Having used instacart (through Costco) and walmart grocery delivery almost exclusively for the past 10 months.. I'm more amazed at how cheap it is, and I'm a bit worried that employees are not getting paid enough.
Costco is probably the more 'reasonable' one. They mark up the products probably 5-10%. So this one I feel that the delivery people are probably being paid ok.. although my nearest costco is 16 miles away (about 25min).. so it kind of feels like a steal to be able to get delivery from them for what feels like not a whole lot more.
Walmart is closer, but there are no markups.. and I pay whatever $10/mo for free delivery from them. Order multiple times a month.
I'm honestly not sure I'm going to go back to the stores as often even when things are normal.
> Having used instacart (through Costco) and walmart grocery delivery almost exclusively for the past 10 months.. I'm more amazed at how cheap it is, and I'm a bit worried that employees are not getting paid enough.
Are you really? What have you tried to modify this as a result?
Many gig workers have their tips taken away or obscured in some cases, as in the lawsuit settled by Doodash recently, which is most of their total income from these things: the algo sets the base salary as close as the lower minima for it to get picked up.
Have you ever considered just paying them more outright: as in leave an envelope at your door with the sum of money you think they're worth? Or simply asking them to contact you directly to be their personal shoppers if things were done to your satisfaction? I saw the former more often, with token sums like $5/10 by some well intentioned people but really the latter would be the more impactful solution and had been done prior to this for the affluent/exec class long ago.
Just so it's clear, the markup on those apps isn't going to the contractor's pay, its their to generate revenue for the core business to pump its valuation with fluff and prove its MVP has the potential to reach profitability... someday in the undetermined future. The gig worker gets as little as the market will bare most times, the app is optimized that way, and often has to be 'stacked' to make it even worth their time or will remain bouncing around in the limbo if no one picks it up.
I spent a lot of time looking at Doordash's business model during the pandemic while I went back to school or supply chain management after having done supply chain and logistics in the Auto Industry. I even did it myself to understand it's implications as a 3PL supply chain solution ahead of its IPO last year and it was super eye opening.
These things are horrible and are specifically targeted to the ever growing under underclass of Society. I'd say its borderline predatory given how much they gameify it in their favour.
> I'm honestly not sure I'm going to go back to the stores as often even when things are normal.
And quite frankly these apps/platforms are relying on you doing exactly that to justify its business model and will operate at a loss to do so in order for a massive IPO valuation and more VC money.
It's really quite sick, but it seems almost inevitable at this point given how many businesses have been shut down during this pandemic.
If I had the time and resources I would really want to do a talk at the Chaos Computer Club on it, as I think it really needs to be exposed for what it is amongst the Technorati who help built this monstrosity. I saw a Software guy who wanted to get the analytics on rejected offers from various regions with an app that tracked the acceptance ratios and other metrics, so the data exists out there somewhere.
Are you suggesting 'tolerant' people should tolerate something like, racism? You are a logical moron if you try to make that argument. You know exactly what you are doing, and it's stupid.
We've banned this account for abusing HN for ideological flamewar. We ban accounts for that, regardless of which ideology they're for or against, and regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. You've been doing this a long time, you've been using the site primarily for it, and we've asked you many times previously to stop.
HN is a site for thoughtful, curious conversation. There's no substantive and interesting discussion that can't be had that way, and accounts that are unwilling to stop setting fires and attacking others are not cool here. Ironically, the people destroying the commons this way have far more in common with their enemies than they do with the bulk of the community, who come here to find interesting things to read and to escape this sort of ragey shitfest.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. You've posted some good comments in the past, but the damage caused by the abusive ones unfortunately far outweighs the benefit of the good ones.
>when they detect he’s going to say something they don’t like.
Give me a break. You act like they have been cutting out on him for years. It's only been recently this year when he literally lying and calling covid a hoax, telling people to do dangerous things like gather for his rallies during a pandemic / actively saying not to wear masks, and finally this election bullshit.
The networks have gone above and beyond his bs for years- there is a time to take a stand and the last few months have proven that.
>Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms?
Well as far as politics is concerned.. the US Government (and other governments) should make their own twitter like platforms which every active representative has an account, and ANYTHING (barring pure illegal) can be posted.
It doesn't even need to have an actual user base, it can just be somewhere to go to see what your politician is thinking.
In terms of the average person? There is no solution for one that is owned by a corporation. An offshoot of the above is the government could make a social media site that is covered under "free speech that the government cannot take away" and anything not blatantly illegal can be posted/said. I would not advocate for this though.. I think we have plenty of options.
But the one for politicians only is something that should be seriously considered.
This exists. The government provides the President, the executive departments, and each Senator and Representative with their own websites. They may issue any kind of communications there, including setting up blogs or microblogs.
That's a bad idea, because you are cementing power. It would be hard for contenders to get into office. The incumbents already have a bigger platform they can leverage.
I was also getting at the fact, that Twitter, being a private company or not, basically became infrastructure and was thinking about how it should behave, whether that would be enforced by laws or not.
A highly scaleable free Twitter clone for the entire world run by the US government could be built in a year or two on AWS. If you don't need to build the giant ad network, it's much simpler.
> Well as far as politics is concerned.. the US Government (and other governments) should make their own twitter like platforms which every active representative has an account, and ANYTHING (barring pure illegal) can be posted.
> It doesn't even need to have an actual user base, it can just be somewhere to go to see what your politician is thinking.
That's just called a blog. The value of social media for politicians is the "social" part.
>That's just called a blog. The value of social media for politicians is the "social" part.
Actually no, the "value" in Twitter for politicians is
* Short succinct messages - people don't want to read a book from their politician for every issue. If it's important and does need more, then they tweet the image of more text or whatever. But most of the time a simple headline does suffice. Otherwise twitter wouldn't be where it is.
* The tweet can be linked from anywhere else on the internet, and everyone "knows" what it should look like and can basically distinguish reality from fake stuff
* Like the above, it's uniform and simple. Someone else commented to me that each politician has access to a website or something. Did anyone else know this? I sure didn't, yet I've seen a billion links to twitter for politicians.
* It would be really sad to learn that politicans are reading replies to their tweets. I don't know how they could get anything else done. Have you ever scanned through a twitter thread from any one of trump's tweets? There is nothing of value, and it's so invaluable that I bet you everyone in the world would be better off with read-only tweets from politicians!
You imply there was some kind of due process, which there wasn't.
Perhaps it is fully within Twitter's legal rights as a private entity. That's not the issue. It's the practical implications that are terrifying. The power of censorship and influence Big Tech yields without any legal oversight is absolutely horrifying.
The practical implications of someone running their own blog are terrifying!
I mean, it's always good to have these thought exercises, but I think you're panicking a bit about the sky falling if the thought of a billionaire former president being banned from a microblog is what your mind is worried about in the current moment.
No, Twitter suspends millions of accounts, of varying notability. Obviously, they just don't get the attention that the President does.
You're clearly carefully picking words that frame the event as inconsequential. That nameless "microblog" is how millions of Americans get their news, lol.
> You imply there was some kind of due process, which there wasn't.
I'm glad you're so passionate about accountability, and you'll no doubt be shocked to hear how difficult it is to bring a legal case against a sitting president.
Clearly the way forward is to entrust silicon valley to regulate speech. Thanks for your insight.
By the way, "Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the President – something for which there has been no credible evidence" [0], are you interested in holding anybody to account for that?
> Clearly the way forward is to entrust silicon valley to regulate speech. Thanks for your insight.
That's an unhelpful strawman, but I'm sorry if the tone of my response to you was not constructive and disincentivized you engaging with it more seriously.
For what it's worth, I would prefer if silicon valley companies relied on the court system to decide what content to censor (or rather, kept up any content they thought was legal until required not to by a court order). Of course, spam and data which exploits software vulnerabilities should be filtered without a court order, on the basis that no reasonable person wants to receive that.
My actual intended point was quite narrow, namely that it would be practically impossible, specifically in the case of Trump's tweets, for an aggrieved party to challenge his tweets in court. However, I suppose it may be possible to bring the case against Twitter itself, and have the DOJ fight on Trump's behalf.
> Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies ... are you interested in holding anybody to account for that?
Do you mean holding Russians to account for tampering, or holding Democrats to account for believing a narrative, or unspecified other actors for "tricking" Democrats into believing this narrative (which we'll say, for the sake of argument, is a false narrative)?
I assume you mean the latter of those three interpretations, but I can't imagine who you would want to hold accountable, or by whom, or what the process or punishment should be. Surely we agree that neither social media companies nor the government should be punishing people for spreading "false" narratives (at least if those narratives don't come with implicit encouragement to commit crimes)?
>By the way, "Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered
Where does the linked page say that? The best I can find is "Half of Clinton’s voters think Russia even hacked the Election Day votes..." and the graph also shows 50/50. That's some inaccurate paraphrasing you have.
The US has very strong protections for speech and you need to pass a number of significant hurdles before you can be convicted of incitement. There is no way Trump would ever be convicted in a court of law for what he did.
Not sure why this is being downvoted, "incitement" has a very narrow definition legally, see the Brandenburg test. Of course there are many other ways to incite a mob to violence that would avoid legal consequences, which i'm sure his advisors are aware of.
If what Trump said that morning was intended to cause that violence, then it absolutely passes the “imminent lawless action” test. It specifically said to start the action immediately and was clearly likely to cause the action. The question is what his intent was.
Where did he clearly incite an illegal action? As far as I can tell his speech just told his supporters to walk to the Capitol. He didn't say anything about committing illegal acts. In fact, he explicitly said people should be peaceful. Courts are not going to try and parse secret messages from a speech when there is an explicit disavowal of any criminal act.
The rule people seem to be advocating for here is that if a politician directs their supporters to protest at a particular location then they are responsible for all illegal acts their supporters carry out at that location. That seems to be unreasonable standard and it is also a standard that legally has not been applied before. In terms of politics/media I'm sure people have tried to apply this standard but it is very wrong. It seems every time some whacko commits a crime one side will accuse the other side of inciting the crime with their rhetoric. I don't think this is at all fair and I also believe it could lead to an equilibrium where people are incentivised to commit crimes. It is often quite hard to murder a politician (ask the baseball shooter) but if you can take a piece of the board by committing a crime and getting caught then that might be better option for a whacko. Obviously, this has not happened in this case but if this standard is enforced then this is something to worry about in the future.
> There is no way Trump would ever be convicted in a court of law for what he did.
It doesn’t matter. The standards of the courtroom are not being applied here. The facts are plain: there were a hundred off ramps for Trump over the 2 months since the election and he chose to take none of them. He failed in his duty to the Presidency as an institution and the idea of separation of powers and coequal branches of government. He tried to intimidate the Congress into doing his bidding.
You get that it’s a much more essential question than whether he is technically allowed to do what he did, right? Impeachment and the 25th amendment are political remedies that must be used both to punish what this president has done and to warn other presidents that they cannot cross the bright lines that define democracy.
He is the nations principal law enforcement officer and he aided and abetted lawlessness of the most dire kind.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard!” - Donald J. Trump (January 6, 2021)
Anti-Kavanaugh protestors did the exact same thing 2 years ago. Maxine Watters, AOC, Ayyana Presley all did the same. Madonna literally said she would blow up the White House.
That is not the case although Web Assembly advocates sell it otherwise, thankfully security researchers are now finally caring to have a deeper look into their claims.
Sandboxing is only part of the solution, it doesn't protect all possible attack vectors.
For example, bounds checking is only enforced on the boundaries of the linear memory segment, not inside it.
So if you have a Web Assembly module, originally written in C, where all memory allocations get mapped into a single linear memory segment, there is no protection against possible corruption of neighbouring data structures.
With this in mind you can indirectly attack a module by providing data to the public APIs that would eventually change the expected results, for example returning an admin token for a security module, instead of a regular one that the API was expected to return for then given user id.
That's a bs argument. The FIRST problem is it ONLY running on one ecosystem. The SECOND problem is that it's still dependent on X (which is ALWAYS going to be a problem unless you are making a blockchain messaging service)
