Nothing? Unless use drops because of the news/awareness/users injuring themselves, capitalism demands that they offload the costs to the public, minimize their liability, and maximize their returns.
148 karma · joined January 26, 2018
Well, talking about the weight of the vehicle is a red herring here. With the exception of getting hit/crushed by the vehicle, the human component of going down is all about speed, fleshy weight, and ride-height.
I'm also not expecting people to ATGATT while on the scooters, but without doing that, injuries are definitely going to rise with increased use.
On motorcycles, the rule to live by is All The Gear, All The Time. On mopeds, it's apparently Helmet With Maybe A Jacket. On electric scooters, it's Lol. The truth is that it should always be ATGATT on all 3. Going down on any of them is going to be exactly the same as going down at the same speed on a motorcycle.
One of the things you learn during rider training is that "stuck throttle" is usually panic freezing your wrist in place. Same goes for brakes that aren't working. I'll grant you that the scoots probably aren't maintained super well either, so it might be more likely there than on your personal machine.
All these rentals are adding up to just one thing: A lot more untrained, inexperienced motorcycle riders on the roads (and sometimes the sidewalks). The results are pretty obvious if you think about it.
Edit: Typo that I noticed.
Say, 30 minutes for dinner (if you're not the one cooking), 15 minutes for shower/grooming, 30 minutes for exercise plus whatever time it takes to get ready and cool down...so...an hour? If you're rolling solo, that probably rounds out your daily commitments. With kid(s) and a partner, you're down to 3 hours in which to help/bond with kids, spend time with your partner, plus whatever travel/wind up/wind down time those things take. Maybe 30 minutes a day you could really commit to these things?
I dunno, there are a lot of variables, but I find that prescriptive articles like these essentially dump the demands for your <insert here> project upon the shoulders of your family. If you want to make it really uncomfortable, consider the demographics of people here and in the software industry at a whole. Now it's just more of men offloading the work of family, house and home, etc. on the women in order for them to get their own projects done.
Sounds great, but don't expect much.
Customs, much like words, lose their meaning when taken out of the cultural context.
I think the "Worth it section" isn't so great. You won't always have a job, and while being able to make everything yourself is _strictly_ true, it's a pretty gross exaggeration.
However, CS is close to something else: Economics. People spend 4+ years learning about economics, but don't know shit about how it really works. They found a solution for that: business schools.
CS at a University versus CS at a technical college.
A society's benefit takes precedent over the desires of individuals. A society wants people living in their homes most of the time. They want the majority of housing for residents with very few, specific examples such as resort towns.
> It is the equivalent premise to saying that you should ban hotels so there are more long term residents, or known as, reduce short term housing stock to increase long term housing stock.
Again, that's not the case. Hotels are purpose built, temporary places for people to stay. AirBnB is made on the premise of converting existing long-term housing in to short-term rentals.
> You might also not hear anyone say they use cabs more because of lyft and uber but I assure you that they do. Hotels have not particularly suffered their market share because of airbnb, but airbnb is widely used in all major cities. Hostels probably took a hit, but nowhere near the usage airbnb has. Hotels ~=, Hostels -=, Airbnb ++++= => people are travelling more.
I don't have any numbers here and without doing it, I'm not going to hand wave at it anymore.
You do want people living in their homes for the vast majority of the time. You want them living there, hopefully being part of the community, getting invested in their lives there. The original argument is very sensible.
> There is no need to look at such thing. In this case you are trying to look at each potential dwelling unit as an abstract unit and each resident as a unit, but they have their own differences and imperfections. Looking at such a metric will push you to think policies like moving long term residents to hotels!
This is only sort of okay. No reasonable person who cares about housing would push to move long term residents to hotels. This is just a terrible premise to put forward.
> I can tell you people travel a lot more because of airbnb, and that there are way more cities that don't care about airbnb at all because it doesnt affect their housing market significantly.
Do they really? Like whom? AirBnB isn't particularly expensive, and all-in costs are more often than not more expensive than hotels. I don't know _anyone_ who says they travel more because of AirBnb.
Well, we were going to sell at $10 without ads, but NOW we sell at $15 without ads, and get $10 with ads.
It's a shit argument, and collusion to monitor and track customers is pretty much universal.
Most people don't witness these kinds of things off the internet, or run with groups who never do this outside of one-to-ones with mostly disconnected people.
I don't dispute her results at all, but I can basically guarantee you that I haven't been around where a woman has said "hi" to someone and they're all "Yea, eff your mom". Only confounding factor I think comes in to play is the assumption that it's a bot, so you can say taboo/antisocial things without repute.
The lives of a high-flying contractor doing skilled work are very, very different than someone who faces a the "gig" contracts.
They've extracted so much excess value from their employees that this is basically a laughable insult. Their rank and file will lose much more than they will ever gain.
"Investing in their employees" my ass.