cudgy

Ageism

So, the side that is more open about their corruption is the one that deserves to be voted out? That leaves the more secretive and professionally corrupt in power, right?

But doing that would spook investors and possibly pop the bubble, so they look for ways to mitigate risk and fuel the bubble at the same time.

God wants our faces covered?

How is calling for equal and humane treatment of prisoners high and righteous? You are recommending targeted abuse for certain prisoners that goes beyond the sentence imposed by a court. Maybe a better way of stating it is that you are low and unjust.

… this one

“There are a variety of mechanisms to prioritize and delay issues until business hours”

What are business hours for a global provider of critical tech services?

… At a few small companies clustered in a small area of a single province called California.

Well at least you’re a humble outcoder.

Ageism?

Reminds me of the fashion industry … and manufactured consent

But reselling them won’t be

Believe this article is quoting the total number of students shot not the total number of incidents as the numbers are much higher than any other statistics that I’ve seen from more reputable sites.

Even when it doesn’t accomplish the task and cost three times more than the current method? Seems like we’re far away from this working.

Don’t do what? They’re just buying Waymo cars and building a plug-in to send waypoints to the car from their delivery software system. Waymo did all the hard work.

Currently it cost DoorDash an Ubereats 2 to 3 dollars to send food to the front door of someone’s house. It takes about 20 to 30 minutes for that driver to form all the steps to do the delivery. This works out to $6 dollars per hour of driver time. The driver is paying insurance, gas, time, depreciation insurance, accident repairs, maintenance, and everything. DoorDash pays $144 per day for approximately 48 deliveries with a human driver.

Now let’s try to assess the automated car situation. Assuming each delivery is about 5 miles that works out to 240 miles per day for 48 deliveries. Most cars are useful for 100,000 miles so the vehicle should be able to deliver for about 416 days. Assuming it gets gas mileage of 30 miles per gallon and gas costs $4 per gallon (using gas for simplicity though these are probably electric) for $13,333 in fuel over the life of the vehicle. Maintenance for these vehicles will vary of course, but a reasonable estimate is $1000 per year for brakes, oil changes, etc. adding up to $1140 total over the life of the vehicle. There are other costs that will be required as well like parking for the car when it’s not in use, cleaning of the car outside and inside, software maintenance, etc which I am unable to estimate, but it won’t matter as you’ll see below.

Automated cars are likely to cost at least 60k each (being really generous here … see below) given current prices on cars.

Cost of vehicle - $60,000 / $200,000 Vehicle Maintenance – $1140 Fuel – $13,333 Insurance - $1000 Other costs??? Total automated driver - $75,473 / $215,473

* Found article that states Waymo vehicles cost $200,000 as of June 2025, but included the scenario where the cost of the car is $60,000 and human drivers are still less expensive. So even if the Waymo vehicles dropped to 1/3 the current cost which is not likely, they are still more expensive than human drivers.

“Waymo vehicles are equipped with numerous expensive sensors and can cost roughly $200,000, enough to buy five or six regular cars. As of May, there were just 1,500 Waymos operating in all its markets.”

https://sherwood.news/tech/as-the-race-for-autonomy-heats-up...

Total Human driver - 416 days x $144 = $59,904

Rough napkin calculations show that it’s not cheaper for the company to buy some brand new, super high-tech automobile that is unproven and requires tons of research and development to refine it to the point that it can’t even complete the complete task (pick up food at counter and delivering food to the door of the customer).

I almost responded this but the condescending nature of it doesn’t deserve one. Later.

Layoffs indicate a poorly run, inefficient company, especially if other companies in the same industry had fewer layoffs. Typically this means that the company hired and trained more workers than it needed; their estimates of future opportunity was wrong relative to other companies that did not require layoffs because they’re hiring was based on more accurate estimates.

Another factor is that retained employees that learn of companies layoff frequently become concerned about their own position and the treatment of the workers that were laid off, reducing employee morale. High performers may start looking for another job in order to avoid expected future layoffs.

Then there’s the impact on potential future employees, who will also know about the layoffs. These employees will be aware of recently layoffs and will expect more money from said company who will also have to train the new employee that replaced the one they laid off before.

Finally, you have the impact on potential customers or existing customers. Some customers have relationships with employees that are laid off, and this can be jarring. The customers may become concerned about the liability of the company or the management of the company, potentially moving all our part of their business to another firm.

All of these effects are not typically beneficial to the company or it’s shareholders.

So companies have now realized that they need to have trust with their customers? That they need to protect their customers data? And that someone in the company should be concerned about it?

This seems more like corporate CYA than anything else. “well we did hire a trust officer and trust officers are trustworthy.”

I think we’ve exhausted this discussion. It’s reduced down to simple individual opinions about whether it’s worth it to drive to a restaurant or not.

I only wanted to point out that The customers are getting less not more. And the companies will make less money because the automated cars are more expensive than drivers that are willing to take food for 2 to 3 dollars a delivery. If you fail to see that or recognize it, I’ll leave it at that.

Maybe with your research into social patterns of nature, you can figure out a way around this issue or at least approaches that might work to increase the social transaction depth for humans.

I wonder, though, whether the issue with humans coming together on a global basis for common issues like labor, has less to do with cerebellum size (or individual weakness) and more to do with active interference from governments and corporations to prevent these alliances from forming.

If people are upset and angry about more fringe issues, it is possible to distract them from the impactful issues they may agree on like wage growth, education, healthcare. I believe until people start to realize this tactic and recognize it and counteract it, the average human will continue to lose ground.

Don’t forget depreciation of the vehicle and the risk of an accident as well.

Why would DoorDash want to assume all that responsibility when they have such a good legal scam against all their drivers right now? I call it a scam because DoorDash claims to not be taking the tips of drivers, but given the puny payouts per delivery the drivers lose money and time without the tips, so how can they claim they’re not taking the tips.

Phoenix would be a city where this will be less of an issue for sure, but you still have two and three story apartment buildings that require customers to go downstairs for their food.

Having to go outside significantly reduces the benefit of delivery. Now customers have to interrupt what they’re doing, make sure they look OK so the neighbors don’t see their underwear and bed hair, put on a jacket or raincoat in bad weather, possibly wait on 2 elevators, and pick up their food right next to their own car in the parking lot. In some cases, this could take five minutes. Customer realizes that they could just get in their car and drive to the restaurant at this point, so why order for delivery?

Makes no sense.

No, I’m old enough to understand that people in different age groups have different mentalities. Sure, there are 18-year-olds that are mature beyond their years to the extent that they are willing to consider the interest of older people, but it’s not the norm.

I think we should always be worried when installing even open source tools that are injected within operating system functions, especially tools that pull in many external libraries. It adds to the threat surface area.

However, in this case, this tool will hopefully mitigate that risk and, as you said, the creator of the OS is actually a threat too (by leaving their OS vulnerable in order to facilitate their ad business).

Huh? Why would I think that? My comment is regarding the customer. With an automated delivery the customer receives the goods at the location where the delivery vehicle can park near the destination. Without automated delivery, the human receives the goods at their front door.

People will love that when it’s raining or in snow. What about in cities where you can’t even find parking? Or you live on the 30th floor of an apartment complex? Lol these companies are so stupid.

“… but it's expensive due to the drivers.“

Really? Drivers only get paid 2 to 3 dollars per delivery from DoorDash and UberEats. These companies are predatory and pay the drivers less than it cost the drivers to deliver. So now these companies will assume all the costs instead of passing the cost down to the drivers? How does that make them more profitable? Maybe there’s some DoorDash or Uber eaters here that can explain my confusion.

Good luck finding a candidate that follows your morals and values that’s willing to run for president.

How do you determine that people are knowledgeable and are going to help you grow? How do you verify they’re “knowledgeable”?

Hacker news should not become strictly or dominated by political discussion, but given AI and its impact on society amongst many other technologies like social media, which are intertwined within political discussion these days, some of the “knowledgeable“ people and particularly those whose careers have been impacted by AI are right here on hacker news.

OK, but would these children have done better without using the screens? That is the question not whether students can possibly do well with screens. For example, what if the students at the top are less impacted by using screens and would’ve done just as well with books. And at the same time, some of the students in the middle would’ve done better when using books. The analysis you suggest would not catch that.