|
The major impediments for self-driving cars are really infrastructure, legislation, and adoption rate more than technology. Most of the technological problems become a lot simpler if you have roads that are occupied mostly or entirely by autonomous vehicles that are able to communicate data on their surroundings and intentions with one another, and if the cars don't have to be designed to deal with unpredictable human operated vehicles. The lane change "problem" mentioned up thread would never have happened if both cars were in constant communication and able to coordinate their intentions, but self-driving vehicles can't currently operate that way because they have to contend with human drivers. In other words, I really doubt we're going to see fully autonomous cars in the near future because the upfront costs of creating the kind of environment they can operate in effectively are too great. You basically have to solve all the hard technological problems so that people trust the vehicles just so you can an adoption rate that allows those vehicles to operate in a safer, friendlier environment.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Autonomous vehicles communicating with each other opens a new can of worms - What if someone makes a virus/exploit that uses that system as a vector?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Most of the technological problems become a lot simpler if you have roads that are occupied mostly or entirely by autonomous vehicles that are able to communicate data on their surroundings and intentions with one another, and if the cars don't have to be designed to deal with unpredictable human operated vehicles. The lane change "problem" mentioned up thread would never have happened if both cars were in constant communication and able to coordinate their intentions, but self-driving vehicles can't currently operate that way because they have to contend with human drivers. so, trains
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Autonomous vehicles communicating with each other opens a new can of worms - What if someone makes a virus/exploit that uses that system as a vector? Hell, this already happened with some (really poorly designed) regular cars: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/ Edit- Like just to be clear, I wasn't saying that everything would be awesome if we had fully autonomous networked cars or whatever. I was just saying that there's kind of a chicken and egg problem where the technological hurdles are simpler if human drivers could be magically removed overnight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's amazing how fundamentally some left-wingers misunderstand technology. "This prototype technology has problems, and thus will continue to have problems indefinitely". didn't say that. and i think i'm not fundamentally misunderstanding technology i just completed a masters thesis over quote:This part I actually am concerned about, but I think it won't be, "we're about to crash, here take over" because obviously that wouldn't work. I'm talking more about, "the weather is turning/about to turn bad, I'll pull over to the side of the road." you're overestimating the sophistication of these machines. they would not be able to safely pull to the side of the road in inclement weather because of the weaknesses in lidar. also, the "we're about to crash, take over" is very much a thing cause otherwise the car makers would need to eat the liability on crashes in autopilot mode. besides, the weaknesses in current AI and neural nets mean the car will freak out and need a human to take over even in the best conditions. neural nets in particular are bad at dealing with new situations quote:Conjecture. If the crash rate is higher than normal, it's more likely the novelty of the cars with their big ol' LIDARs that's distracting at the moment. people are so focused on the cars that they hit them? really? quote:What, if they cut crashes in half would that be a defeat? They don't have to stop, they just have to go down. they do have to stop or near stop for driverless technology to come in to vogue. do you think a company is gonna want to eat the liability for crashes on self-driving cars? quote:The tech is rapidly improving, but there's a reason it hasn't rolled out commercially yet. Also, they didn't 'nearly wreck each other', that's a ridiculous exaggeration: a common excuse for the current poor performance of driverless cars is that human drivers get in the way. if they can't interact properly that's a big issue Cicero posted:We've already seen huge advancement in the last decade. The first DARPA grand challenge had cars that couldn't even really navigate open areas (albeit ones with lots of rocks and inclines), and a decade later we have cars that can handle highway driving themselves pretty well and city driving decently most of the time. actually, it will have to be near "can handle all use cases perfectly" or the companies selling these cars will be sunk by liability costs from wrecks and injuries also, the advancements you have witnessed are not as huge as you think. neural networks have existed since the 70s, their usefulness hasn't really been appreciated until recently though. there is a lot of new research going into neural nets, but they still have fundamental problems that make them an issue for self-driving car uses (bad at dealing with unrecognized situations, really hard to debug and analyze for faults) other reasons people are telling you this is probably a decade or two off still is that the sensor tech in these cars is way too rudimentary still. google (at least) is using precompiled 3d maps of the roads to navigate, and lidar to detect obstacles. the cars are not able to go where there are not maps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I can't find anyone besides Uber claiming that a ruling from the California Labor Commission is "non-binding", Yeah, that's what I thought. Pretty interesting that I was told that "multiple courts" had shut down Uber's 1099ing of people when literally no such thing had happened. Anyone care to give me more wrong reasons about why companies won't be making everyone into 1099s?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:also, the "we're about to crash, take over" is very much a thing cause otherwise the car makers would need to eat the liability on crashes in autopilot mode. besides, the weaknesses in current AI and neural nets mean the car will freak out and need a human to take over even in the best conditions. quote:they do have to stop or near stop for driverless technology to come in to vogue. do you think a company is gonna want to eat the liability for crashes on self-driving cars? quote:actually, it will have to be near "can handle all use cases perfectly" or the companies selling these cars will be sunk by liability costs from wrecks and injuries quote:a common excuse for the current poor performance of driverless cars is that human drivers get in the way. if they can't interact properly that's a big issue quote:also, the advancements you have witnessed are not as huge as you think. neural networks have existed since the 70s, their usefulness hasn't really been appreciated until recently though. there is a lot of new research going into neural nets, but they still have fundamental problems that make them an issue for self-driving car uses (bad at dealing with unrecognized situations, really hard to debug and analyze for faults) quote:other reasons people are telling you this is probably a decade or two off still is that the sensor tech in these cars is way too rudimentary still. google (at least) is using precompiled 3d maps of the roads to navigate, and lidar to detect obstacles. the cars are not able to go where there are not maps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, that's what I thought. Pretty interesting that I was told that "multiple courts" had shut down Uber's 1099ing of people when literally no such thing had happened. uber hasn't been ruled against in multiple courts, but it certainly has failed to justify 1099 status to the california labor board (twice, they failed their appeal on the previous ruling today) and the state of alaska. the only reason I say they haven't been ruled against in multiple courts is because I'm not sure the appeals for the california labor board is a seperate court, and uber struck a plea deal with the state of alaska admitting no wrong-doing. that being said, uber is facing a ton of challenges all over the place, including a class action suit in california (they tried to keep the suit on a per person basis, but the judge rejected their arguments that uber drivers didn't constitute a class). quote:Anyone care to give me more wrong reasons about why companies won't be making everyone into 1099s? well for one, fedex already lost that battle badly, and so did the taxi companies trying to do the same thing in the 90s. it's unlikely uber will prevail in the courts because of precedent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Fedex got beaten on misclassifying employees as 1099 not too long ago, why do you think Uber/Postmates/whatever is going to be able to avoid the same thing? Well most courts have been perfectly fine with treating taxi drivers, even ones that do not supply their own vehicle, as 1099 employees. I think people who are utterly shocked by uber drivers being 1099 havn't read the regulations because as lovely as uber is they actually have a very strong argument that the drivers should be 1099. Also driverless cars are still a ways off (10 years maybe) but it's hardly sci fi poo poo, it just isn't google and uber that is dumping money into this. I mean I don't think a lot of people here understand how fast these things can go from testing to reality. Condiv posted:
Precedent is on ubers side actually, as far more courts have ruled that taxi drivers can be classified as 1099s. CA is the lone nut almost all the time and they get struck down the most of any court I'm pretty sure. When you supply your own equipment the case for 1099 status is very strong. What company makes their normal employees make a 15-20k dollar equipment purchase before the start of work, again? tsa fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:Also driverless cars are still a ways off (10 years maybe) but it's hardly sci fi poo poo, it just isn't google and uber that is dumping money into this. I mean I don't think a lot of people here understand how fast these things can go from testing to reality. Using customers instead of test drivers seems like a strong indication to me that they're very far along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
I'm honestly a bit confused by the driverless car thing though, do people not realize they are already roadtesting this poo poo with normal traffic? And on pretty crazy roads as well, it's not like they can only have the thing go down the block or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, in fact Volvo plans to test self-driving cars using regular people in 2017: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/volvo-will-test-self-driving-cars-real-customers-2017/ Ford is pretty far along as well, and since they have a strong presence in rural India they have a good testbed (another project in India is to decrease pregnancy complications by having fully internet-connected cars do something or another). To clarify, I have no idea if they are actually testing driveless cars over there, just that they have a good opportunity to be able to do so without the red tape you might see here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
tsa posted:I'm honestly a bit confused by the driverless car thing though, do people not realize they are already roadtesting this poo poo with normal traffic? And on pretty crazy roads as well, it's not like they can only have the thing go down the block or something. They freak out with plastic bags. It is definitely a thing that will happen much sooner than other crazy ideas though, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Insurance will handle it. Insurance companies will just adapt their models to figure out how safe each type of self-driving software/car is and then charge car owners accordingly, not terribly different from now except that there will be a lot fewer combinations to deal with. If the cars really are safer, than said insurance should cost less than it currently does for human drivers. why would they? the driver is not at fault for a system error, the manufacturer is. why would you think insurance companies as they exist today would pay out for damages caused by software development failures of a major manufacturer? quote:Regular people get hit by cars too. This is definitely something to pay attention to but I think it's too early to say that this actually represents an increased danger over human drivers being hit by others. it'd be easier to be sure if google wasn't so secretive about the program (how often does a human driver have to intervene during operation? when? why? etc.). that being said i'm a firm believer that companies will say things are peachy till poo poo hits the fan, so these small reports of incidents is enough to worry me about the program. quote:Well yeah, technology entering the mainstream often goes slow, then suddenly fast. The internet had been around for a long time before the consumer web took off. In the case of self-driving cars, it's not just that you need the algorithms, you need portable and sufficiently cheap sensors and computing power. the sensors are a problem, but computing power is not. computing power is not a huge limiter on neural network performance (at least when you're not training a neural network). also, while adoption may be quick (and yes, neural nets are being adopted everywhere now) that doesn't mean the underlying technology will advance quickly or be able to surmount its fundamental problems. Cicero posted:I don't think that's actually a big problem; Google of all companies knows how to send cars all over the country. Updates could probably be handled by the consumer cars themselves uploading new data nightly. uh, do you know how much space 3d data takes up? with data limits on cellular networks where they are right now, no, noone's car is going to be uploading 3d mapping data nightly (also the sensors for this are different than lidar and more involved, or google would just use the full live 3d data pulled from the road instead of precompiled data). also, adding a datalink to these cars opens up a whole nother can of worms as others have already mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:They freak out with plastic bags. It is definitely a thing that will happen much sooner than other crazy ideas though, I agree. Basically it's the better safe than sorry approach, a type I / II error tradeoff. I guess the thing is these sorts of cars didn't even exist 10 years ago and they've already made huge strides- so to see people so skeptical is weird. quote:
Their current work is completely autonomous. This is for a reason- they never ever wanted to have a steering wheel in the car in the first place because including one causes huge problems. There is a good planet money podcast on this. Remember the france flight that went down off of SA? It could have been prevented by the pilots doing... literally nothing. tsa fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I don't think that's actually a big problem; Google of all companies knows how to send cars all over the country. Updates could probably be handled by the consumer cars themselves uploading new data nightly. The problem is that there will always be that first car encountering an unexpected road condition change, and that means there must be a robust fallback mechanism for those cases. And requiring a human to step in can be dangerous, because if you're promising that humans can kick back and relax instead of watching the road, they're not going to be aware of issues and be ready to step in to help. Never mind that you can't pitch it as a solution for taking drunk people home, since that drunk person still has to step in if something goes wrong, and usually the "something wrong" isn't exactly the sort of thing a drunk person could handle even on a good day. Worse still, as the repeated failures of TSA to screen for illegal items demonstrate, humans are very good at picking up on habit and therefore ignoring outliers even when that's the explicit goal. In other words, even as self-driving cars push towards higher sigmas, we're going to see higher failure rates of the human fallback as humans are less aware and less prepared to handle those sorts of emergencies. (I want to say I've come across some studies to this end involving failing to identify specifications requested faces when they appear very rarely in a repeated identification task, but I can't find them right now) In short, for very real psychological and human reliability reasons, even if self-driving cars succeed at 99% of cases, it's going to be hard to actually get people to accept them when that 1% becomes harder to resolve due to human factors and the inherent tendency of humans to focus on negative outliers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
tsa posted:Well most courts have been perfectly fine with treating taxi drivers, even ones that do not supply their own vehicle, as 1099 employees. I think people who are utterly shocked by uber drivers being 1099 havn't read the regulations because as lovely as uber is they actually have a very strong argument that the drivers should be 1099. Control is the factor that people are talking about. Uber exercises a TON of control over how their drivers perform their jobs. Drivers are also fired for not accepting a certain percentage of fare requests, which also undermines their case for 1099. The asset (car) and its ownership is only half the equation. They could easily lose their most important court cases, end of story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Worse still, as the repeated failures of TSA to screen for illegal items demonstrate, humans are very good at picking up on habit and therefore ignoring outliers even when that's the explicit goal. In other words, even as self-driving cars push towards higher sigmas, we're going to see higher failure rates of the human fallback as humans are less aware and less prepared to handle those sorts of emergencies. (I want to say I've come across some studies to this end involving failing to identify specifications requested faces when they appear very rarely in a repeated identification task, but I can't find them right now) Don't blame me for this, I'm trying my best. via posted:Control is the factor that people are talking about. Uber exercises a TON of control over how their drivers perform their jobs. Drivers are also fired for not accepting a certain percentage of fare requests, which also undermines their case for 1099. The asset (car) and its ownership is only half the equation. Do you not think taxi companies do the same? Also requiring the business users of your product to follow certain rules is hardly unheard of, in fact it is fairly common.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
tsa posted:Precedent is on ubers side actually, as far more courts have ruled that taxi drivers can be classified as 1099s. CA is the lone nut almost all the time and they get struck down the most of any court I'm pretty sure. pizza companies for one. or have you never heard of a delivery driver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:pizza companies for one. or have you never heard of a delivery driver. The most obvious comparison to uber taxi drivers are... taxi drivers, which have already been ok'd to have 1099 in most states. You can buy a 100 dollar junker and delivery pizza. You cannot Uber with that, so the comparison is not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
tsa posted:Don't blame me for this, I'm trying my best. Many of the common complaints about taxi drivers are because they are independent contractors. The taxi didn't show up when you called? Well they picked up another fare and dispatch can't do anything because they're independent contractors. If you do that with uber they fire you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why would they? the driver is not at fault for a system error, the manufacturer is. why would you think insurance companies as they exist today would pay out for damages caused by software development failures of a major manufacturer? quote:it'd be easier to be sure if google wasn't so secretive about the program (how often does a human driver have to intervene during operation? when? why? etc.). that being said i'm a firm believer that companies will say things are peachy till poo poo hits the fan, so these small reports of incidents is enough to worry me about the program. quote:the sensors are a problem, but computing power is not. computing power is not a huge limiter on neural network performance (at least when you're not training a neural network). also, while adoption may be quick (and yes, neural nets are being adopted everywhere now) that doesn't mean the underlying technology will advance quickly or be able to surmount its fundamental problems. quote:uh, do you know how much space 3d data takes up? with data limits on cellular networks where they are right now, no, noone's car is going to be uploading 3d mapping data nightly (also the sensors for this are different than lidar and more involved, or google would just use the full live 3d data pulled from the road instead of precompiled data). also, adding a datalink to these cars opens up a whole nother can of worms as others have already mentioned. via posted:Control is the factor that people are talking about. Uber exercises a TON of control over how their drivers perform their jobs. Drivers are also fired for not accepting a certain percentage of fare requests, which also undermines their case for 1099. The asset (car) and its ownership is only half the equation. They could easily lose their most important court cases, end of story. ComradeCosmobot posted:The problem is that there will always be that first car encountering an unexpected road condition change, and that means there must be a robust fallback mechanism for those cases. And requiring a human to step in can be dangerous, because if you're promising that humans can kick back and relax instead of watching the road, they're not going to be aware of issues and be ready to step in to help. Never mind that you can't pitch it as a solution for taking drunk people home, since that drunk person still has to step in if something goes wrong, and usually the "something wrong" isn't exactly the sort of thing a drunk person could handle even on a good day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:pizza companies for one. or have you never heard of a delivery driver. A lot of delivery drivers are 1099s you condescending prick. BTW FedEx didn't "lose" the 1099 fight per se, all of FedEx Home Delivery/Ground is still 1099'd as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so, trains That is the long-term dream. Private car ownership becomes a niche hobby and there are public fleets of autonomous vehicles responding to smartphone hails.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
To reiterate though, what the IRS cares most about in all their rules regarding w2/1099 is whether you set your own hours and provide your own equipment. http://quickbooks.intuit.com/r/1099-w2-employee-calculator/ This handy form pegged them as "probably 1099".
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
tsa posted:To reiterate though, what the IRS cares most about in all their rules regarding w2/1099 is whether you set your own hours and provide your own equipment. Why not link directly to the government? The IRS posted:The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It'd be comparable if you had to be an accredited investor to purchase a house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Just wanted to note that this is basically true in parts of the bay area as "starter homes" are typically bought for over a million dollars, which by definition makes you an accredited investor. A bubble popping would only be a temporary reprieve, though. The bay area needs to overcome its fear of density (and good transit) to make a real dent in housing affordability. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
But density and transit means - you know - those people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Eh, a real bubble pop will do wonders for affordability if the Dot Com boom and its aftermath are a predictor, especially if there isn't a manic housing bubble directly afterwards as happened historically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Just wanted to note that this is basically true in parts of the bay area as "starter homes" are typically bought for over a million dollars, which by definition makes you an accredited investor. Note that the accredited investors buying their $1million homes in cash is not the housing bubble that popped, that one is continuing full steam ahead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Because owners of self-driving cars will pay them monthly insurance premiums to do so? Alternatively, maybe the car companies themselves will act as insurance providers for their cars. why would they? they're not responsible for a failure of a fully autonomous vehicle. hence why i said they'd have to drop to telling the person to take control in the event of an oncoming collision. quote:They are doing monthly reports now, although the reports are nowhere near exhaustive: https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ the august one shows that a little less than half of the miles driven by the car are driven by a human. not a good figure. quote:What fundamental problems are you referring to? neural networks have serious issues with new situations and with being able to be verified as working correctly. for the new situations/input thing, you can typically get by this by updating with new information, but the cars will probably not have the processing power OR data needed to further train themselves. most likely the best google will be able to do is collect sensor data and retrain the neural network and push the newly minted kernel to the cars, but that would be incredibly data intensive with today's cellular tech, and privacy advocates may not care for google grabbing all that data. for the verification problem, this is just a fundamental issue with complex neworks of decision making generated automatically. google car's neural network probably takes into account millions of pieces of information at each step of evaluation, and untangling the effects of weights and biases on that input, plus the weights and biases in the hidden layers and output layers would take a ton of study and research before they could accurately decode what exactly the neural network is doing. basically, neural networks are hard to verify for the same reason they're good, they're useful for teaching a computer to do something you don't know how to program it to do. quote:They don't have to upload everything they saw that day; they just have to upload significant deltas. And Google (or whoever) may be paying for the cellular connection in order to get the data (it's also possible that some cars may be able to just use wifi if they're parked close enough). even the deltas would be pretty large (i'd guess that just a few minutes of driving can easily generate a gig or more of 3d data). nearby wifi could work, but it's not really something you can rely on with cars. how many people are going to make certain their wifi network extends to their car? also, taking map data from customers would be ill advised, since a malicious person could just upload fake data/deltas. quote:Surely the fact that Uber drivers can work as few or as many hours as they want, whenever they want, factors in, does it not? I can't think of any types of work where regular employees get that level of flexibility. it does, but the fact that uber drivers can't set their own prices, can be fired at will, can have money taken back from them entirely at uber's whim, are required to return customer items without compensation, have to attend training, have to use certain cars, have to work frequently enough or they get fired, etc hurts their case. i linked the the california labor board's appeals decision earlier in the thread, so you can see what all is the issue with uber's 1099 classification. Radbot posted:A lot of delivery drivers are 1099s you condescending prick. pizza delivery? not once in the years i worked as a delivery driver did I work as a 1099. i'd imagine if there are 1099 drivers that are that way just because they supplied a car they'd be considered misclassified in the courts too. as for other delivery drivers, that may well be the case, but that may not be a good template to base what counts as a true 1099. 1099 misclassification is currently bad enough that the US department of labor has recently issued guidance to companies about who is and isn't a 1099, with this inside it: USDOL posted:Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is found in an increasing number of workplaces in the United States, in part reflecting larger restructuring of business organizations. ... The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) continues to receive numerous complaints from workers alleging misclassification, and the Department continues to bring successful enforcement actions against employers who misclassify workers. In addition, many states have acknowledged this problematic trend and have responded with legislation and misclassification task forces. you can read the whole thing here: http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/AI-2015_1.htm also, being forced to treat their delivery drivers as true 1099s instead of the hosed up hybrid they were trying to do is the definition of losing the misclassification fight. finally, I brought up the delivery driver point to show more that providing your own tools IS NOT a strong basis for classification as a 1099. tsa posted:The most obvious comparison to uber taxi drivers are... taxi drivers, which have already been ok'd to have 1099 in most states. You can buy a 100 dollar junker and delivery pizza. You cannot Uber with that, so the comparison is not accurate. actually, the fact that you cannot buy a 100 dollar junker and drive for uber is part of the reason why they're losing the classification fights with the california board of labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Thanks for citing a bunch of poo poo and confirming that there is no real legal teeth behind the fight against 1099 misclassification, unless of course you can provide successful cases that the DOL consulted on or any regulatory action they've taken on a wide scale to that effect. "Guidance" doesn't meet this standard BTW.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
tsa posted:I'm honestly a bit confused by the driverless car thing though, do people not realize they are already roadtesting this poo poo with normal traffic? And on pretty crazy roads as well, it's not like they can only have the thing go down the block or something. The conditions for driving in these environments are highly nonlinear. There is theory covering nonlinear controllers, but it's something the FAA doesn't have books on for regulating aircraft with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
tsa posted:To reiterate though, what the IRS cares most about in all their rules regarding w2/1099 is whether you set your own hours and provide your own equipment. that may be the case for tax purposes, but the US DOL has said that no, set your own hours and provide your own equipment is not enough: http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/AI-2015_1.htm specifically, since the uber drivers' work is an integral part of uber's business, they would probably not be classifiable as 1099 workers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that may be the case for tax purposes, but the US DOL has said that no, set your own hours and provide your own equipment is not enough: http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/AI-2015_1.htm ...and yet, Uber drives on
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Thanks for citing a bunch of poo poo and confirming that there is no real legal teeth behind the fight against 1099 misclassification, unless of course you can provide successful cases that the DOL consulted on or any regulatory action they've taken on a wide scale to that effect. "Guidance" doesn't meet this standard BTW. the DOL is very toothless at the moment thanks to a certain political party that gutted it. the legal teeth mostly seems to come from employee lawsuits, and uber has a ton of those to deal with at the moment. Radbot posted:...and yet, Uber drives on you are aware we are talking about a company that encourages their drivers to ignore local laws and pays tickets of drivers fined for illegal operation right? that uber still exists doesn't show that they are in the right legally i mean, ignoring the law until they can change it to benefit them is kind of uber's thing (and even then, they don't obey the changed laws lol) hell, it took having the heads of their french branch arrested to even get uber to obey the laws in france Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:...and yet, Uber drives on yeah, you might not have heard, but they're in court over that. apparently it's illegal!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, that's what I thought. Pretty interesting that I was told that "multiple courts" had shut down Uber's 1099ing of people when literally no such thing had happened. What part of "because it's illegal" don't you understand? There are distinct legal requirements that need to be met in order for someone to be considered an independent contractor. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors is something that has been around for decades, and Uber is not even close to being the first to think of it. In fact, FedEx just lost a lawsuit for doing exactly that. The reason companies don't do it more often is because although employment lawsuits are slow enough that they may be able to get away with it for a few years, when they finally do lose they will be forced to pay back wages to every employee for the entire period of time that they were misclassified, plus punitive fees on top of that. tsa posted:I'm honestly a bit confused by the driverless car thing though, do people not realize they are already roadtesting this poo poo with normal traffic? And on pretty crazy roads as well, it's not like they can only have the thing go down the block or something. Reading the details of the road-testing more closely than the media tends to is pretty eye-opening regarding the actual capabilities of the cars. For example, Google's report on the last accident a self-driving car was involved in suggests in passing that every single time a Google self-driving car approaches a crosswalk with pedestrians in it, the driver takes over and manually brakes. Google claims that according to their simulation data, the car would have braked just fine if left in automatic mode, but for some reason they don't seem keen on testing that with real pedestrians just yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What part of "because it's illegal" don't you understand? There are distinct legal requirements that need to be met in order for someone to be considered an independent contractor. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors is something that has been around for decades, and Uber is not even close to being the first to think of it. In fact, FedEx just lost a lawsuit for doing exactly that. The reason companies don't do it more often is because although employment lawsuits are slow enough that they may be able to get away with it for a few years, when they finally do lose they will be forced to pay back wages to every employee for the entire period of time that they were misclassified, plus punitive fees on top of that. would explain why nearly half all logged miles are in manual mode
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 21:13
|
|