Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Not all workers are equal. (Score 5, Interesting) 429 429

The big difficulty is that salary gets really complicated, really fast. It helps many people, but building the system that is equitable would be difficult, and all the positive outliers could be harmed in the process.

SCENARIO: Money is a little tight but applicants are plentiful. We interview lots of people, and three of them look very qualified and are willing to work for a certain wage in a tight range. All hired. Three months later the group discovers a unique need, needing a developer on a specific tool with specific skills. They'll be hired at the same job title, but because the group need a specialized skill immediately, they will go through a headhunter and ultimately pay a premium for that fourth worker. Now, because all four have the same job title, the critical question: should the company go back and increase the three other workers' pay to the same pay rate of the fourth worker with the specialized skill? Should they refuse to hire the specialist at a rate above the other three?

In some fields it can make sense to standardize pay. Most skilled trades operate this way. There is a standard rate in a region for a Journeyman with specific certifications. Trade unions can help fight for specific benefits. You know that this class of tradesman has a specific skill set and can be hired for $27/hour. You need four of them. All of them are treated as interchangeable.

In other fields it can make far less sense to standardize pay, mostly because there are many variables. Unfortunately software development is one of those fields where it is complicated. It would be really convenient -- both for applicants and employers -- to have such a scale. This is a Java programmer with seven endorsements certified at grade 27, so pay is automatically $x.

But unfortunately for this field, technology is ALWAYS changing, so the scale would be difficult. You were certified in version 3.2, but the system has moved on to version 4.1. Does that individual lose the old certification? If they take the new industry trade group's course do they now have 8 certifications instead of seven? Do certifications expire over time, or transfer between technologies? With the huge number of technologies out there, does that mean we'll have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of different certifications for the trade union? How are individual certifications weighted, and how are they equivalent? Is a master Direct3D 12 certification the same value as a master PostgreSQL 9.4 certification? Is a PostgreSQL 9.4.4 certification valued differently than a PostgreSQL 9.3.9 certification? If someone has certifications in other specializations, must those apply in the cost? With the rapid pace of an enormous number of technologies, what prevents someone from getting hundreds of certifications? Such as "I've got 47 certifications, one for each version of the software released over the past two years"? While it works good for slower-moving trades, it does not work so well in software.

Sometimes I feel it would be nice to have programming trade unions. There are many features like collective bargaining for benefits that could be nice. But for actual salary levels, union-based standardized wages would be a nightmare. It would add a convenience factor to ensure new workers have certain minimum competencies, but it unfortunately adds maximum values as well. Nobody wants to know that they could be making more due to market pressure.

By establishing fixed buckets of pay levels, it establishes both a minimum (yay) and a maximum (boo) within a region. If you've got any kind of specialization or exotic skill -- and many of us do -- those same pay buckets that help many people also hurt the top performers.

Comment The other, other side. Corps stealing, too. (Score 3, Insightful) 274 274

The other side of it is the challenge in calculating how much financial damage is done to a copyright holder when unlicensed copies of their work are distributed and 'consumed'.

There are still other "other sides" of it. Most posters are focusing on when individuals infringe on corporate productions. Big groups steal images from small-time photographers and artists all the time, usually without consequence.

Clickbait sites are notorious for stealing images and are among the worst infringers. Does this mean when an image goes viral and is used in a corporate blog, or when a photo gets used in a clickbait site like buzzfeed, the government prosecutors will be going after the corporations for criminal copyright infringement?

Even mostly-reputable groups like Forbes is notorious for lifting images online without permission. Images from Wikipedia get cited as "From Wikipedia" without regard to the license or the actual photographer. Images get lifted from personal web sites with or without attribution, but rarely with permission. Will the editors at Forbes UK office be imprisoned for their copyright infringements?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Unless these same laws are used to prosecute corporations and corporate officers when they also commit the crimes, it's just a tool to beat down the common citizen.

Comment Re:Statistics need verifying (Score 2) 212 212

every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent

Is this statistic really true? Are those 140,000 net new jobs, or just job openings that exist for some period of time during the year?

This is the same company that two weeks ago just laid off 8000 American workers in their annual summer layoff program.

And almost exactly one year ago laid off 18,000 American workers in their annual layoffs.

And almost exactly two years ago laid off multiple divisions, with an unspecified number (estimated in the thousands) of American workers.

And 2010, they laid off about 35% of it's American work force.

And in the summer of 2009, another 6000.


Every year they reduce their staff by 5000-20,000 in America, but they are hiring year round. Somehow they are always complaining about being able to find talent, but they have no problem letting existing staff fall off like an annual sheering of the sheep. The problem is not a lack of workers, or they wouldn't be laying off thousands of developers every year.

The problem from the company's perspective is that last year's workers don't match this year's buzzwords.

Comment Re:Right vs wrong (Score 2) 165 165

What is the "wrong" exactly? Who is the victim? Work for a wage you see fit and the employer is willing to pay. If everyone is happy with their paychecks then there isn't really a morality crisis here. The rules (and costs) around employment are idiotic and this is simply a symptom of it. It's ridiculous how many rights employers and employees are losing. Lawyers won't touch this because the laws are dumb and there aren't any victims worth fighting for.

Society at whole suffers with this, it is tax evasion for one thing, and it is reduced wages and benefits for another. The taxes collected are lower, so there is less funding to government by using an unlawful classification. It doesn't really matter if it is a private office or a government office that is the one evading taxes, the fact is that federal taxes and probably state taxes are being evaded. By hiring them as 1099 workers to avoid providing benefits like medical insurance, FICA and other taxes, time off benefits, and more, which is unlawful under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

You write it isn't a moral crisis. The office is engaged in an unlawful act, and he is (directly or indirectly) making money from an unlawful transaction. It may not be as extreme as profiting from child trafficking or the drug trade, but it is still profiting from an unlawful transaction. If he is one of the contractors, he may also have other concerns, like not being covered for health insurance as required by law.

You wrote that this is about losing rights. This is actually about tax evasion and about fair labor pay. In the story, he writes that the 1099'ers are getting none of the benefits of salary employees doing the same thing; which violates fair payment laws. In one case I know of where a family business tried this exact thing, the husband got 3 years in federal prison, the wife 1 year, the son who managed the company got 3 years, and millions of dollars in fines were levied against them collectively, all of it for variations of tax evasion and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this case it is a government office breaking the law, but it is hardly a victimless crime, and often the perpetrators spend years in jail.

And you write that lawyers won't touch it, that victims aren't worth fighting for. In practice, there are SOME lawyers who are willing to fight that kind of fight when it is the government breaking the laws. If you were the one working full time but not getting health insurance benefits or time off or other benefits given to the other employees, I'm guessing you would change your tune about it being 'victimless'.

Comment Re:How much you got? (Score 2) 184 184

This is just what happened at my previous job. The ever increasing cost and pure hostility against customers made the company start switching from Oracle to other alternatives.

Ditto. Our edict last year was "get off Oracle by the end of the fiscal year". The priority from the CEO was published and restated every month: #1, keep the existing service running, #2, get off Oracle.

Every sprint planning meeting at every team began by restating that goal. Do only minimum bug fixes necessary to keep the system running, all other tasks must be toward getting us off Oracle before the end of the fiscal year. Existing features could be reduced if that helped get us off Oracle quicker or more safely. When one team was finished they were assigned to help other teams with their transitions.

I'm not privy to all the details, but I know the organization spent a few million each year for an all encompassing unlimited license and we could create databases and fire up servers all we wanted. But then something happened a year ago, we were warned that Oracle's contract prices would be radically shifting, and everywhere within the organization we were to devote all development efforts across all platforms to getting off Oracle. It annoyed some customers, but when we told the bigger contracts that our organization was getting off Oracle, they immediately claimed to understand and would wait until that was complete before demanding new features.

Comment Re:Sorry most Americans... (Score 1) 119 119

Martin reps are claiming the parachute system will start functioning in just a few meters. As Ellis mentioned below, this obviously must mean they're ejecting and inflating the parachute via some sort of mortar, and as such, it probably starts working almost instantly.

As I wrote in my initial post (surprised it was first post, weird) those are still my biggest concern. The comments in the articles and videos they make to not comfort those fears.

Have you ever fallen from "just a few meters?" I have.

As a child I fell from the monkey bars at school, also "just a few meters". I landed badly on the schoolyard gravel designed to help reduce injury and still broke my leg badly.

My daughter also once slipped while running on wet ground, fell and twisted her leg badly. (Genetics?) After a surgery, two screws to hold the bone together, and six weeks later, she was learning to walk without a limp. Or you've got Kevin Were who was in an Elite Eight basketball game, jumped wrong, and broke his leg badly, leaving his tibia stabbed through his leg. People break their bones from ground-level falls all the time.

I'm fine with being in the air. I'm sure when everything is going perfectly and it is zooming through the air, that experience is likely more awesome than anything. And if the motor gives out at 800m, the parachute will be fine.

No, I'm worried I'll be either launching or landing, have a critical failure while near the ground, and end up hospitalized, seriously injured, or maybe fatally injured. Either that, or have a critical failure that drags me across fields or across pavement, leaving a trail of skin and blood on the ground.

Comment Sorry most Americans... (Score 4, Funny) 119 119

lift humans weighing up to 120kg (~256 lbs)

So basically half of Americans are excluded. Got it.

On a more serious note, there is NO WAY I'd do it. Not because it wouldn't be cool to fly through the air, I'd love that part...

...It is the landing on the rock hard ground I'm concerned about.

Comment Re:The question many want to ask, but don't dare t (Score 1) 383 383

What do you really think about systemd?

He has answered that many times. I want a slight variation.

Last year he gave several mentions about it to several key groups. He expressed that "I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane, but those are details, not big issues".

He's mentioned in several interviews that he has needed to deal with fallout from the system, deal with major bugs in it. He's also had some very public, verbally brutal interactions with key members of the team. But those are less relevant from the technical side. Systemd developers are attempting to correct what they believe are defects or missing functionality.

My variant would be: How has systemd's expansion affected your work on Linux? More specifically, over time the needs of systems change and drift, and core features need to adapt. What features of systemd have you considered as features missing from the kernel that should be incorporated, or as missing features that should be incorporated into system libraries?

Windows has had similar infighting over the years where the Shell folks were implementing all kinds of useful and interesting functionality that really had little to do with the shell: path functions that should be in the storage libraries, notifications that should go through kernel, numeric validations that belonged in the core, and so on. It is always a balance to decide what belongs as core features versus what belongs in side libraries. Systems evolve over time: How much driver support should be in the kernel? (Different OSes have different theories.) How much networking support should be in the kernel? (Decades ago the answer was usually "none", now it is heavily supported.) What security aspects belong in the kernel? (This used to be largely ignored, today it is an ever-growing concern.) Over time the balance changes.

I think part of the systemd concerns are that they implement many features which -- within Linux's two decades -- have transitioned from being minor external tasks into becoming universal system requirements. The boundaries change. I'd like to know how Linus is working with (or against) the inevitable winds of change.

Comment Re: I was wondering if/when this would be on /. (Score 1) 86 86

That's pretty broad and vague. Does the website which is registered in my name but which is actually my girlfriend's for the local comedy scene count? It has no ads but helps comedians get stage time, some of it paid. It seems to me that any site with an ad portal or an affiliate program link would count. Not just people selling widgets.

That's the issue.

Ads alone are enough to qualify a site has having a commercial purpose.

Run a blog with ads on it? That's commercial, your real name and real address needs to be on it.

Consider the many blogs revealing TSA problems, The popular "Taking Sense Away" was ad supported. The tsa employee running the site would need to reveal his real name and address.

Consider Groklaw, a site that many /. users referenced for the decade it was in operation. The founder (for good reasons) wanted to mask her identity and personal information. The site was already suffering from privacy issues and JP was in the process of shutting it down, but after learning more about a loss of encrypted email, she ended the site. Since she accepted donations on the site, that would qualify it as a commercial site with mandatory release of identity.

The recommendation of "commercial purpose" is overbroad, especially with the current definitions of commercial.

Comment Re:If you cannot answer your own question.. (Score 1) 296 296

I'm someone who gets contracted to optimize this kind of code. Unfortunately like most good technical problems, the answer is "it depends."

Pulling in some quotes from your various replies and comments scattered across the discussion:

My perfect solution would be developing it in C# while having complete control over memory allocation and release ... Linux+Windows ... I need to be able to allocate and release memory manually. I have done some prototyping in Java and C# hoping I could control garbage collection enough for my needs, but it isn't possible

Since your replies are talking about cross-platform C#, that almost certainly means Mono instead of the MS implementation. That's a good thing for you.

For your garbage collection concerns, Mono ships with two garbage collection implementations. One is SGen, the other is Boehm. Both can be modified for your needs, if necessary. Java's implementations vary by VM implementation, and that leads to problems for most developers.

On the nature of GC and Java in particular, it is difficult to write code using existing libraries that is memory and cache friendly, as many libraries (especially in Java) perform small allocations and will duplicate data without thought. In one recent project I was brought it to help fix, the developers (in Java) were, as a general practice unexpectedly allocating and using large amounts of memory that destroyed performance. For example, the libraries and code would allocate and manipulate over 4MB of memory to manipulate a buffer that was guaranteed to always be under 80KB. They took warnings from static tools seriously even when it was unnecessary; Sonar warnings that data was shared is a security concern meant they would make a copy of huge amounts of data, even when the only consumer of the data was their own program on their own servers. It took some work but reducing all the processing of data in their server program so it fit into the L2 cache dropped latency from milliseconds to nanoseconds. It is certainly possible in Java and C# to tune your program to minimize cache misses and more carefully control object lifetimes, but it requires a serious effort. In my experience this is mostly about the developers, C# the developers tend to less frequently make use of an unbounded number of copies of objects. :)

There is no UI required for the project, although I realize you can use modules like QtNetwork without the UI libraries. ... It is similar to writing an database management system ... There is no UI component

In this case, writing your UI should be a separate endeavor from writing your main project. Use whatever tools and frameworks you are familiar with to build the UI, quick-and-dirty. Don't worry about the choice QT or other UI tools, focus instead on your communications protocol. Keep the data minimized and tight. If you decide to throw in an intermediate web server like Tomcat to give an HTTP interface, make that into a third, separate application. One application is your real server, one application is your tomcat server that talks to your server and to your clients, and your UI application. If scaling to large numbers is important, the extra layer can introduce some latency, but in exchange lets you take advantage of all of Apache's nice web page features without bloating your real server, which can be leveraged for scaling up to multiple load-balanced web server boxes that communicate with load-balanced core servers. (All depending on your project details that you haven't shared).

In your project, remember to keep IO asynchronous from processing. Any communication you have through your network IO should be in a separate set of threads, and NOT in one thread per connection (a strangely common mistake). Boost's asio library is pretty good at this in a cross-platform situation, and is implemented with platform-specific libraries that are quite speedy.

You didn't mention what else your program is doing, but several of your replies you mention "like a database management system". Just like networking IO, any disk IO should also generally be asynchronous and use OS-specific functionality that enables the system to best make use of its resources. Depending on details if you touch any kind of spinning disk you want to take advantage of head placement optimizations the OS can make, or take advantage of SSD optimizations, or take advantage of low-latency data streaming commands, or take advantage of bus commands and direct-to-memory transfers, or take advantage of direct disk-to-disk operations that never cross the IO card, and so on.

As for general advice....

Keep your data in the cache, accessed sequentially, keep it small and properly sized. The fastest processing is the processing you never do, don't load if you can help it, don't encode/decode unless you must, and if you're in a position you can preprocess data so it maps directly to the final memory layouts it can reduce all load times down to the disk transfer speed. Remember that traveling distance through the hardware tends to cause performance to drop an order of magnitude or more for every system you pass through, keep all work and memory on the card or chip or disk array where the data is already at. Wait for nothing, asynchronous is your friend. Finally, learn to love profiling tools and performance tools, no matter what language you use.

Comment Re:Salaries should be limited (Score 4, Insightful) 381 381

Professionals manage their own time, take breaks when they need to, finish their work, and don't use a time clock.

While it would be nice if this were true, many companies leverage the attitude in order to add unofficial overtime.

They are not demanding you work 50 or 60 hours. Instead the boss demands that workers finish a feature by a specific date. In order to meet that date the extra time must be submitted.

Usually that can be avoided by good interviewing and identifying those companies. I've had one job that had that mentality, and it lasted about six months (when the next job was lined up.)

If the workers are putting in unpaid overtime that is a symptom both of managers who abuse their workers, and workers who don't value their time. If the workers started to value their time they'd demand change within the organization and leave en mass if it didn't change. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they don't. Fear, fear of security, fear of unemployment, fear of change, fear of whatever, something is messing it up.

While a union is a terrible fit for computer programmers due to the wide variety of work skills, it is something that comes up in discussions every few years. If tech workers and programmers as a collective demanded the change, it could happen quickly.

TL;DR: Until a critical mass of workers demand better work conditions, bad businesses won't change. Good businesses already treat people with respect.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 272 272

But this isn't even a trademark dispute, its a company policy dispute.

Exactly. So many people seem to miss it.

YouTube's ToS section 7 gives the method they would need to use to terminate his use of the lush URL. Specifically their ToS says: "A. YouTube will terminate a user's access to the Service if, under appropriate circumstances, the user is determined to be a repeat infringer. B. YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user'su account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service." (Typos in original)

So while YouTube gave themselves discretion to remove his access if it violates the ToS, and they gave themselves broad permissions in interpreting the ToS, ending his access still requires a ToS violation.

Their ToS and policy about what is required to change the endpoint are clearly specified in the ToS. The one violating their ToS is YouTube, not Mr Lush.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 4, Insightful) 272 272

Besides, "Lush" is a standard common usage word that is neither copyrightable, nor trademarkable. IANAL

It is absolutely protected by trademark.

The very fact that he had used it in commerce give it automatic, de facto trademark protections. Even if he did not register the mark, it still has protection; defending an unregistered mark has a higher burden of proof, but by his use in commerce he automatically gained several legal rights relating to trademark. If he had registered his mark, the protections would be even stronger.

But moving on from trademark, there is also the issue of YouTube's ToS agreement.

And that is where it gets REALLY interesting.

It is quite possible that Google/YouTube violated YouTube's published ToS in this. Their termination policy (part 7 of the EULA) is for (A) repeat infringement of the rules which doesn't apply here, or (B) if "YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user'su account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service."

While they do reserve the right to interpret their ToS, that doesn't mean they can make up reasons outside the ToS.

Comment Re:Grand opening! (Score 5, Informative) 97 97

Let's Encrypt, a division of Shell Company, LLC., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Totally Not The NSA, Inc.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose and nature of these certificates. While it is fun as a joke, that isn't what it is for.

These certificates never have been meant to protect against either government agencies or against employers. It has always been known by security geeks that any intermediate actor in the chain can eavesdrop and can intercept the connection. That is not what they protect against. They protect by revealing the links in the chain.

SSL is intentionally vulnerable for those implementing a MitM attack, and many businesses and schools implement this. Quite a few major networking products have simplified MitM down to the point of simply hitting a checkbox. One of the biggest corporate reasons for this is to enable caching.

SSL is absolutely vulnerable to being (eventually) deciphered by anyone who eavesdrops, and is vulnerable to being modified by any person holding a matching cert for any point on the certificate's security chain. There are many accounts that major governments already have copies of those critical points.

So what does it offer? The most immediate benefits are replay prevention and an integrity guarantee. Imagine if an attacker recorded a session of you logging into your bank and transferring funds. Without replay protection, and with no other replay protections by the bank, an attacker could replay the transaction over and over and over again, draining your bank account. Since both client and server theoretically offer unique session keys for each session they cannot be replayed. The integrity guarantee is also important, meaning that once your connection is established, those monitoring your connection cannot modify it without it being detected. The integrity guarantee is fairly weak and easily subject to MitM exploits unless properly configured with EV certificates or using two-way TLS and requiring mutual authentication. Basically you can detect all the links in the chain, but if one of those links is already compromised that isn't the protocol's fault. If someone inside your trust chain is intercepting and re-encoding your messages, the protocol won't stop it; all it will show is the person is a link in the authentication chain.

It also offers moderate degree of protection for authentication that the host you are connecting to matches who they claim to be; that is, with a TLS or SSL connection to, if you know the certificate, then you have an authentication chain that the site matches. Just like the integrity guarantee, the protocol shows you all the links and nothing more. You still need to watch out for weak links. If one of the links in the certificate chain includes your corporate proxy or school's servers then you should assume that link in the chain is compromised, which is the most common MitM attack.

The protection most people think of -- the protection from eavesdropping -- is only a very weak protection and not guaranteed by the protocol. The encryption adds a cost to any eavesdroppers not part of the security chain, but for most of the encryption protocols that protection is minimally overcome with a large budget.

Comment Re:Uber doesn't own the vehicles, correct? (Score 4, Insightful) 346 346

Am I missing something here?

Yes, two things.

The first thing is that you are using your own definitions and not the ones applied by labor law. There are six guidelines by Department of Labor. (Integral to business, permanency of relationship, worker's investment in equipment and facilities, nature and degree of control by principal, worker's opportunity of profit/loss, and skill/training necessary. While your brief lists are interesting, they don't match what the government actually uses.

The second thing you are missing is the definition of contractors. This is about the legally defined "independent contractor" or 1099'er, that are one type of contractor who is effectively a person operating as a business. There are other types of jobs that people refer to as contractors, such as short term employment (w2 with a time limit), or cases where employees of one company are brought in to work with another company's employees. Their decision is only about the 1099 style of contracting, which Uber uses.


Going through each of the government requirements as they apply to Uber and your Ebay seller example:

Integral test. Uber's core business is connecting people for rides and moving funds between accounts. Drivers provide rides using the service, but they aren't integral to the business of connecting people (although they are necessary to implement the task). Ebay sellers similarly use the service, but aren't integral in providing the service. MOSTLY NEUTRAL, slight bias toward employee.

Permanency test. Some Uber drivers meet this, others don't. Those who infrequently pick up riders, those who are on for an hour or two during the day, they're not really permanent. The ones who have used Uber to replace their income, or drive for many hours each day, they're much more permanent. Most ebay sellers are extremely transitory, having items up for under a week, or using it as a store front for goods that are constantly rotated. WEAK FAIL, some people biased towards employee, others biased toward 1099'er, so maybe some people should be reclassified.

Investment test. Uber has some investment through insurance and their guarantees, but leaves most of the cost to the individual. They've got a weak investment. Ebay has nothing invested in the sellers. WEAK FAIL, the long list of guarantees and insurance they offer to their drivers pushes toward employee.

Nature and degree of control test. Uber has a high amount of control, coordinating all the details of rides,establishing fares, and causing the drivers to be redistributed based on their algorithms, and requirements about the cleanliness and maintenance of the vehicle, but they also have weak control in other areas by not dictating work hours and a few other details. Ebay has zero control. STRONG FAIL, Uber's heavy control over what drivers do pushes strongly toward employee.

Opportunity of P/L test. Uber sets the fare cost, and takes a cut, the driver gets no options. There is no opportunity for additional profit or loss. Nothing they do personally can modify their results, get more business, get better rates, or otherwise modify the opportunity of profit and loss. For the ebay example, Ebay sellers can operate under whatever terms they choose, including running full brick-and-mortar stores, which many sellers start and operate as. STRONG FAIL, these "independent contractor" Uber drivers cannot operate as a business independently.

Level of skill/business acumen test. Uber drivers are hired for being able to drive. They cannot really market themselves independently, take good advantage of business insights, leverage their own personal strengths, modify their business based on any personal skills or talents. Nothing they do personally can modify their products or results. Strong contrast with Ebay where sellers have a large degree of control over what they do and how they do it, what they sell, how it is presented, and other factors of skill and business acumen. STRONG FAIL, these "independent contractors" cannot operate independently, leverage skills, or add any effective flair.


When it comes to tax status and employment status, I'm pretty sure the commission got this one right, or at least, right for the common case. It may not fit very well for those who only run the app a few hours each month, those small percentage of drivers might be better classified as 1099 independent contractors. But those driving more than around ten hours each week probably fit better under the employee definition, and those driving more than twenty per week strongly fit the definitions of employee.

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.