Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Amazon Drivers Are Hanging Smartphones in Trees To Get More Work (bloomberg.com) 126

A strange phenomenon has emerged near Amazon.com delivery stations and Whole Foods stores in the Chicago suburbs: smartphones dangling from trees. Contract delivery drivers are putting them there to get a jump on rivals seeking orders, Bloomberg reported Tuesday. From a report: Someone places several devices in a tree located close to the station where deliveries originate. Drivers in on the plot then sync their own phones with the ones in the tree and wait nearby for an order pickup. The reason for the odd placement, according to experts and people with direct knowledge of Amazon's operations, is to take advantage of the handsets' proximity to the station, combined with software that constantly monitors Amazon's dispatch network, to get a split-second jump on competing drivers. That drivers resort to such extreme methods is emblematic of the ferocious competition for work in a pandemic-ravaged U.S. economy suffering from double-digit unemployment. Much the way milliseconds can mean millions to hedge funds using robotraders, a smartphone perched in a tree can be the key to getting a $15 delivery route before someone else. Drivers have been posting photos and videos on social-media chat rooms to try to figure out what technology is being used to receive orders faster than those lacking the advantage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Drivers Are Hanging Smartphones in Trees To Get More Work

Comments Filter:
  • The economy wasn't doing great before this mess, and now it's just sped up its decline. I fully expect to have large numbers of homeless people in most communities around the country in the next few months.
    • by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @11:40AM (#60461856)

      The economy wasn't doing great before this mess, and now it's just sped up its decline. I fully expect to have large numbers of homeless people in most communities around the country in the next few months.

      By what measure was the economy poor before this mess?

      • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <`gameboyrmh' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @11:52AM (#60461894) Journal

        Worker income growth vs. inflation and INEQUALITY off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with more esoteric measures too, given some time.

        • Worker income growth vs. inflation and INEQUALITY off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with more esoteric measures too, given some time.

          All of that stuff off the top of your head except maybe inflation are not measures of the strength of the economy.

          And the inflation rate has been very low for a long time:
          https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]

          • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <`gameboyrmh' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:10PM (#60461956) Journal

            I suppose you're technically correct, from the point of view of an amoral system that's completely indifferent to humanity's wellbeing, even though those are the lifeforms powering the same system.

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              I suppose you're technically correct

              Technical correctness is the best kind of correctness.

              Prior to Covid, inflation was minimal, unemployment was at record lows, inequality was starting to reverse at least a little.

              By almost any measure, the economy was doing well.

              from the point of view of an amoral system that's completely indifferent to humanity's wellbeing

              An economic system should be judged by its results, not by feelings and good intentions.

              • And if the results are moving some numbers around on computers in a way that looks healthy according to some arcane criteria while it destroys its host civilization?

              • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:52PM (#60462174) Journal
                Prior to Covid, inflation was minimal,

                No, it was not. It was only because of how it's measured that inflation looked low. The reality is inflation is at least a full point higher than what is being shown.

                An economic system should be judged by its results, not by feelings and good intentions.

                In that case our current economic system fails on both counts. The only ones truly making out are the 1% and corporations, both of whom received massive tax cut whereas everyone else got literal crumbs. The same with the newest failed attempt at trickle down economics. Corporations wasted all that money on useless things like stock buybacks and corporate bonuses whereas the workers never received a cent.

                As we've seen, corporations can't go more than a few days without begging for socialist handouts from the taxpayers, the very taxpayers who got the shaft from trickle down economics and who have been told they need to keep 3 - 6 months of emergency money on hand. Kinda hard to do when you haven't received a raise in years and rising inflation is tearing you a new one.
                • everyone else got literal crumbs.

                  Do you understand what "literal" means?

                  Corporations wasted all that money on useless things like stock buybacks

                  Stock buybacks do not consume capital. The money goes to investors who then invest it elsewhere where it can presumably be more effectively used. So nothing is "wasted" and economic efficiency goes up.

                  Stock buybacks are a good thing and our economy would improve if there were more of them.

                  • by jwdb ( 526327 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @02:17PM (#60462542)

                    Stock buybacks do not consume capital. The money goes to investors who then invest it elsewhere where it can presumably be more effectively used. So nothing is "wasted" and economic efficiency goes up.

                    Stock buybacks are a good thing and our economy would improve if there were more of them.

                    False.

                    Stock buybacks generally go to the wealthy, who tend to save more of their income than do the lower and middle class. If the corporations had instead pushed the money to workers, especially towards low-wage workers, more of that money would have been spent rather than saved and the economy would be better off.

                    Wage increases are better for the economy than stock buybacks are.

                  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @03:00PM (#60462736) Journal
                    Stock buybacks are a good thing and our economy would improve if there were more of them.,

                    Tell that to Harvard [hbr.org].

                    it should be obvious stock buybacks are not good. They do nothing for the economy as the money used to buy back is wasted by not being put to productive use such as increasing worker salaries (who in turn would use that extra money to buy goods and services) or research and development.

                    Also, it should be mentioned many of the corporations who are begging for socialist taxpayer funded handouts used not only the tax cut money [businessinsider.com], but other money as well to buy back stock rather than increase worker salaries. Imagine if the corporate heads had been responsible and saved for a rainy day.

                    Velocity of money. It's a thing. You should read up on it some time. Stock buybacks reduce overall liquidity and dampen economic growth.
                • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @03:04PM (#60462756) Journal
                  Another way of looking at it is comparing growth rates (GDP, increasing productivity per capita, etc) against gross or net wages (or spending power). Up to around 1970, wages have kept pace with the increasing productivity (adjusting for inflation). After that, productivity kept climbing at roughly the same rate but wages are about the same (again adjusted for inflation). All of us are producing more wealth, but our salaries aren't reflecting that.
              • Well, except for the debt. The entire economy had been goosed by the trillion dollar tax cut that all went right into the debt. Much the same as the economy is currently sustaining on the $600 stimulus money given out. I would however argue that the first trillion dollars were a luxury expense we could not afford to fluff an economy that was already doing very well to try and make Trump look better, while the stimulus was necessary for an economy in freefall.
              • by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

                Inequality was starting to reverse at least a little.

                Well Hallelujah for that. Acutally, the biggest effect was probably a few state and local minimum wage increase that, sure, raised incomes at the bottom - but did so over the dead bodies of Republicans who swore up and down that they would kill jobs.

                But far be it from Trumpians to tout statistical quirks as evidence of their amazing performance. Like the single month where massive repatriation of cash corporations had stashed overseas - at a super-low rate, generated a big one-month drop in the deficit.

              • by jythie ( 914043 )

                An economic system should be judged by its results, not by feelings and good intentions.

                The problem with judging an economy by its results is that the metrics are determined by priorities, meaning the feelings, of the people defining the metrics. Even within economic circles, the question of 'which metrics reflect the actual health?' is an old and heated debate rooted in which metrics represent good or bad results from the perspective of different interests.

              • by thomn8r ( 635504 )

                inequality was starting to reverse at least a little.

                Gonna need a citation on that.

              • by ranton ( 36917 )

                An economic system should be judged by its results, not by feelings and good intentions.

                One thing Covid has done a good job of showing are weaknesses in most standard measures of economic strength. A couple things they do a bad job of measuring are inequality and resiliency. A country can have a very high GDP and high poverty. You can have low unemployment with very few people even looking for work. You can have high efficiency but no ability to recover from unforeseen disruptions.

                One reason the US has handled Covid poorly (which isn't Trumps fault) is we have an economy which is built upon ef

              • An economic system should be judged by its results, not by feelings and good intentions.

                Depends on what results are important. The prosperity of everyone, or just making money for the 0.1% at the expense of the 99.9%?

              • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
                Inequality went from "dangerously unstable and getting worse" to "dangerously unstable and getting worse more slowly".

                By "traditional" measures, the economy was doing well. By the same measures, the economy in 1929 was great, then it wasn't. Often crash triggers aren't visible until after the crash, and the delicate service economy with a good GDP (which measures "services") is actually on the edge of collapse. One person loses their job, they don't buy services, so another is fired, and so on until y
            • I suppose you're technically correct, from the point of view of an amoral system that's completely indifferent to humanity's wellbeing, even though those are the lifeforms powering the same system.

              I supposed record low unemployment, especially amongst minorities, record stock market, and all other general factors of economic strength and growth aren't things you considered?

              What's amoral about all that...the economy was going gangbusters before COVID here in the US.

          • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:12PM (#60461972) Journal

            Right, yeah, the only measure of economic success these days is the stock market. Nobody gives two shits about how much money the working class is making. Oh, so you have to work two jobs in order to pay 50% of your income to live in a shared room with six other guys? Shoulda learned to code, ya failure!

            The economy doesn't work for the majority of the working class. It barely works for the middle class. It does well for the top ten percent, and very, very, extraordinarily well for the top 1%.

            GDP means nothing if all the money is going to very few people at the very top. But it looks good on paper, and it gives the successful an excuse not to care about, or even think about, the plight of the average joe.

            • Right, yeah, the only measure of economic success these days is the stock market. Nobody gives two shits about how much money the working class is making.

              Most stocks are owned by middle-class pension funds. So working people benefit from a rising market.

              Asset price inflation is an unavoidable side effect of monetary easing. There is no way to hold down stock prices without pushing the economy into a deep recession.

              The same economic policies that are holding up stock prices are also benefiting housing prices. 62% of Americans are homeowners, so this benefits many working people.

              • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @01:26PM (#60462314) Journal

                The richest 1 per cent of Americans now account for more than half the value of equities owned by US households, according to Goldman Sachs. Since 1990, the wealthiest have bought a net $1.2tn in company stakes, while the rest of the population has sold more than $1tn. This contradicts your statement that "Most stocks are owned by middle-class pension funds."

                Also, there is some nuance you are missing on home ownership. Average home equity has fallen since world war II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                Most Americans who "own" their home own less than half of it, while the bank owns the majority.

                The American economy is rigged, and most of us are getting played by the wealthy.

                • That is for household ownership, stocks owned for pension plans and other things owned by middle classs pension funds are called pension fund owned, industry owned, institutional owned and other names.
                  You are comparing apples to oranges.
                  Now the top 10%, by total wealth, own about around 84% of the all stocks, including those in pensions, retirement funds,etc based on numbers back in 2016. The reason for that was compounded during the obama years when all the bad talking about stocks, etc was being done.
                  • by spun ( 1352 )

                    So your saying that I got a detail wrong, but my point still stands? Thanks. I'll try to phrase it better in the future. Most of the US doesn't own much in the way of stocks, pension related or otherwise. The rich are hogging the pie.

            • and you get an car crash on your 1099 job and do to having no income you need to become there butter at $0/hr and your welfare check will go them to cover there med bill

          • by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:16PM (#60461998)

            All of that stuff off the top of your head except maybe inflation are not measures of the strength of the economy.

            Actual economists disagree with you [brookings.edu], but I'm sure you'll be trotting out your Slashdot-annex U of Chicago doctorate to tell me otherwise real soon...

            • All of that stuff off the top of your head except maybe inflation are not measures of the strength of the economy.

              Actual economists disagree with you [brookings.edu], but I'm sure you'll be trotting out your Slashdot-annex U of Chicago doctorate to tell me otherwise real soon...

              That article is titled "Opportunity for growth: How reducing barriers to economic inclusion can benefit workers, firms, and local economies" and it doesn't disagree with me at all. A strong national economy may not benefit everyone equally. The article just says finding ways to be more inclusive can benefit the economy too.

              • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                That article is titled "Opportunity for growth: How reducing barriers to economic inclusion can benefit workers, firms, and local economies" and it doesn't disagree with me at all. A strong national economy may not benefit everyone equally. The article just says finding ways to be more inclusive can benefit the economy too.

                That's an interesting way to reframe the issue. You're merely foregoing benefits to the economy.

                You're wrong [epi.org], of course, but keep claiming that income growth and inequality have nothing

                • That article is titled "Opportunity for growth: How reducing barriers to economic inclusion can benefit workers, firms, and local economies" and it doesn't disagree with me at all. A strong national economy may not benefit everyone equally. The article just says finding ways to be more inclusive can benefit the economy too.

                  That's an interesting way to reframe the issue. You're merely foregoing benefits to the economy.

                  You're wrong [epi.org], of course, but keep claiming that income growth and inequality have nothing to do with the strength of the economy.

                  Actual economists still disagree with you. And you're not one, are you.

                  You are conflating the objective strength of an economy with social policy and social justice.
                  Real economists know the difference - and you're not one, are you.

                  • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                    You are conflating the objective strength of an economy with social policy and social justice.
                    Real economists know the difference - and you're not one, are you.

                    Objective strength of an economy and a strong middle class are directly related, not merely "conflated."

                    And I don't need to be one in order to cite support from economists. Meanwhile you keep pulling declarations out of your unqualified ass.

                    • You are conflating the objective strength of an economy with social policy and social justice.
                      Real economists know the difference - and you're not one, are you.

                      Objective strength of an economy and a strong middle class are directly related, not merely "conflated."

                      And I don't need to be one in order to cite support from economists. Meanwhile you keep pulling declarations out of your unqualified ass.

                      Appealing to the few "authorities" that share your wokeness is irrelevant. The size and strength of the economy is measured by objective measures like the GDP and unemployment. What you are describing is not, and the people that propose them know it. How do you objectively measure a "strong middle class"? How do you even define one? It's not even possible at the national level, when a $100,000 income in NYC is barely livable while in much of the rest of the country it is a great income.

                      It's fine to be

                    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      Appealing to the few "authorities" that share your wokeness is irrelevant.

                      Says the commenter that cannot appeal to anyone.

                      The size and strength of the economy is measured by objective measures like the GDP and unemployment.

                      And income distribution, average annual wages, wealth distribution, homeownership, education... all objective measures. Really. The census manages to pull it off.

                      What you are describing is not...

                      Oh but it is. Find me an economist who says otherwise.

                      How do you objectively measure a "str

                    • Appealing to the few "authorities" that share your wokeness is irrelevant.

                      Says the commenter that cannot appeal to anyone.

                      The size and strength of the economy is measured by objective measures like the GDP and unemployment.

                      And income distribution, average annual wages, wealth distribution, homeownership, education... all objective measures. Really. The census manages to pull it off.

                      What you are describing is not...

                      Oh but it is. Find me an economist who says otherwise.

                      How do you objectively measure a "strong middle class"?

                      Reading any portion of that last link would have given you a good start, but you couldn't be bothered, now could you?

                      It's not even possible at the national level, when a $100,000 income in NYC is barely livable while in much of the rest of the country it is a great income.

                      A strawman that you cannot defeat because you've invested zero thought into adjusting income for cost of living [money.com]. How novel.

                      It's fine to be concerned about inequities and inequalities and how those things could be addressed. But stop confusing that with the strength of the economy.

                      I'm not confused, you're in denial.

                      I read your article, it did't disagree with my points. You didn't actually provide any authorities, you just said they exist. I grant you they do, but it's just academic. Some economists feel that the traditional measures are inadequate because people can be poor even when the economy is booming. That's all fine and good but that feeling doesn't change the fact of how the economy is measured and reported. I don't have to provide you an authority, just read the government announcements and the reported l

                    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      I read your article, it did't disagree with my points.

                      You didn't, and even if you did you were looking for "magzteel is dead wrong" rather than actually understanding the content. Sorry, those first two links were expressly about how these objective measures, were are undeniably trending poorly, are reflect a distortion that is hamstringing the economy.

                      I grant you they do, but it's just academic. Some economists feel that the traditional measures are inadequate because people can be poor even when the econ

                    • I read your article, it did't disagree with my points.

                      You didn't, and even if you did you were looking for "magzteel is dead wrong" rather than actually understanding the content. Sorry, those first two links were expressly about how these objective measures, were are undeniably trending poorly, are reflect a distortion that is hamstringing the economy.

                      I grant you they do, but it's just academic. Some economists feel that the traditional measures are inadequate because people can be poor even when the economy is booming. That's all fine and good but that feeling doesn't change the fact of how the economy is measured and reported.

                      "My arbitrary set of a handful of measures are perfect and don't you date say that any other objective measures are relevant to something as simple as an entire national economy."

                      I don't have to provide you an authority, just read the government announcements and the reported leading and trailing economic indicators. It's not like it's a secret or some fiction I just made up.

                      Actually you do, because not even the government pretends that the indicators that you're citing constitute the entire picture while others are irrelevant. That's your own manufacture until proven otherwise.

                      You can't change reality no matter how many times you stamp your feet.

                    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      You can't change reality no matter how many times you stamp your feet.

                      The problem with your position is that it's self-invented, not reality. As demonstrated by your continuing failure to provide any support for your position from someone worth a damn.

          • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            The 1% defines "the economy" in a way that benefits them. Real measures of economic strength and stability are dismissed as "not real" by them, and those who would kill millions to become one of them.

            income inequality caused the Great Depression. Stock measures do not measure "the economy", nor does GDP. Measuring wealth and production doesn't matter if that's only 1% of the consumers. A consumer economy should be measured by the health of the lowest 20%, noth the highest 1%.
      • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:54PM (#60462184)

        It was ok, not really great, unless you just looked at segments of the economy, or the official numbers. Official numbers are always cooked. For instance, unemployment statistics in the US only count those who seem to be actively looking for work. If you've been looking for work for 12 months and still don't have a job, you are likely not being counted as a statistic. If your unemployment checks ran out, you aren't being counted. The stock market could be booming and yet the economy could suck for very large segments of the economy. I see more homeless people than ever in the last few years - this may be due to high housing costs, but it's frustrating to hear the president crow about how awesome the economy is and how many jobs he's created while people are living in tents in my neighborhood.

        Right now for example, lots of unemployment, lots of people unable to make the rent, it's very bad economically by most accounts and it has all the politicians nervous. And yet, my investments are up, the stock market looks good. Basing your notion of how strong an economy is just by looking at the stock market is very short sighted, even though that is often what is pointed to when trying to claim that an economy is good or bad. Probably because it's very easy to get a quick number by looking at a stock market but very difficult to get a broader and more comprehensive view.

        • It was ok, not really great, unless you just looked at segments of the economy, or the official numbers. Official numbers are always cooked. For instance, unemployment statistics in the US only count those who seem to be actively looking for work. If you've been looking for work for 12 months and still don't have a job, you are likely not being counted as a statistic. If your unemployment checks ran out, you aren't being counted. The stock market could be booming and yet the economy could suck for very large segments of the economy. I see more homeless people than ever in the last few years - this may be due to high housing costs, but it's frustrating to hear the president crow about how awesome the economy is and how many jobs he's created while people are living in tents in my neighborhood.

          Right now for example, lots of unemployment, lots of people unable to make the rent, it's very bad economically by most accounts and it has all the politicians nervous. And yet, my investments are up, the stock market looks good. Basing your notion of how strong an economy is just by looking at the stock market is very short sighted, even though that is often what is pointed to when trying to claim that an economy is good or bad. Probably because it's very easy to get a quick number by looking at a stock market but very difficult to get a broader and more comprehensive view.

          The stock market is an indirect measure, not a direct one. The GDP and unemployment numbers show the economy has tanked.

    • by Flentil ( 765056 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @11:45AM (#60461876)

      The economy is fine, getting better every day. When the air-delivery drones put these guys out of work, there's still an infinite number of pizzas that need to be delivered, and furniture that needs to be moved. They could even learn to code, using a free phone found hanging from a tree.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      What are you even talking about? The economy was doing well and real median income was at the highest point in the country's history. Unemployment was down and the labor participation rate was on an upward trend.
    • This is so freaken stupid people would do this. It's a race to the bottom and people who don't value their time are speeding up the spiral downwards. Governments need to step in and regulate "gig" jobs so these dummies don't ruin wage increases for the rest of the working population.
  • Arms race (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @11:44AM (#60461874)
    I can see how lying about your location like this can give you the edge in appearing better-positioned to make the next delivery more quickly. But if amazon also tracks how long it takes people to make comparable deliveries, it will come out in the wash because they take a bit longer to make the delivery than should be the case if they were actually that close to the starting point.
    • The drivers are close. They are parked within 100 meters. But Amazon's algorithms give a benefit for every extra meter of closeness, which is silly.

      If people are working this hard to get the gigs, then they are clearly overpaid. What Amazon should do is allow drivers to bid on the deliveries to drive the price down to the market-clearing level.

      • Reality isn't as elastic as a reductionist economics model though. If you want low latency at almost all times, you have to accept some overcapacity most of the time.
      • by kriston ( 7886 )

        Every extra meter? Considering that in the best conditions GPS is only accurate down to 5 meters that would be a neat trick for Amazon to pull off.

        • More importantly, there are apps that can spoof a phone's location to be whereever you want it to be. Not sure whether Amazon can detect that.

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @11:45AM (#60461878)

    ...Cliff Clavin is not among them, that's for sure.

  • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <`gameboyrmh' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @11:55AM (#60461902) Journal

    This can be done with a set of Android VMs located in any convenient location running a fake GPS location app, or even faked GPS hardware. Hanging phones from trees is silly.

    • This can be done with a set of Android VMs located in any convenient location running a fake GPS location app, or even faked GPS hardware. Hanging phones from trees is silly.

      The picture in the article makes it look like cell phones grow on trees

    • Upon re-reading the summary I can't tell if this is suppose to fake a more advantageous physical location, or actually minimize the transit distance of the dispatch message itself, which seems unlikely to work at all.
    • by pak9rabid ( 1011935 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:13PM (#60461978)
      Do you think these people would be working as delivery drivers if they had these kind of skills?
      • Quite possibly, yes. There are people who do that for beermoney perk harvesting clusters, and they have no jobs.

    • by leptons ( 891340 )
      It's even easier than that - there are Apps on android that will let you fake your GPS location (with developer mode enabled). They are even free to use.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:06PM (#60461944)
    At best they're making a few hundred dollars a month more. Competition is good and all, but when you're scraping the bone to this level it's a very, very bad sign for your economy.
  • Not a good sign (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:11PM (#60461966)

    The widespread desperation implied by this story is deeply troubling. America constantly claims to be the richest, strongest, best, most democratic country in the world. But most of its population lives a paycheque or an illness away from bankruptcy.

    It's no longer just cracks showing in this lie about American exceptionalism. The foundation is crumbling, and the whole world can see it.

    • Spot on. The US needs a bottom-up redo. Electoral system, taxes, healthcare, education, penal system, market regulation, media independence ... everywhere you look is a disaster zone. I wouldn't even know where to start if I were King of the US tomorrow. The only thing the US has going for it is that you can get a patch of land in the middle of nowhere in the mid-west, build your own community, put up some nato-wire fences and do your own thing. Other than that I hardly see any options.

      I seriously hope you

      • If I were King of the US, I know where I would start: Single transferable vote. It would go a long way to fixing the US's horribly dysfunctional political culture, by making it possible for voters to pick an option other than the R or D box without throwing their vote away.

    • I mean they could hire their own drivers and have them waiting inside to get the package there that much quicker but...

  • I wonder if I could sell them on Amazon and get them delivered?
  • by stikves ( 127823 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:25PM (#60462028) Homepage

    It looks like these are not actually the drivers, but a vulture sitting on the tree, ... sorry I meant "intermediary"

    "They believe an unidentified person or entity is acting as an intermediary between Amazon and the drivers and charging drivers to secure more routes, which is against Amazon’s policies.

    The perpetrators likely dangle multiple phones in the trees to spread the work around to multiple Amazon Flex accounts and avoid detection by Amazon, said Chetan Sharma, a wireless industry consultant. If all the routes were fed through one device, it would be easy for Amazon to detect, he said."

    That means instead of actual drivers competing for the jobs, someone far away gobbles them up, and distributed the opportunity any way they like, probably skimming a large portion from the top.

    Welcome back to the 20th century practice of lending your taxi medallion.

  • The Grapes of Wrath (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ravenscar ( 1662985 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:36PM (#60462076)

    I guess it has been nearly 100 years since events depicted in The Grapes of Wrath...so probably about time to see them repeated.

    I recall Amazon aggressively recruiting delivery drivers in this area - kind of like those handbills the farm owners in California distributed throughout the Dust Bowl. Come to Amazon where the demand is strong and there is a glut of work! They required many of the new contractors to make significant capital investments to gear up and get onboard. You know, to make sure you had loans to pay on their new infrastructure and ensuring they couldn't easily walk away (sort of the modern equivalent of moving your family across the country on your last pennies). Now they have more drivers than work. It won't be long before there are 10 deliveries for 20 drivers and the cry starts: "If they'll do it for $5, I'll do it for $4. My family needs to eat." People will be living in their delivery vehicles and groups of police or neighborhood watch members will organize to sweep them from their nice, pretty streets. They won't want those people around because they know a hungry person, a person with no property, won't recognize their rights to their own property. If you live near a major city on the West Coast I'm sure you see things like this happening already. The Great Owners aren't known for paying attention to History.

    Steinbeck:
    “And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of the dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression. The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect the great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on.

  • by s_p_oneil ( 795792 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:47PM (#60462122) Homepage

    Next time I need to replace mine, I'll just drive to Whole Foods and pick one out of the trees. ;-)

  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:47PM (#60462134) Homepage
    Regular hours, guaranteed pay rate. You know, like a regular job.
  • High Speed Trading (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kyoko21 ( 198413 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @01:31PM (#60462338)

    Kind of reminds me of the tactics employed by high speed traders. In order to gain an edge, you get the fastest equipment but at the same time you have to be closer to where the action take place.

    Location, location, location.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same...

    • Similar, but in this case it's fooling the navigation system. I'm guessing Amazon uses tower-based tracking as well as GPS, otherwise an android emulator with GPS spoofing would be a better solution.

  • This really is a symptom of bad algorithms. Amazon needs to adjust to weigh in more than proximity. There needs to be time to delivery, average workload, etc. To put so much weight on the absolute nearest phone shows that some adjustments need to be made to the algorithm that picks possible delivery drivers.
    • Well the fact that the algorithm is now being abused will mean it needs to be changed, or altered to stop the abuse. ESPECIALLY since the abuse is making the algorithm incorrect. Factoring in proximity to the warehouse so that the order is picked up sooner seems like a good idea in general, but now that the order could be given to a driver on the other side of the city it means that it can no longer be used as a metric.
  • by PPH ( 736903 )

    Don't they worry about someone swiping the cell phones?

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...