jocro

I don't think that was within the scope of the study at all. Not saying that I disagree, but it's not an answer or to any of the questions being asked, and certainly not a refute to any of the study's attempts at answers.

From another comment in this thread: https://developer.lyft.com/docs/affiliate-program

Looks like $7.50/new user is their standard affiliate program, I wonder if they have an additional incentive for the button.

I'd respond that I'd expect to be getting a requisite increase increase in compensation.

At least I hope I would.

Anecdotal, but I'm in exactly that situation at a fairly large tech employer. We log hours against different projects, are expected to log 40 hours a week, and are specifically instructed not to log anything for a non-working lunch.

I spend about half my job inside Powershell and had no idea bout this. Very cool.

> having the user ID of someone you "matched" with

Most of the information was already available to someone you matched with (that's the whole point of matching), barring the 'last logged in' value. The real concern is that you can get the user id of any of your facebook friends, exposing information that was previously hidden unless you did match. Matching relies on two-party consent, this violates that for a subset of users.

> taking down an overloaded server is just going to make the other servers that much more overloaded

Emphatically agree, but it's important in the first place to design and deploy your infrastructure such that basic increases of scale are accounted for - prevention is the most important piece of the puzzle. Get that right and an overloaded server is symptomatic of something else, in which case taking down access to the unruly resource is first priority.

IMO, the big takeaway here is that they were load balancing simply by only hitting the top level - selectivity is somewhat tedious to build but worth it in the long run.

I generally agree, but when the hiring and management of the persons processing the requests is carried out by the same parties interested in delaying the process, the principle goes untested.

I'd imagine it comes down to multitasking - could Dominos successfully deliver pizza at the same time as other items? Each delivery fee would only have to make up the difference of the distance they were already traveling to the additional destination. Considering their coverage, and the fact that the drivers have central hubs and don't have to spend time idling, I think they could offer more competitive pricing while still profiting. They also have more freedom to prioritize pizza/packages as needed, where an Uber driver can't (reasonably) add a stop to their to route with a passenger in car.

If you're dead, what's to own? If anyone takes specific exemption to it they could opt out - but for everyone else we address a legitimate public concern (lack of organs for donation) by accessing an otherwise wasted resource.

And it's not like this is a readily producible resource - people die on organ transfer lists precisely because other avenues of acquisition can't meet the necessary levels. It's a question of priority IMO, maybe not philosophically ideal but in a cooperative society compromise can save many lives.

>restricted affirmation of non-wrongness

I think this is a really good way to put it, and an important criteria given the timescale over which these theories develop.