11> But then the driver is at the mercy of the aggregator App. It's the same problem as working with Uber or Lyft directly, really.

<comment><USER9> Setting aside the rider... in my world Uber and lyft would have open apis so third party apps could somehow aggregate the two services.

These apps would be pretty basic and just let the driver accept rides from either service from within the same app.

Dunno if this is actually a problem though...

<comment><USER14> Aggregation already exists for both riders and drivers. For riders there is Google Maps. For drivers there is Mystro and the like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the law will be bad for the people it affects, so this is good news for Uber drivers. Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits. If Uber has to shrink their business in California or exit entirely, that won't be good for drivers either.

It reminds me of before my software engineering career, when I was working at The Gap. The job wasn't great, but a lot of people really needed more hours. Unfortunately, there was a rule that nobody could work more than 29 hours a week. Everyone hated it. Employees hated it the most because if they needed extra money they couldn't take an extra shift. The managers hated it too because it was just more rules for them to deal with.

Apparently, this rule existed because there was a law saying that past 30 hours a week, employees had to get some extra benefits. Gap corporate just changed the job to avoid that law. As a result, that job got worse, and nobody got more benefits. Just unintended consequences.

<comment><USER16> This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections. People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate. That desperation allows their employer to take advantage of them. The government therefore needs to step in to protect the workers from being taken advantage of. In an ideal world that regulation would also come with some type of social safety net to protect the workers in event of any of these negative repercussions. That safety net is much more difficult to get support for politically (because it costs money) so it is usually an afterthought.

<comment><USER17> I hear this argument a lot, and I wonder, would anyone who has gone through an extended period of poverty agree with it? I went through this myself, and all the worker "protection" laws just made it that much harder to get back on my feet because they limited how much I could work. Or forced me to allocate some of my pay to benefits I didn't need rather than the expensive treatment I desperately needed to stay alive in the short-term.

I drove for Uber and it was seriously the only job I could get and it saved my life. I know of many other drivers who are battling disabling conditions who drive for Uber as well. Jobs that are as flexible as Uber are non-existent.

I find it really disappointing how many people debate this issue without ever actually listening to the people in poverty. That means talking to real people doing the job. Not just the protestors in the streets. And frankly, if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor. The poorest of the poor work whenever they can and do not spend time on things that don't earn them money.

<comment><USER18> > if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor

i dont know what protests you've been attending but the one's ive helped at for laundry and warehouse workers were filled with people that were not only supporting families on minimum wage but also contained people who were here on visas.

in america you're _always_ taking a risk by protesting an employer.

<comment><USER17> It's all relative. To me anyone who can work full time is not that poor. But I understand why many would view that as poverty.

<comment><USER18> Minimum wage is not, on its own, enough to afford average rent anywhere in America. If you're making minimum wage and have no other access to support: you're poor.

This is, ultimately the major reason why the status quo never changes here: people dont want to acknowledge their class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee.

I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now.

I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I understand. I may be convinced otherwise, but I don't see it.

<comment><USER20> There is very little downside for the employee to be classified as such rather than as a contractor. The vast majority of the downside is for the employer.

I'm a W-2 employee at the company I work for, and they don't dictate my hours.

<comment><USER21> Don't forget the "exempt" vs "non-exempt" status for W-2 workers though.

<comment><USER20> That impacts whether you're eligible for overtime pay. Given that contractors are never mandated to receive overtime pay, a contractor position can never be superior in this regard.

<comment><USER22> Exempt status also impacts whether your hours are fixed or not. If they tell you that you must be in the office from 9AM to 5 PM, then you aren't exempt.

<comment><USER23> > If they tell you that you must be in the office from 9AM to 5 PM, then you > aren't exempt.

That's not correct; the difference is that failure to fulfill such a requirement is a discipline issue (which can be dealt with by discipline up to an including termination), but not a pay issue based on hours worked as it would be for a non-exempt hourly employee.

[https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b7b6851-8415...](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1b7b6851-8415-4148-9deb-20675f879ec5)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> For those interested in understanding the underlying case law that AB5 codifies (a decision called Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court), my company, Judicata, published a visual (and tech-enabled) explanation of the decision when it was first published: [https://blog.judicata.com/understanding-dynamex-the- californ...](https://blog.judicata.com/understanding-dynamex-the-california- supreme-courts-response-to-silicon-valley-cdf281d75d2e)

Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.

<comment><USER25> One of the tests is: "that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact"

Since Uber rates drivers, does background checks, sets the routes, leases cars, etc., how does Uber plan to avoid this check? Do ratings sort drivers, or is Uber effectively creating a credential that governs the driver? What does the distribution of driver activity look like?

It's hard to believe an all-or-nothing determination will hold. Surely some fraction of most-active drivers will end up getting called employees.

It's one thing to explain the law (and case law) and yet another to provide an explanation with evidence. The latter is what we need (especially as voters), yet the former is what lawyers like to peddle because it makes them money. Uber's post is almost 100% legalese. CEO Dara had an opportunity to make a grounded statement here, but didn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> IIUC, AB5 might end up making Uber a monopoly in California (and US if other states follow suit) via regulatory capture.

Currently, most drivers seem to drive for both Uber and Lyft (based on their cars having stickers for both). But if classified as employees, and being guaranteed a minimum wage, then Uber/Lyft might require them to be exclusively available. As a result, the drivers will have to choose either Uber and Lyft and since Uber has more market share, they will likely choose Uber and Lyft will be squeezed out.

What am I missing/misunderstanding above?

<comment><USER27> Not that many people will agree to exclusivity for minimal wages, certainly not for hours they aren't scheduled and paid.

<comment><USER26> True, but the majority opinion driving AB5 seems to be that most drivers are doing this as their full time jobs. Yes, there are those who drive a few hours occasionally as a hobby or for extra side income, but they don't count much. If the number of Lyft drivers falls significantly, consumers will have to wait longer to get a Lyft ride and they will start abandoning Lyft. Hastening the spiral.

Another comment mentioned that Lyft might pay drivers more to keep them, but given that both Uber and Lyft are hemorrhaging money, it seems unlikely that either will be willing to pay drivers more. Also, Uber just needs to pay the same as Lyft for a little while, and just wait out the decline of Lyft due to AB5.

<comment><USER3> > Yes, there are those who drive a few hours occasionally as a hobby or for > extra side income, but they don't count much.

The post from Uber clearly states "In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week."

<comment><USER28> How are they counting? Would not be surprised if those numbers were only including time driving to pick up and driving to drop off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find _transportation_ to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.

<comment><USER30> > you have to admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will > not adhere to the law

I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this

<comment><USER29> Yeah, I'm not surprised they intend to violate the law. I'm surprised that they're broadcasting their intention in advance.

<comment><USER31> There's some nuance being lost here - they aren't saying they will violate the law, they are saying that their lawyers will advance an argument that the law (ABC test) does not apply to them.

I think the legislature and many on HN believe that courts will think it's absurd that Uber's drivers are doing work "outside the usual course" of Uber's business. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how well written the law was or whether California courts will include legislative intent in applying that language.

<comment><USER32> The article pretty clearly states that Uber believes it will continue to pass the ABC test.

<comment><USER31> You're right about the article, I was responding to people in this thread: "broadcasting their intention [to break the law] in advance", "[admitting] that they will not adhere to the law" and so on. Those are the statements I am responding to.

<comment><USER32> I was responding to your incorrect assertion about the argument ABC's lawyers would advance (as indicated by the article.)

<comment><USER31> Perhaps you should have indicated that's what your disagreement was, I think we agree but you misrepresent what I mean by "apply". Since it's not clear what it means to "pass" or "fail" the ABC test, and Uber is using the term "pass" to indicate that condition of the test is false (i.e.: failed), I used the term apply.

For example, when the Lemon test applies to something, it's because all of its three prongs are true. Is that a "pass" or a "fail"? That distinction I think is irrelevant to the law, but I'm sure the litigants on both sides would argue that their argument is good ("pass"), and the opposing argument is bad ("fail").

A city putting up decorations for a religious event and denying others would argue that they have "passed" the Lemon test, while articulating that one of its conditions "fails".

A litigant against such a city would argue the city "fails" the test.

I did not want to use Uber's language ("But just because the [ABC] test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it") because their job is to frame things positively for their client. Passing the ABC test is trivial - I'm doing it right now! So are you! What we care about is whether or not the test _applies_ to something, that is, it entails some _consequences_ , and Uber is going to argue that one of the specific prongs of the test will fail. From their view, this is a win, and this is them "passing" the test.

So, I used the word apply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> When the ACA passed, mandating that large employers offer health insurance to all full time employees, there was a massive push by large employers in retail and food service to cap people's hours and make sure very few qualified as full time. This was because health insurance costs employers about $10k per employee per year, and if you are paying someone $10/hr ($20k/yr at 40hrs a week), raising labor costs 50% is a nonstarter.

An outcome like that may be possible here as an unintended consequence, with Uber and Lyft capping most drivers at 20hrs a week, and full time drivers splitting their time between the two (20hrs for each).

<comment><USER34> Real solution is universal healthcare.

<comment><USER35> The problem is that health care is attached to employment. The solution might take the form of universal health care, it might be not-so-universal private health care, it might be some hybrid. But don't gloss over what the problem is because you'll lose common ground with people and end up arguing over the solution and not agreeing that there's a problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think there is more truth to their argument than people are giving them credit for. It seems like an in bad faith perspective to not give their claim some credence. It makes YOUR argument stronger to first make the best version of Ubers argument before rebutting it.

Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business? Does it make me an Ebay employee if I sell things through ebay? Until Uber eliminates the ability for drivers to drive Uber and Lyft simultaneously, and bounce between the services at will, I DO view it as drivers paying for 1) a dispatch and messaging service 2) payment processing 3) insurance 4) a resume host 5) a customer funnel. Thats more than just a technology or software company, Uber sells transportation services to drivers. The fact alone that they can have two messaging/dispatch apps open at once, on two phones, makes me question, which company do you think the driver works for? Both simultaneously? Just the one that the passenger is from? Is having both Uber and Lyft open looking for passengers any different than listing something I have for sale on Etsy, Ebay and Amazon, and pulling the listing once it sells out?

<comment><USER36> Ebay doesn't control how much you sell your product for. Ebay doesn't police how you sell, package, or ship your product. It's mostly hands off. Compare this with the level of control Uber exerts on its drivers.

Similarly, Ebay's service is less dependent on how well you provide your commerce services, it pretty much lets the market determine your prospects on its platform. On the other hand, Uber is highly reliant on the conduct of its drivers and the service the provide.

<comment><USER9> Uber and lyft have to dictate the price the end user pays. Nobody would use the service if they had to collect bids from a bunch of drivers each time they wanted to go somewhere. As a result they wouldn't have an effective pool of customers needed to attract drivers.

I agree with others. These "gig economy" jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn't currently exist. Dunno what the details should be but they aren't quite contractors and they aren't quite employees.

California could have taken the lead and helped define this new classification...

<comment><USER37> A corporation's illegal business practices don't become legal just because they're required to sustain its business model.

I don't think your post makes a strong statement to this effect, but it suggests it, and it's good to be clear on this point.

<comment><USER38> Can you explain how what they do is illegal?

<comment><USER39> Making it illegal is the the whole point of AB5. Contractor status was once for a very specific kind of worker: independent professionals who were basically solo businesses. It has turned into a giant loophole, where worker have the downsides of employment along with the downsides of being a contractor. AB5 aims to return to the status quo, where if you want to hire a bunch of employees, you really have to treat them like employees.

<comment><USER9> Except they aren't employees. They are something else. Make a new classification for them.

<comment><USER40> They were arguably employees before (and outside of CA) and unarguably employees under AB5. That's why Uber is making this ridiculous claim that it's not a transportation company: otherwise, its drivers are employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Why aren't other industries up in arms about this? I work for Intel and we have a ton of contractors, so does Google. Under 'A' of the 'ABC' test, it seems to me that most contractors for these companies would now be employees.

<comment><USER42> I'm not familiar with the details of the bill, but in this letter from the uber CLO it mentions:

> due to eleventh-hour amendments to the bill, many industries are now exempt > from the new ABC test that AB5 will codify into state law

Anyone have information on the exemptions added to the bill, specifically if it exempts most of the big tech companies?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Uber's former mission statement:

> "Transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone"

Sounds like transportation is their core business to me.

<comment><USER43> A mission statement is not a product or service offering. Google doesn't sell "the world's information", for example.

<comment><USER44> Sure it does, it just doesn't sell it to you. You are not the purchaser of the information, you are providing the information that's being sold.

<comment><USER45> Google does not sell information to anyone. Please don't spread outright falsehoods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > Our proposal avoids the potential harm of forcing drivers to be employees, > whether or not they want to—and the vast majority tell us they don't want to > be.

> Contrary to some of the rhetoric we've heard, AB5 does not automatically > reclassify any rideshare drivers from independent contractors to employees.

This may seem like an immediate contradiction, but I guess they've reframed it so their proposal is actually in line with AB5?

great pr-speak

> But just because the test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass > it. In fact, several previous rulings have found that drivers' work is > outside the usual course of Uber's business, which is serving as a > technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.

Also seems like they will continue to thwart where they can (which I can't blame them for really) but seems aggressive to note. This reads more like a shareholder update, which makes sense.

<comment><USER47> I read it differently:

 _> Governor Newsom has already committed to sign AB5, which would go into effect in January 2020. Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent... drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year..._

 _> Uber and Lyft together have already transferred $60 million into a campaign committee account, and we are open to investing more to put us in the strongest position possible to run a winning campaign... We are confident that California voters and the millions of riders and drivers who use Uber will step up to protect these important work opportunities._

Translation: "We're betting that we can get a ballot initiative passed legalizing what we do faster than the State of California can bust us for violating AB5."

<comment><USER32> You may have missed this part:

> Importantly, our ballot measure will not ask voters to exempt us from AB5, > even though nearly every other industry in California that works with > independent contractors received an exemption from the ABC test through > special amendments I mentioned earlier. Instead, we will ask voters to > support the pro-driver policies we have advocated for: giving drivers access > to benefits and an earnings floor and retaining the flexible access to on- > demand work they enjoy today.

It doesn't sound like the proposal is intended avoid compliance with AB5 but to create conditions where new bills that make the ABC test harder pass will have less support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > _drivers' work is outside the usual course of Uber's business_

What... how... I don't even know where to begin with this.

<comment><USER49> Cool I look forward to Uber drivers showing up with a rickshaw or giving piggy back rides.

<comment><USER50> Uber in India offers autorickshaws. And I've got a vague memory of seeing rickshaws/pedicabs in Seattle (but this could be a false memory).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> _Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent, and because we'll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most—flexibility—drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year._

 _We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. But we will also continue to advocate for the independence and choice that drivers tell us again and again in surveys, polls, focus groups, and personal conversations that they value most._

Uber management is not going to get the message until top management goes to jail for contempt of court.

<comment><USER52> There is nothing about providing benefits to people who meet the criteria for employment that prevents Uber from allowing drivers choice.

They will not be able to keep as many drivers or allow infinite drivers to sign up, and they will not be able to pay benefits to people who only work a very small amount per week (I assume this is in the law). But beyond that, there is absolutely no reason they cannot or should not continue to let drivers sign in and out when they want.

<comment><USER53> What should they do to drivers who don't meet their minimum hours needed to pay for the benefits in a given week? Fire them? Immediately? Should it be a warning? How many warnings do you get? Meanwhile is Uber/Lyft still on the hook for all the benefits? How can they avoid these flaky drivers? Better screening upfront such as an interview? How will drivers feel when they get a notification they have to drive 8 hours today or they'll get a warning because it's the end of the week and they are short. What if it's a slow day and Uber doesn't need more drivers today? It would make more sense to spread drivers hours out of over the week. The relationship starts to sound drastically different for both parties. Especially for the 45% of drivers working less than 10 hours currently who will have to find other side jobs or go without.

<comment><USER52> There would need to be a grace period and there would be a warning. There is no reason someone needs to be immediately fired just because they have a light week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Uber: AB5 doesn't affect us. Also Uber: We are prepared to spend $60M to stop it.

</comment><comment><USER55> What I have a hard time understanding is the 3rd of the 3 tests that determine if a person can be classified as independent contractor. [1]

I understand A & B, but as for C, why does someone's normal job have to be in that same line of work to be considered an independent contractor? What does whether a person is a driver professionally, or a teacher making money on the side, determine whether they're performing work as a contractor?

Maybe someone more expert can explain.

\</comment><comment>-

[1] ABC Test that all 3 conditions must be satisfied for worker to be considered a contractor:

"... (a) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (b) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (c) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed."

</comment><comment><USER56> Could someone knowledgeable about employment law explain what will change for Uber/Lyft drivers if the companies are forced to reclassify them as employees?

The post talks about "potential harm" and says that how many hours drivers have to work and whether they can work for competitors at the same time "would all change." Is that right?

<comment> the-pigeon This is just a PR post by Uber. Don't take any of it as fact.

No one knows the true impact of this. Companies will find lots of interesting ways to follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. As they always do.

If you really want speculation on it then find someone who's actually a lawyer and not directly affected by it (so they aren't biased). Which I haven't seen yet.

(Detailed writeup on why speculation on things like this is almost always wrong [http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why- speculate/](http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I like how they both claim that the law does not actually apply to them, and that they are exploring working with Lyft and others on a statewide ballot measure in response to the law (clearly, implicitly, a referendum to reverse it.) They are careful to avoid making the self-contradiction explicit, but the implication is clear.

</comment><comment><USER57> That is a clever argument that they are in business of lead generation. But if that was true then the consumer wouldn't know Uber, they would know x ride share service. The problem with Uber is they also control the end user experience and pricing, so it's a real stretch to argue they are not in the business of providing rides to customers.

Honestly I think their argument could be bolstered a lot if they made a simple change. Imagine you call an Uber, then your app tells you billy wants your job. You can see he is 4.5 star rated with 1000 rides, he is est 3 min away, and he wants $15. Do you accept? If so Uber connects you. If not Uber goes back to finding someone else.

With that change Uber removes itself from being in the business of rideshare, and now is in business of connecting drivers with riders (as they've claimed all along). They need to let drivers dictate prices and ask users to choose.

<comment><USER58> It could work. Airbnb does that and still kind of manages to control prices by favouring listings which conform to Pricing Tips in the search results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Uber's disrespect for the law is astonishing. I hope California cracks down on them hard for not complying.

</comment><comment><USER60> Would love to see source data that Uber is referencing (I know it's not possible, as it's highly guarded secret) - I suspect they cherry pick it a lot.

"In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. [...] We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in California".

1\. Does this distribution looks in California, not across whole US? Why talk about two different cases, unless you cherry pick? 2\. How does this % look like, when we look at drivers that work for more than few months?

<comment><USER61> A very clever thing they're doing is conflating being an employee with not having flexible hours, as if part time jobs don't exist. Fast food chains don't hire independent contractors and yet lots of people have flexible shifts.

<comment><USER62> Not exactly...consider the following problem:

Fast food chain is busy from 12 AM - 2 AM, 5 PM - 7 PM. These shifts may be desirable or undesirable because of the time they occur. To be able to get the "easy" shifts (slow ones) at 10 PM or something, they can make it so that you HAVE to take a part of the other shifts... If you can't, you don't meet their eligibility and you lose your job.

If you are an employee in a shift based business, you definitely give up some rights to having completely flexible work hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The reporting around this law is absurd.

Despite how it is covered, the law notably fails to do ANYTHING to help gig employees as it just codifies existing case law.

What this law does do is carve out exceptions in that case law so that gig employees have LESS protection.

This law could have been paired with other real protections for gig employees but that did not happen. No minimum wage guarantee extensions, no rights to organize, no improvements in access to the safety net...etc

How do people let our politicians get away with claiming they are protecting people with a bill that does nothing but erode those protections?

<comment><USER32> I guess it might be considered a protection in that it won out against bills like AB71 that would have reversed the Dynamex precedent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> So basically their tactic is to eke out a few more years out of their business model as their fight with California over the classification slowly snakes its way through the courts to the California supreme court, and hope that in the meantime they can come up with a better business model?

It is actually not a terribly bad idea. They have the money to pay for the slow court battle, and it is strictly cheaper than complying.

<comment><USER52> They already lost in the California Supreme Court.

<comment><USER63> Dynamex lost (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court), which caused AB5 to be written. Uber did not yet lose (or even get sued) over this yet IIRC

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I would be interested in hearing a principled defense of the exception that was granted to other industries. Would anyone care to try?

<comment><USER65> Some of the exceptions were for professions like Lawyers, Accountants, and Professional Engineers. There are already well established protocols for interacting with these people, so let's not complicate things with AB-5.

I'm sure some of the exemptions are not so cool though.

<comment><USER14> What have established protocols got to do with anything? The question at hand is, is Dynamex a good, widely applicable test or not? Yes or no? If it is, then use it. If it isn't, something is severely broken, which you plainly see with so many exemptions, and it should not be used.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> They continue to use the term "rideshare", which just boggles my mind. So, I guess "share" in this case means that Uber is "sharing" a "cut" of the proceeds with the driver. Maybe they should call it, "fareshare" (but then that would be a play on words that turns out to be an oxymoron).

<comment><USER67> That's an interesting point, actually. Uber and Lyft do both support shared rides (which they call Uber Pool and Lyft Line, respectively), but my understanding is that the vast majority of their rides are not actually "shared".

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Honestly, would the, "three important points" have even been a remote consideration of Uber, Lyft, etc., if this legislation was was not even proposed (let alone passed) in the first place?

This sounds a lot like someone apologizing and saying they are deeply sorry, only after they are caught doing something wrong.

</comment><comment><USER68> Uber always positions itself to be whatever is most advantageous for it given the current situation. Just a "technology-based platform", no, they are a just a modern taxi company that uses a tech platform.

I think for many "big tech" companies there needs to be a paradigm shift in how society views them, not as pure tech companies that produce technology solely for technology's sake, but like Uber - companies that use tech as a means to an end of a another business (in most cases). Facebook as a news company, Amazon as a retailer, Airbnb as a short term rental unit provider, etc. (these aren't all necessarily accurate descriptions).

</comment><comment><USER69> I can read between the lines an assumption that Uber will do the bare minimum required by law while exercising all restrictions on drivers they are legally allowed to.

How can they be for self-organization of drivers (as states in the release) while battling in other state courts for prohibiting unions?

If they want to allow drivers to also drive for other platforms (again, from the text), just don't enforce such clauses in employment contracts.

They're talking about all the changes they supposedly want to see while the only thing stopping it from happening is Uber deciding not to.

As if being an employee must mean a rigid schedule and inflexible working hours.

</comment><comment><USER70> > Our current offer represents a new progressive framework that includes:

> Establishing — for the first time ever — a guaranteed minimum earnings > standard

> So as you can see, we are not arguing for the status quo.

Well, ok. The real question though is why.

Only companies with massive investments can afford to burn cash to keep the price to the final user as low as Uber's.

Such regulation would reduce the number of competitors appearing on the market.

</comment><comment><USER71> Seems like it will bring uber & lyft's cost basis in line with cab drivers, making the latter group competitive again.

</comment><comment><USER72> > We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in > arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now.

Translation: "We want to help our workers by fighting against their own attempts to assert their legal rights. We will do so in special courts where we hire and pay the judges. This will be perfectly fair."

</comment><comment><USER73> >Bringing drivers access to robust portable benefits like sick leave and injury protection;

What? Those are embarassing offers.

> Our proposal avoids the potential harm of forcing drivers to be employees, > whether or not they want to—and the vast majority tell us they don't want to > be

I would love to see the data behind the 'vast majority'

<comment><USER74> I'd bet the huge percentage of drivers that simultaneously do Lyft _and_ Uber would not like being an employee of one or the other, as their employer would prevent that.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder what'd the courts would say if Uber decided to charge a nominal fee (say $1/year) for the driver app in the App Store? That would make it more obvious that it's a piece of software that is being licensed by drivers for lead generation.

</comment><comment><USER75> It seems Wall Street is not all that worried about AB5.

[https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UBER/](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UBER/)

Looking at the 5 day stock trends, it seems up compared to last week.

<comment><USER67> AB5 didn't appear out of nowhere, and its passage didn't come as a surprise. The potential impact of AB5 on Uber's business would have been priced into the stock as the bill progressed through the legislature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> this is probably going to be labeled as a naive view, but to me it's clear that no one cares about the spirit of the sharing economy (not even corps like uber or airbnb): no one should be dedicating 100% of their "work time" to ubering... nor buying up properties to rent it out as airbnb permanently... I thought it was about unused/wasted time/resources that could be shared (for some profit).

Corps likely airbnb and uber should probably go back to building their platforms to promote occasional resource assignment rather than permanent.

<comment><USER77> > I thought it was about unused/wasted time/resources that could be shared > (for some profit).

This is the fiction sold by AirBnB, Uber, etc. You just can't grow forever (as these companies require) by "sharing." Do you think investors would continue to happily light billions on fire if Uber didn't have huge ambitions?

This is very similar to Etsy. Founded as a handmade marketplace until they realized not enough people make stuff by hand to keep growing. Now it's just a mass-produced shit shop just like every other place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Are they really trying to claim that Uber is not a transportation company but instead "a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces"?

I guess we do live in a post-truth era.

<comment><USER79> The post was written by their CLO. They are not trying to claim as such, they are succeeding. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think this legal interpretation of the company is a lie. It seems like the classification is constantly under scrutiny. A legal falsehood like you claim it is would've fallen apart by now.

<comment><USER80> Lawyers argue all the time. It's not a legal truth because their chief attorney says so. They are entitled to claim (within reason) as much as anyone else is.

And, of course, they will claim the most favorable definition. In other situations, notably when they are arguing against entrenched transit/transport interests, they "become" a transport company. It's a question of which hat fits the day.

<comment><USER81> FTA:

> But just because the test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass > it. In fact, several previous rulings have found that drivers' work is > outside the usual course of Uber's business, which is serving as a > technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.

Previous rulings have found his statement to be accurate. So you don't have to take his word for it, you can take a judge's.

<comment><USER82> Those rulings were made without the context of the new law, though, so the results may be different.

<comment><USER32> AB5 just codifies the precedent under which those rulings were made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Summary: "This bill does absolutely nothing to affect us. But please don't pass it, or at least let us compromise, since it would affect us so much."

Seems a little bit contradictory?

</comment><comment><USER83> The government seems to be solving the wrong issue. Shouldn't the government instead fix the Whatever it is that makes being classified as contractor suck in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER84> As regards to the hour claim, if the law goes into effects, what would happen to those drivers who can't drive 40 hours per week?

<comment><USER85> If the court rules that Uber drivers are employees per the AB5, my guess is there will be no more drivers with 40 hours a week. Ride sharing companies will just do what fast food has done and cap working hours at 29 per week to avoid healthcare benefits. This will also mean that neither uber or lyft can capture the market, because they will need each-other to supplement hours to the drivers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> It's nuts for Uber to talk about their "offer." They don't make the offer, the voters do.

</comment><comment><USER87> What's the defense of a business model that loses bucketloads of money despite not treating their drivers with the dignity they deserve? Both Uber and Lyft are not going to be killed by regulation, they're going to be killed for being shitty businesses.

</comment><comment><USER88> Perfect way to eliminate the competition via regulatory lock out

<comment><USER89> It's not really sharing anyway.

<comment><USER90> Yeah, the term really got me when I first heard about Uber... my thoughts was it was more like a near-demand carpool service to pull together extra passengers for where you were going anyway (for a small fee). Reality it's more like a Taxi service with private vehicles.

Still wouldn't mind seeing another ride share app with carpooling as the focus.

<comment><USER91> Yes, calling it "ride-sharing" has always been disingenuous at best. I suspect the idea was to make it sound more small-scale and personal, less formal and commercial, so that people wouldn't feel it needs regulation or oversight as much as a commercial transportation service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> tl;dr "Bill clearly aimed specifically at us doesn't apply to us."

</comment><comment><USER93> Wow, just .. wow. I thought it was going to be Uber's plan of coming under compliance of AB5 and sugar coating the entire thing to made them sound like some honorable people. But no, they're still scum. You get half way through and you realize it's just business as usual. We're going to ignore, fight and not give a shit about the law.

The build up to this legislation was that it was specifically around companies like Lyft, Uber, Dolly, etc. To argue against this just shows how desperate the company is to not give up anything.

Personally I stopped using Uber in 2016 and never looked back. I'd rather pay more for a Lyft. If both of them disappear tomorrow, there will always be Taxis; and maybe cities will finally start building out real mass transit like America has needed for decades, instead of hanging on to the brain-dead dream of a self-driving cab.

<comment><USER94> Honestly, how much did you use taxis before Uber/Lyft came around?</comment></comment>


Controlling attention with brain waves - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2019/controlling-attention-brain-waves-1204 <comment><USER2> I'd like to know how this compares to neurofeedback therapy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofeedback](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofeedback)

Neurofeedback has been around for a long time and there seems to be conflicting results on its effects on attention. Is the study on a different type of neurofeedback therapy or is it supporting the effectiveness of current neurofeedback therapy?

</comment><comment><USER3> I wanted to complain that there was no link to the paper but it's there on the right side. Hope this helps someone else: [https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(19)30964-X](https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273\(19\)30964-X)

</comment><comment><USER4> Mmm. Without the distinction between top-down attention and bottom-up saliency, this is impossible to interpret.

For example Itti, Koch, and Niebur have papers on a simple attention model: [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/730558](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/730558)

You can not just do an experiment using top-down attention on one hemisphere and subsequently draw conclusions using a bottom-up salient object at the other hemisphere. At least not conclusions about the role of alpha waves in both - different (!) - scenarios.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does attention has any correlation to IQ? I mean is it possible to have an IQ of 180, but perform with IQ 120 because of lack of attention?

<comment><USER6> Anecdata, sample size 1: When I was a teenager struggling in school because of attention issues, a psychiatrist had me take a test which suggested so. IQ and a few memory/recall-related tasks measured a bit higher when I was medicated with Adderall than without it.

<comment><USER7> That should be controlled against simply repeating the test and simply giving "normal" people adderal during iq testing.</comment></comment></comment>


Prof. dr. N.G. de Bruijn, 1918-2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.science.uva.nl/math/#item1329781416 <comment><USER2> De Bruijn also invented De Bruijn indices for handling bound variables in lambda calculus without having to deal with renaming. De Bruijn indices are used to implement practically _every_ modern functional programming language. They are also quite beautiful. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index>

<comment><USER3> I learned about why De Bruijn indices are awesome just a couple of days after his death--very unfortunate timing. I only learned about it after I started appreciating them...

(Basically, they are neat because they let you represent a lambda as just a body and an environment as just a list of values, elegantly avoiding the pitfalls of using named variables.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I first heard about de Bruijn sequences [1] in a talk by Persi Diaconis. Among other things, he described the lock picking "use" listed first in the Wikipedia article. They're such obviously cool objects, that I feel like they should be useful in all sorts of places. Sadly I've yet to find an excuse to use them myself though.

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

</comment><comment><USER5> People might be confused or bewildered by the depth of this mans research. How does esoteric math apply to everyday life?!?!?

Well,De Bruijn Graphs are used every day to assemble short pieces of DNA into newly sequenced genomes. They build the relationships to build the genome.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_graph>

</comment><comment><USER6> I got an email from him back in late October (I had previously sent an email asking about his work in mathematical models of the brain though I didn't really expect a reply), apparently his main computer had recently broke down at that time and he didn't have access to everything he had stored on it. I wonder if the data was recovered. I'm really sad and depressed he's gone.

</comment><comment><USER7> I regularly use algorithms based on de-Bruijn graphs in my work (genome and transcriptome assembly).</comment>


Trying to Hit the Brake on Texting While Driving - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/business/trying-to-hit-the-brake-on-texting-while-driving.html <comment><USER2> This is the knee-jerk reaction de jure of our age.

New York has made it a very serious moving violation (5 points, equivalent to speeding 40 mph over the limit) to have any electronic device in your hand. It's ok to use devices affixed to the dashboard, including GPS devices. If your a teenaged driver, you automatically get a 60 day suspension.

Using technical controls to govern behavior is bad policy. There's a reason why jamming radio signals is a serious crime -- it's too easy to make unanticipated mistakes.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my opinion, the problem is that drivers, by and large, are absolutely _terrible_ at driving. They're so bad at driving that they have no idea _how bad_ they are at it.

We're a nation of self-promoting, self-obsessed, angry narcissists, incompetently sitting behind the wheel of multi-ton, wheeled death machines. We have a single license tier for a ridiculous variety of vehicle shapes and sizes. We have zero ongoing driver education requirements, and only require retesting if sufficient complaints are received (when's the last time that's even happened?) or we reach sufficient age.

Demand better driver training. Stop engaging in inane behavior when you have greater responsibilities. Demand that others in your life do so as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> I honestly wonder whether mobile technology has contributed to this problem or whether it has just finally allowed us to measure "distracted driving" accidents accurately.

<comment><USER5> Everyday for my very short route of 1.5 miles from work to home I see texting drivers. I don't like texting much myself, so I don't feel the urge to use the device for it, and I have now idea what would make these people stop?

<comment><USER2> The other day, I saw an associate who has money problems and kids at home buying shampoo for $10 at CVS... The same shampoo is $5 at Wal-Mart.

How do we stop parents from starving resources from their kids by buying overpriced stuff?

<comment><USER6> This is a perfect example of how badly comment quality has degraded on hacker news.

<comment><USER7> I read it as some deserved ridicule of malkia's comment.

<comment><USER8> What exactly about malkia's comment deserved ridicule?

<comment><USER5> That I drive for 1.5 miles only, but I have my own reasons :) which I won't put here... since they are ridiculous (lol).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Give me an insurance rate reduction and I'll bite.

</comment><comment><USER10> The article mentions that even people who agree that texting is a bad idea find that they have trouble stopping themselves from doing it.

These folks could limit distraction from incoming texts and calls by turning on "Do Not Disturb" mode.

I'd actually appreciate a mobile OS feature which lets through incoming text messages and auto-replies saying "I'm driving right now, I'll get back to you when I safely can."

Is this problem largely going to go away as voice control of phones (and car integration) get better?

<comment><USER11> Does texting need auto-reply? There's no cultural assumption of an instant reply over that medium.

<comment><USER12> Texting has largely replaced phonecalls. Therefore most people expect you to get back to them within a couple of minutes, not hours.

I have used, and have seen others use, texting in real-time applications where immediate response is required. Like texting someone that you're at the door (and the bell doesn't work) instead of calling them.

Generally the younger you go, the more texting is expected to be instant communication.

<comment><USER13> While I don't disagree, I think such people are wrong. Even if you're at my door and the doorbell is broken, if you don't call, I might miss your text. I won't apologize because you didn't call. To me texting is asynchronous and if you want real-time, synchronous responses, you should call. The expectation of any kind of timely response is ridiculous, IMO, and is completely inappropriate. I could be doing any number of things that require full concentration (work and sleep come to mind), be out of cell range, have forgotten my phone, have a dead battery etc. I have seen people get upset over not having their texts responded to and I judge them, rightfully and harshly, as being inconsiderate, demanding, and selfish. If it is indeed a cultural norm, it is an extremely inconsiderate norm indeed.

<comment><USER10> Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to feel however you like. But many don't really see any difference anymore between texting and calling, since both go to the same device. Your objection "you should call because I may be out of cell range or have forgotten my phone" strikes me as illogical especially for the kind of synchronous situation like "I'm at the door, your doorbell doesn't seem to work."

<comment><USER13> The difference is that texts are easy to miss. Not only that, but by calling you have established synchronous communication. If the recipient doesn't pick up, then you know you have no expectation of a response while the opposite is true if he does. On the other hand, there's no guarantee that your text message was even delivered, this assuming that your recipient should receive it and act upon it is quite presumptuous. That's the difference. Calling establishes a communication channel that texting does not. If one does not pick up the caller knees there is no such channel established and thus no expectation of communication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just a commentary on the bigger picture: I strongly disagree with the notion that talking on the phone while driving is always bad (yes, I know, some people are particularly bad at it and shouldn't do it, but those people probably shouldn't be talking at all or...in many cases...driving at all.)

But texting while driving is _really bad_. I've done it far too much, and every single time I note how totally distracted, worse-performing, and basically crappy I am at the driving part (and I am a good driver when not distracted).

Why did I do it? Because for better or for worse, some people have gotten so used to this world of instant communications that if you don't reply quickly enough, they actually get concerned -- "why aren't you answering me? is everything ok?"

So my solution is twofold: 1. I've stopped responding to people so quickly. And if they protest, I explain: I was driving. Chill out. I'm fine. Everything is fine. 2. And if it really can't wait, I just make a call. "I'm driving - don't want to text. What's up?"

We really, really, really shouldn't be texting or writing emails while driving. It's bad news for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER15> > People know they shouldn't text and drive.

People know they shouldn't drink and drive either. But the legal BAC limit is not zero. We tolerate a small amount of increased risk to be able to enjoy a beer or glass of wine at a restaurant.

So why this absolutist, zero tolerance approach for texting? Are there no legitimate reasons for texting while driving?

I found out my wife was in labor via a text message that I received while driving. When I reached a stoplight, I sent back omw (expands to On my way!) and drove home instead.

Another time, I was returning home from a long road trip, and hit bad stop- and-go traffic. After sitting in it for fifteen minutes, I texted my wife to let her know I would be delayed.

Obviously texting while joyriding at 70 mph is stupid and ought to be illegal, but I don't see the harm in sending one or two quick messages while stopped or moving at very low speeds. We should have a balanced approach to texting while driving, like we do with alcohol.

<comment><USER16> > Are there no legitimate reasons for texting while driving?

Not if you're driving -- it's inexcusable. It's hard enough to type on a small device's virtual keyboard while sitting at a desk without any distractions, much less while trying to move a massive, potentially lethal weapon along the public roads.

> I don't see the harm in sending one or two quick messages while stopped or > moving at very low speeds.

That's a classic slippery slope -- society would rightly forbid texting simply because different people would define "quick messages" and "very low speeds" differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> To me this is akin to limiting all vehicles to under 70 MPH to ensure no one speeds recklessly.

The solution is to train our drivers better and start actually pulling people over for using phones while driving, not cripple the capabilities of the technology we have.

</comment><comment><USER18> > At that point, Katasi generally doesn't block the messages on the assumption > that the passenger will prevent the driver from texting.

Yeah, like that's going to work.

This whole thing seems like an over-complicated, over-engineered technical solution to a cultural problem.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is smart. Cellular jamming is mega-illegal in the US (even in prisons![0]), and when I first read through this article I missed part of the first paragraph and couldn't understand how this product could be sold.

However, the idea of working with network providers is great, and opens the door to a lot more options, such disabling cellphones in bars, resturants, etc. based on complex filters (e.g., allow "emergency" texts or only from close family).

I bet the movie theater industry will jump on this quickly.

[0] [http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate- jamm...](http://www.wired.com/2010/03/prison-mobile-phone-debate-jammed-up-in- the-system/)

<comment><USER20> Why is it the responsibility or even the right of carriers to deny people the service they pay for simply because it annoys you?

Texting while driving is a public safety hazard, and that's pretty unambiguous. From where do you derive the right to control what I do in a bar or restauraunt?

<comment><USER21> _Why is it the responsibility or even the right of carriers to deny people the service they pay for simply because it annoys you?_

Exactly!! Are we so immature that we can't take responsibility for our own behavior and want laws and systems to do for us what we should do for ourselves?

<comment><USER22> Because a sufficiently large percentage of the population is shitbags.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, it's always the other guy that needs strict parenting from the government right?

<comment><USER22> The majority of people who just want to live safe, comfortable, predictable lives have a right to use government to protect themselves from the (very substantial) minority of people who are shitbags.

<comment><USER23> Predictable? There's autocratic regimes out there where life is much more predictable. We probably more laws to keep government and other autocratic shitbags in check.

<comment><USER22> Yes, predictability is something normal people value, and are entitled to structure their society to encourage.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Samsung Demos Its First BGA SSD: 1500 MB/s Read Speed and Tiny Package - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10166/samsung-demos-its-first-bga-ssd <comment><USER2> I have just built a PC with a M.2 Samsung 950 Pro on a Z170 motherboard (make sure you get the Z170 so the M.2 slot can use 4 PCI-E channels).

The performance of this thing is insane. Ars benchmarked it at 2600MB/s read, 1500MB/s write for sequential data[1]. Most SSDs benchmark at less than 600 MB/s[2].

By comparison, a RAM Disk gets ~6000MB/s on the [https://hardforum.com/threads/quad-channel-ram-disk- benchmar...](https://hardforum.com/threads/quad-channel-ram-disk-benchmark- with-crstal-diskmark.1842437/same) benchmark.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/950-pro-review- samsun...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/950-pro-review-samsungs- first-pcie-m-2-nvme-ssd-is-an-absolute-monster/)

[2] [http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-850-evo-ssd- rev...](http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/samsung-850-evo-ssd- review,13.html)

[3] [https://hardforum.com/threads/quad-channel-ram-disk- benchmar...](https://hardforum.com/threads/quad-channel-ram-disk-benchmark- with-crstal-diskmark.1842437/)

<comment><USER3> What operating system do you use? I am trying to install windows 7 on those exact specs (M.2 Samsung 950 Pro on Z170 motherboard, ASRock Extreme6+), and I'm having trouble getting it to either recognize the M.2 slot during install, or partition an alternate SATA Samsung 850 EVO SSD to clone from. Did you have similar difficulties?

<comment><USER4> I attempted to install the exact same card (M.2 Samsung 950 Pro) into a NUC5I7RYH, as well as a backup SATA (Seagate 1TB Laptop Gaming SSHD (Solid State Hybrid Drive) SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache 2.5-Inch Internal Bare Drive (ST1000LM014)) - Neither one of them worked with Windows 7 out of the gate, and I ended spending a 4-6 hour odyssey of googling BIOS upgrades, Firmware Upgrades, and downloading various and sundry windows drivers (my final count was around 8-10 before all was said and done).

Ironically, we thought that Windows 7 would have had better support - but, as it turns out, for Circa 2H2015+ hardware, it's probably not a great platform. Here's hoping that Windows 10 stabilizes for a few years, and all the vendors agree to support that platform....

<comment><USER5> There is Windows update for 7/2008r2 which adds NVME support you need to cook it into the image.

Use this guide [http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/guide-installing- win...](http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/guide-installing-windows-7-on- an-nvme-ssd-from-a-usb-3-0-thumbdrive.783921/) It worked for me. Also this :) [http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global/file/insight/201...](http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/global/file/insight/2015/08/NVMeSSD_User_Installation_Guide_whitepaper-0.pdf)

I have a windows 2008R2 box at home running on a 950pro.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I used to repair seismic nodes as part of my job. BGAs had the highest failure rate in high shock and temperature cycling environments by far. I find it worrying that so many chips are being designed with BGA. All it takes is one ball disconnect and you have a useless device without an expensive solder reflow. It seems like a really good way to design a device to have to be replaced after 5-10 years...

<comment><USER7> Anybody can explain what are "seismic nodes"? I tried googling it, as well as "repair seismic nodes", but to no apparent success

<comment><USER8> Probably earthquake monitoring equipment

<comment><USER9> Petroleum companies search for oil via seismic analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> People are saying it being soldered down is a big disadvantage but I'm not following. The article says that M.2 spec will be available with PCIe or SATA interfaces and there is a photo of a Toshiba version on what looks like a small PCIe card. Aren't these the same as buying an existing card-based SSD?

If not, what is the relationship between all these interface types? Are they intended to be soldered onto the motherboard?

<comment><USER11> It mostly applies for laptops and other portable devices.

Manufacturers may decide to solder the SSD directly to the motherboard, like Apple currently does with RAM on their laptop computers. This is beneficial to the manufacturer because it's more compact, less chance of mechanical failure, easier to assemble (pick&place instead of humans), lower price etc. In short: it's very attractive for manufacturers.

For consumers this is worrying though, as with the RAM on Apple laptops:

\- You cannot replace a failed SSD, you need to replace the entire motherboard

\- You cannot upgrade the SSD, so you have to accept the ridiculous price stepup when ordering the laptop (i.e. the 200 dollar price bump to get 8GB extra RAM on a macbook pro)

\- Laptop is less valuable when trying to sell it on after a couple of years, because the storage size will be low compared to new SSD's.

<comment><USER12> On the last point: storage sizes on laptops have plateaued. I've got a 256gb SSD in my three year old rMBP, and can't see any reason why I'd want more in my new one.

<comment><USER4> Video. Particularly if you do any HD editing, let alone 4K, you can burn through 100s of gigabytes very quickly.

<comment><USER13> And games. Just my 280GiB Windows partition on my laptop is hovering around 90% full constantly.

Unless you only use the computer for editing text then storage requirements are growing quicker than ever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Will the 512GB model be on the same size package? That would be pretty dense. I am still waiting for Samsung to release the 1TB version of their 950 Pro, which comes on a much larger M.2 80mm form factor.

<comment><USER15> It's slight, but there are already possible thermal throttling issues with the 512GB 950 Pro[0]. I'm wondering if that becomes more pronounced as they try to pack 1TB onto an m.2 form factor.

[0] (search for "thermal" on this page and through the article): [http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd- revie...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd- review-256gb-512gb/3)

<comment><USER14> For my use-case(desktop PC), it shouldnt really matter much. Access would be bursty so it shouldnt really heat up too much, plus there should be adequate ventilation. I mean I probably don't need the performance of a NVMe SSD at all, but I like to have the best.

<comment><USER15> [http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state- drives/so...](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/solid- state-drives-dc-p3608-series.html)

May as well go with PCIe cards then. :)

<comment><USER14> Well I have one of these N1 cases[0] which takes a mini-itx board. The graphics card will be taking up the only full size pci-express slot, so I am looking at M.2 ssds.

[0] [https://www.ncases.com/](https://www.ncases.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> yoz-y Is there a reason to not put this into smartphones?

<comment><USER16> I suspect data carriers would prefer you spend your dollars streaming rather than consuming stored media on the handset.

<comment> yoz-y Hehe, that might well be but I wonder. At least in France I suspect that carriers would rather people did not use all of their allocated BW (you can get 50GB on LTE for 20 Euros per month).

<comment><USER17> In rural US I pay 45 Euros for 30GB/month. In the city I get about 1mb/s, but in the countryside I can get 40mb/s.

<comment><USER18> Do you mean $45 or ~$50 (45 euros)?

Also, which cellular provider here in the states is offering 30 GB / month at that low of a price (do they have special rural pricing or something)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One of these in 128Gb (16GiB) might be cheap enough to be stacked below the RAM/CPU combo on the next raspberry Pi. That would significantly increase the performance and reliability of an rPi, I'd love to see that!

<comment><USER13> I'd hate to see that, one of the big benefits of the RPi is that everything stateful is on the memory card.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, until you actually start using the sdcard. Sd cards and usb sticks corrupt in no time somehow

<comment><USER18> Personally, I've found that external drives only tend to corrupt if you use them as rw boot drives or if you don't unmount and sync them properly (safe remove / eject) on every use.

So yeah, the RasPi idea of having using those to boot might corrupt quickly, but if you use them for a camera or just transferring files between computers, you should be safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If these could fit in a 1u chassis on a PCIe slot without a bracket, that would be awesome!

<comment><USER21> It's 16mm x 20mm, you could probably lose it inside a PCIe socket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Could not find anything on a ball pitch. Can it be suitable for DIY projects?

<comment><USER23> If you have an X-Ray to check if the balls are soldered perfectly, then yes. Put it on the board and off with it in the reflow-oven. Keep in mind, it's only 20x16mm.

If not, then you're mostly out of luck, but you can try if you manage to source it. And find some datasheets. And have a driver for it. And...

On a more serious note: It would be very nice, if it was possible to design a board with components like this, but it is way to hard and needs way too much equipment and experience to do right.

<comment><USER22> Well, OSH Park and alike are surprisingly good now, I even had some success recently with an ice40lp WLCS16 package (by pushing well beyond the recommended design constraints), got 1 passable board out of 3. So even a very small ball pitch is somewhat suitable for DIY.

What caught my eye in this SSD package is a low ball count, so it might be potentially suitable for DIY even without an expensive hardware. If it's possible to route it on 4 layers without too many small vias it might be a game changer.

<comment><USER24> Low ball count also means that it is easier for the part to not sit flat when soldered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What are the very obvious downsides to using these, lifetime or cost?

<comment><USER26> It's BGA, so it's soldered onto the motherboard/logic board. Non user upgradeable, and if the SSD dies, you're in for a costly repair. Another step in the direction of (very) disposable hardware with little to no service options.

<comment><USER27> Does the other packages give you this ability? The other fine pitch parts are also very difficult to change over.

<comment><USER26> This is a chip that gets soldered directly on the board. While it is possible to solder this specific chip to a detachable interface that can be removed, I highly doubt anyone will ever do it.

This form factor has a huge advantage for OEMs - they can just slap on a single chip that has everything built in - controller, memory management and the actual storage. Less parts = less convoluted assembly process and that is cheaper. While theoretically you can put a BGA fully integrated SSD SOC like this on a PCI-E card or M2 etc., it kinda beats the purpose.

<comment><USER27> Personally, I think BGA parts are great. They are small and quite robust mechanically an highly integrated (as you have said).

I did my early engineering years with DIP parts, the days of when you could just desolder the memory device and place with a higher density device are long gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'd love to ship my software on a little SSD like that.

<comment><USER29> There are rumours floating about that Nintendo's next game system might go back to game cartridges, which is pretty much exactly "shipping software on a little SSD".

<comment><USER30> Mask ROMs will always be cheaper at scale than Flash.

<comment><USER31> How in the world are you going to get the scale anywhere near the same as the flash market though?

I have been wondering about going back to carts. When I see a 64GB Flash Drive for $10 retail I have to think that that the price premium over pressed Blu- Ray disks starts to make sense. You can significantly cut down on loading times, avoid obnoxious installs to the local disk, and have potentially more flexibility in the future to release larger games that don't require multiple disks.

Plus, the optical drive is one of if not the most failure prone component on the system (next to only the fan), so eliminating it could cut down considerably on returns and warranty claims.

<comment><USER30> When I say 'at scale', I really mean ~1000 units. You can already get under your price point with Mask ROMs (and they're faster than flash!).

<comment><USER31> The problem is that your competition isn't Flash Drives at probably $5/per in bulk. It's Blu-Ray disks that cost $0.005/per in bulk. Plus you need to build up a factory to make massive ROMs, since most people doing this are targeting sizes in the handful of KB. You can't even take advantage of competition in the marketplace because your product will be so specialized. Not like the disk pressing houses that are all over China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> That's very few pins for a BGA device, might be something for the hobbyist?

<comment><USER5> It doesn't need that many pin's it's an SSD on chip, all it needs is power and PCIe pinout.</comment></comment>