I'm curious, did you watch it? I can't recall her being picked on at all really, adults liked her, the chess people liked her, orphanage people liked her. Frankly I was expecting people to not like her at some point. Even the people who lost were nice.

I suppose if you wanted to count the 5 minute montage of the other girls at the school being mean, but that was a really small part, and didn't really seem like it was because she was smart.

I wish him luck. The Trump fans are delusional, but I think once he is out of office his power will drop off.

But I certainly wish him luck. In fact I hope it does really well, and he forms a MAGA political party for 2024.

That would be a good way to split the vote and let the dems take everything.

Disagree.

What Amazon did was "neutral", not "nice" or not "a "total dick move".

Had they filed a DCMA complaint against him, or went out and paid for adwords for his project, or left a flaming bag of poo on his door step, that would be dick.

If they added a thank you, or bought flowers, or hired him. That would be nice.

But just following the license he setup was not "dick".

From the summary: "Where they are in conflict, we respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights"

So, they will follow the law of the countries law. So if the law of the country is to "insert active microphone and camera into ass of every user" Apple will dutifully comply.

How is this any different?

I'm curious, how does the taxpayer end up coving Uber's losses?

People are investing in them with hopes that the long term they will make money.

Most of the time not really, well at least not for all cab companies, pre-uber there there was 3 types of cabs in my city:
1) Yellow cabs, owned by the company. Driver was either an employee of the company (drive from 12-8) or whatever. Or more common, they driver paid the cab company to rent the car for the day. The driver kept all the money made from the fares.
2) Company car, was pretty much the same situation as above, but it wasn't a normal marked cab. They would often be Cadillacs or something similar and have the yellow light stuck on the roof with magnets. This situation was almost always the "rent the car for the day/week/month".
3) Your car, like situation #2 but you owned the car. This was what most cab drivers aspired to so you didn't have to pay the rental fee.

Nope, that's not good either. I've yet to see a good study on this, which would be hard. Uber would have to give you the pay numbers, then you would need to speak with the drivers to figure out stuff. "What is your insurance, what percentage of your driving is Uber vs personal, do you have special business insurance, would you have a car if you didn't drive for Uber, do you also drive for Lyft..." etc.. It would take a lot of work. Plus each city / region would have different numbers.

My guy feeling is that it is probably in the $15 area, I think many people would realize if they were only making $8 an hour. But I don't know. Nobody does. Uber might have the best guess, but I certainly wouldn't trust any number they put out.

I'm the one trying to let the market work. People are willing to sign up to drive, they don't have to. I'm saying the government should let them be (well I would support increased mandatory background checks) and stop trying to meddle in the market.

The problem with real yellow cabs with employees is there is a fixed amount of them. When a sports ball match finishes and people need to go home you need a crap load of cars. For an hour, what about for the other 22 hours of the day? Do you pay the people to just come in to work for 2 hours? How about the cars, do you have 10,000 cars to accommodate large peaks? Or 500 and everyone has to wait forever?

But Uber doesn't make money. They lose billions, every quarter... Mostly because most of the money they take in goes right back to the drivers.

If you read the link you posted it is "after expenses".

Normally when I see those numbers they are trying to make the $/HR as low as possible so they factor EVERYTHING in. Your car payments, insurance, vehicle registration, tires, oil changes, etc.

There are certainly arguments that can be made for part of each thing put on the list, but certainly not 100% of everything.

Not to mention that a self selected survey of 1,100 people isn't the most scientific way to figure it out.

I'm curious, do the drivers even want this? Knowing that many of them will lose their jobs or get much fewer hours? I know some people really grind out hours sometimes, but if Uber has to give OT, there is 0% chance they will allow anyone to work more than 40 hours a week. I'm sure if Uber is paying you hourly you won't be allowed to also drive for Lyft at the same time, which is super common.

Interesting this seems gloss over an important fact. Google didn't scrap GMGs lyrics, Google paid LyricFind for lyrics, and it looks like that LF scraped them. While the suit did also target LF, it seems like Google shouldn't really be involved. I would be very surprised if there wasn't some sort of indemnification clause in the contract between Google and LF.

But I suppose if it never gets past the "is this even a case we should be handling" part, they wouldn't need to get into contract nitty gritty.

I didn't really expect the outcome to be "No dummy, you can copyright a crowd-sourced transcription of an already copyrighted work". But, like a lot of these things it makes perfect sense when the opinion comes out.

That was my take too, but there are at least a couple of reasons I can think of:

1. If they do it, but Lyft, whoever doesn't they will be at a disadvantage. Most people will say "these people deserve more money!" but then will still use the cheaper app.

2. They are publicly traded, they have to do what is best for the shareholders. If you suddenly start paying your people a lot more, without any noticeable advantage it would hurt your stock prices (mostly because of point #1).

3. Something like he suggested would be better for them than saying "these people are full time employees, you have to treat them as such"

4. They would be partly able to blame congress for their lack of ability to make a profit?

While I support this change 100%, but to say that it's not needed because only X% opened the emails is not quite correct. I'm sure many many people got the emails, saw from the subject that so-and-so has a new video, and then opened the app/page. I know I've done it before.

Generally you didn't need to open the email get the needed information from it.

So fun fact, just because you are changing words around, doesn't mean it is fair use.

Parody is when you are criticizing the thing being borrowed from. Not just being funny or criticizing something else.

So if we look at Weird Al:
- Fair Use / Parody: Smells like Teen Spirit / Smells like Nirvana: Is a song mostly about Nirvana and the grunge music scene.
- NOT Fair Use / Parody : Beat it / Eat it: Is a song about a Fat Guy who likes to eat, nothing to do with Michael Jackson.

But the real question is, did they field test this idea at all? What was the problem that this was supposed to fix? Did they workshop any other ideas?

Or was it just "foreigners bad"?

GMail ignores dots in undernames so: John.Smith@gmail.com is the same as JOHNSMITH@gmail.com and j.o.h.n.s.m.i.t.h@gmail.com.

Which can also be used for spammy types. Put a dot in a certain character for throwaways and filter those to the trash. While some spam harvesters might strip dotsk, it is less likely since some domains need them.

Plus you could always put a dot in a certain position, and set it so anything without the dot gets filtered.

While I don’t want to pay more for new games, and I find myself buying fewer new games, and instead I am waiting a year or two. I don’t really have a problem with this.

Gaming is still a pretty good value for the dollar, and $70 for many games will still be good.

$50 USD from 1990 is $98.08 in 2020 dollars. So new games has been well below inflation for decades.

The average movie ticket in 1995 was $4.35, in 2020 it is $9.11 (I pay $15 =/). That is more than 100% increase. Gaming has been about 20% increase, while the cost of making a new game has gone up a lot.

In addition, certain big games are going to be one of the main games played by their fans. The annual CoD/NBA/NFL/etc. games get played for 100's if not 1000's of hours by a huge percentage of their players. This isn’t like a 20 hour action game that gets tossed to the back of the shelf when the player beats it.