maym86

+ circle lines that connect the spokes.

A significant percentage of road infrastructure is paid for by general taxes which Amazon avoids paying.

https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads

They pay less for the roads than you or I. You are subsidizing Amazon's business with your taxes.

They do a pretty good job of getting you very close in London and NYC. Longer distance trains get you between cities much faster than in a car. They don't solve everything but they are definitely underutilized as a solution in the US.

We could put effort into making them better but it's not as sexy.

I lived in Europe for a long time too. Trains are not a complete solution but they do solve a lot of the problems and are underused in the US.

> Should we all abandon our roofs?

What are you talking about? You've moved the conversation away from a specific discussion of Amazon's practices to an anicdote.

Unpleasant does not equal exploitative. Amazon is unpleasant and exploitative.

The cost is socialized but the gains are not.

I'm not suprised. This is what they do. When you think about it a lot of Amazon's business is partially subsidized by the tax payer. They pay less for the roads the drive on, they get huge tax breaks to open new wearhouses and headquarters and their workers' low wages are subsidized by welfare. The great deal you get and their ability to kill their competition is partially paid for by your taxes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-not-paying-taxes-trump...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may...

Fair. Thanks. Was just an example. Main point I was trying to make was about drawing conclusions after the experiment to fit the results.

In this scenario, especially in SF as a tech worker, you should feel guilty if you can afford to spare a dollar for someone on minimum wage for a tip but are reaching for the zero button. Having the iPad highlight your stingyness is not a problem with the technology.

Right. We already have a great solution to many of the autonomous vehicle problems. Trains and busses.

Reasarchers aren't normally expected to build a production system to sell as a product. They might be very smart people but for something like this you need a team with at least some members who have real experience delivering automotive hardware + safety critical systens + automation.

Research tends to ignore the boring but important details that make a product.

I think it was mainly lead by companies trying to get funding. People who understood the technology were not saying that. Good lesson to remember for next time there's a cool new technology.

I think there will be a realization soon that the AI hype in general is not going to solve all the problems CEOs and companies are trying to raise money for.

> where you have to shamefully press “no tip”

You don't have to.

I think if you can really easily spare a few dollars for someone who earns much less than you but choose not to there should be a little shame involved. Your feelings about not doing that are on you, not the iPad.

Sure. Big picture, I agree entirely. I automatically tip 20% too as it's just the cost of the transaction and even if the waiter is bad it could well be because of their manager understaffing the restaurant or a number of reasons beyond their control.

Do away with the tipping and pay people properly for thier labor. En lieu of that happening (and I don't see it happening soon) I'll still tip at these kiosks. I don't have much sympathy for people who complain about them but I get your point.

In this scenario, especially in SF as a tech worker, you should feel guilty if you can afford to spare a dollar for someone on minimum wage for a tip but are reaching for the zero button. Having the iPad highlight your stingyness is not a problem with the technology.

I agree entirely. Ideally all this tipping nonsense would go away and people would have a decent wage without it.

My main objection was more to do with the sentiment of well paid tech workers I have met who complain about this technology because they feel pressured to tip a low paid workers more. A position I have little sympathy for.

Guess what, you still don't have to tip if you don't want to. Your "guilt" is your problem, not a problem with the iPad. Anything that increases the takehome pay of low paid service workers in SF seems fine. It is entirely opt in.

An article featuring complaints about some of the lowest paid people in SF getting paid a little more because of a new technology lacks some self awareness.

Why? Why not? Why? Why not?... It's interesting.

Why do you ask? Do you think it's unusual to question something when new evidence comes to light? Seems entirely reasonable to share updated information on a very well known study.

Right, taxing large corporations more and making their takeover of the city slower would have slowed the increasing demand for housing. SF's government could have chosen to not sell it's soul entirely to big tech while still supporting smaller startups and businesses. I would argue that the policies have not been left wing enough despite the perception that SF is very left wing. Reality is that the leadership of the city is in the pocket of the tech industry.

Let some of the money go elsewhere and boost some other city's economy rather than having it all focused in one place to the point of it causing major problems.

I think the city could have done a better job taxing the large tech companies and spending the money on supporting the displaced residents and building more public services.

Taxes would help slow their expansion and in turn the increasing rent. Unfortunately the city has been toothless in this regard for fear of loosing some of the businesses that are causing many of the problems. IMO the threat of of them actually leaving is low given the whole echosytem set up here to support them but they would likely grow a little slower which would actually be for the good of the city.

Exactly, whichever is most effective. The aim of the law is primarily to protect against descrimination, not to blame a certain party. Both the publishers and the buyers are at fault but whichever changes get the problem fixed seems the best way to go.

Getting Facebook to disable some targeting option seems like a much easier route than going after each ad buyer. Targeting the publisher makes sense because they are in the best position to enforce policies on their platform and stop the descriminatory practice at a larger scale.

The Democrats are a center-right wing party by European standards. Even in SF they put business interests first. You don't see this problem to this extent in major European cities.

My point was your premise is making up imaginary scenarios that aren't actually happening as a way of creating an issue with the clear problems outlined and this isn't helpful.

Creating an imaginary general problem as a way of attacking the specific issue is disingenuous.

So what about your argument means they shouldn't handle the explicit descrimination cases on their platform better? Just because there might be a fuzzy case in they future why shouldn't they handle the clear cases now?

FYI these are the specific points they are going after:

-display housing ads either only to men or women;

-not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility" or "deaf culture";

-not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age;

-to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible."

-not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Canada," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," or "Somalia."

-draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes.

Pretty damn clear: gender, race, disability and religion.

Exactly. Thank you.

Sure, but the point is Facebook should be taking minimum steps to actively avoid descrimination. It currently is not. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good and they can do better.

Why do people always go on to the abstract cases when we are discussing a specific example?

> Where exactly does it stop?

It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Housing and job adverts cannot be explicitly descriminatory. It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. You have to do your best and take precautions to avoid descrimination. When a platform doesn't do that then there's a problem.

San Francisco is like a distopian future from an 80s movie where those with money have the latest technology and skate around on electric scooters while the ignored underclass don't even have access to basic amenities and live in tents.

Duplicate https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17788740