An employer trying to figure out how little they can offer an individual seems like a lot of work, which will blow-up in their face if/when the employees compare compensation packages.

I can't imagine an employer doing this on any sort of large group of employees. Unless you have a mono-sexual, mono-racial workforce, different individual compensation for the same job is just a shit-storm waiting to happen. What if Women are, generally, paid less then men in the same position? Or if minorities are paid less than Caucasian workers?

I've worked in places where one worker ;an older woman) learned she was paid about $5K less than her colleagues, but that was because she came to the job with no experience, the others had 5-10 years industry experience when they were hired. She felt she was 'cheated', it affected her work and her relationships with coworkers. Ultimately they quietly bumped up her pay, but she still complained - it turned out bad for her (impacted her review, cost her a performance raise at year-end).

Bottom line, the worker is owed what the employer offers and the employee accepts. If the offer is too low, don't accept it. It isn't anyone's fault but your own if you accept a too-low offer.

I don't understand the outrage of using publicly-available information to make a business decision - in realpage scandal a company used computers to determine the maximal rent a landlord/owner could charge a tenant, and in this case an employer is using a service to create a profile of a worker from public information to figure out how low an offer the candidate is likely to accept. These are things that have been manually done for decades, but somehow automating it makes it bad?

Employers look at candidates, review their job history, and arrive at a number they think the candidate will accept. That a candidate has gone and used payday loans is (apparently) publicly-available info - the issue is to maybe make the info private?

Employers do background checks, criminal record checks, and, I would assume, some sort of financial background check before hiring certain workers - it's labor-intensive, so probably not very common, but for certain occupations, I'm sure it's standard.

Or, you know, obey the law and drive under the speed limit...

If everyone obeyed the laws, there'd be no need for this kind of "enforcement" exercise, and the third-party company will take down the cameras and move to a new city.

I just love the "pervasive" surveillance network argument - "I know I'm driving a car on a public road with an easily readable license plate, but you have no right to read my license plate and keep track of when and where I was!"

Where exactly does the presumption of privacy come into this argument?

Just a reminder of what can happen when workers strike...

https://www.labornotes.org/200...

I suspect the unionized facility is leased, and this whole adventure could end when the tenant (Amazon) can't negotiate a new lease with the owners (Amazon).

5,000 workers?!

I fully expect negotiations to drag out for years (longer) - Amazon is apparently intending to appeal the previous decision, and even if forced to sit down and negotiate with the workers union, that process will drag on...

I expect this is a war of attrition - Amazon can just maintain status quo and overtime the workforce will turn-over, perhaps to the point that Amazon can get the workers to vote down the union...

Continuing, it can be argued that #1 & 2 have an influence on driver behavior, seeing a police car, drivers self-correct behavior, and knowing a police car typically hides behind a billboard can cause drivers to self-correct behavior as they approach the billboard, for fear there might be an officer behind it.

Getting a bill in the mail two weeks later does nothing to correct behavior, even briefly - the system lets you continue speeding, presenting safety hazards to the community, but the city get the cash...

There are roughly three ways to enforce speed limits:
1) Police officer in plain sight detects speeding, stops the driver, issues summons.
2) Police officer hides, catches unsuspecting driver speeding, stops driver, issues summons.
3) Camera/radar hidden along the street, it logs the vehicle speeding, issues a summons several days later.

Arguably, #1 & 2 have the effect of causing people to obey the speed limit, by stopping the driver they (likely) influence behavior, at least in the immediate aftermath of a traffic stop. #3 is purely about money - they have no interest in modifying driver behavior, they simply want to collect a fine. A speed camera in school zone does not make it safer for children, it doesn't stop the driver going 40 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, it just sends them a bill.

Was it Wayze that got into trouble when it had an option to avoid driving thru high-crime areas? The provider was called racist, and community leaders insisted they remove the option, so that unsuspecting victims, I mean potential customers could drive by businesses in high-crime neighborhoods...

The purpose of the speed cameras was always revenue generation - it was never about safety.

The city hired someone to install cameras and give the city money. Over time the city wanted more money, so they kept changing speed limits. If they wanted to prevent speeding, the city would have increased interdiction, rather than installing a passive revenue-generating camera system.

Why would anyone think getting a bill in the mail two weeks after you went speeding down a neighborhood street would increase safety?

That is the fundamental way traffic cameras work - by not stopping the vehicle, they can't be certain who the driver is, but they can be certain who owns the car.

If you blow thru a bridge toll both without an EZPass, they take a picture of your car and your license plate - the owner owes the toll & fines.

If you drive thru a toll road tag reader without a tag, the charge the car owner.

If you are caught by a roadside speeding camera, they don't use facial recognition to identify the driver, same if you roll thru a stop light traffic cameras- they may show the driver's face, but it's up to the owner of the vehicle to ensure the fine is paid by either paying it themselves or throwing the actual driver under the bus. The police/camera identifies the car, the owner is on the hook.

Most speed limits are in residential areas, as most road miles are in residential areas - those speed limits are not set to generate speeding ticket revenue, or do you really think it would be safe to drive, say, 40-45 MPH down a neighborhood street?

School zones are another place where the speed limit is set for safety, not revenue generation - it has to do with reaction times, stopping distance, etc.

The last time I heard about a large-scale sweeping speed limit was when someone convinced the Carter Administration (I think) to set a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit to reduce fuel consumption, and the Federal gov't enforced this by limiting federal highway funds to roads that were 55 MPH or slower. That wasn't about revenue generation, though it did increase revenues nationwide.

Bell Labs was part of AT&T, AT&T was a monopoly, a legal monopoly with one limitation (that it not enter the computer business) and in return it was guaranteed a fixed profit margin.

The more money AT&T spent, the greater profit they made. AT&T was happy to fund expensive 'blue-sky' projects because the expense drove revenues up, which increased profit.

It is FAR from the only, or even majority influence/factor of Bell Labs success, but it was a very, very unique arrangement.

Bespoke Echo Chambers? That's their new feature? Removing even the remotest possibility of an opinion differing from your own, what a great idea! /sarcasm

Rob Reiner had talent, no one denies that - he also turned into a raging political gate-spewing jerk as he qualified for an AARP membership.

He made many excellent movies, more than I can count on both hands, but towards the end... uh, he was 'polarizing'

Not huge enough to turn a profit. Not huge enough to keep him on the air. But sure, it's 'huge'.

I suspect his foray into screenwriting is to keep him occupied/employed as he rides out a non-compete clause that will keep him off TV for a year or more... that's just a hunch, and that this project started to take form before his cancellation was announced works against my hunch, but honestly, it think it went from fun idea to kick-around with Jackson to a possible job once he found out his show was being cancelled.