Amazon bans its drivers from moving their own lips too much at work(freightwaves.com)
freightwaves.com
Amazon bans its drivers from moving their own lips too much at work
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/should-truckers-be-allowed-to-sing-along-with-the-radio
297 comments
I had a discussion with someone recently about how tech is enabling enforcement of laws/policies/etc at a scale never before possible and how that is a bad thing. The problem is that people can't conform perfectly and the tighter we force people to conform the more likely they are to 'break' and disconnect from society. Basically, if 'acceptable' is so narrowly defined that you can't achieve it 100% of the time, why try even a little to conform? In companies there is somewhat of an off-ramp, quit (which isn't always a realistic option obviously), but these enforcement abilities are invading areas that we can't avoid and that is a real problem.
Happines in society lives in the slack - that is, having rules, but not having them too tightly enforced and with a lot of leeway and context.
The modern mindset prevents that - it's beaurocratic, rigid and extremely oppressive. Technology just helps with that, but if you look at even posts online you'll see that it's the mindset that DEMANDS punishment for any rule breaking no matter how small and how stupid it is.
The modern mindset prevents that - it's beaurocratic, rigid and extremely oppressive. Technology just helps with that, but if you look at even posts online you'll see that it's the mindset that DEMANDS punishment for any rule breaking no matter how small and how stupid it is.
A lot of Americans are way too into punishment. It's seriously like a fetish for them. They tend to want the most extreme and sick punishments too, at least when they want any at all. It's not consistent.
They are outraged anytime they think "the wrong kind of person" might be getting away with something, while they are mostly fine when people they view as being "higher status" somehow gets away without punishment. They feel like the poor person shoplifting should be shot on sight, but the rich CEO who commits wage theft and illegally hides money in overseas tax havens is a smart business person who deserves to get away with it. I don't know if it's a mental sickness or a moral one, but it's gross and way too common in the US.
They are outraged anytime they think "the wrong kind of person" might be getting away with something, while they are mostly fine when people they view as being "higher status" somehow gets away without punishment. They feel like the poor person shoplifting should be shot on sight, but the rich CEO who commits wage theft and illegally hides money in overseas tax havens is a smart business person who deserves to get away with it. I don't know if it's a mental sickness or a moral one, but it's gross and way too common in the US.
This is a ridiculous generalization, and not a common way of thinking in the US. It's an extreme way of thinking that the majority of people would be ashamed of.
Do you have any non-fictional examples (by which I mean factual accounts rather than fictional portrayals) of these beliefs being generally accepted that we can actually have a conversation about? Even some personal anecdotes they could be a useful lens into your perspective?
Or is this an opinion born from listening to the media gone into overdrive during the current political season in the US? If that's what you're referring to, I think you may want to reexamine how much credulity you're giving those sources.
Do you have any non-fictional examples (by which I mean factual accounts rather than fictional portrayals) of these beliefs being generally accepted that we can actually have a conversation about? Even some personal anecdotes they could be a useful lens into your perspective?
Or is this an opinion born from listening to the media gone into overdrive during the current political season in the US? If that's what you're referring to, I think you may want to reexamine how much credulity you're giving those sources.
> Do you have any non-fictional examples (by which I mean factual accounts rather than fictional portrayals) of these beliefs being generally accepted
The entire US prison system for one example. Many people will see that prisoners are allowed to rape or beat each other, that they are tortured by solitary confinement, that they are often forced to eat rotten and maggot infested food, that they are used as slave labor by for profit corporations, and those people will insist that these are desirable features and they will even argue that prisoners have it too good/easy and that prison conditions should be worse.
There are countless comments all over the internet demonstrating this, I've even seen them on this website, but if you need evidence that a large number of the population feels that way you can look at the fact that those things continue to be allowed to exist and that reform efforts have been unsuccessful for decades.
The entire US prison system for one example. Many people will see that prisoners are allowed to rape or beat each other, that they are tortured by solitary confinement, that they are often forced to eat rotten and maggot infested food, that they are used as slave labor by for profit corporations, and those people will insist that these are desirable features and they will even argue that prisoners have it too good/easy and that prison conditions should be worse.
There are countless comments all over the internet demonstrating this, I've even seen them on this website, but if you need evidence that a large number of the population feels that way you can look at the fact that those things continue to be allowed to exist and that reform efforts have been unsuccessful for decades.
> Do you have any non-fictional examples
Probably not a good approach to take here because there are plenty of examples of everything he said. However there are simultaneously plenty of counterexamples. For example certain west coast cities where shop lifting has been de facto legalized due to non-enforcement rooted in the name of the social cause of the day.
Actually what he wrote appears to match a certain political stereotype in the US while being the opposite of the other one. So I guess it says more about his view of the US than anything else.
> > at least when they want any at all. It's not consistent.
This is because you are treating Americans as a monolithic group, failing to differentiate between various major clusters.
However I will say that at least
> > A lot of Americans are way too into punishment. It's seriously like a fetish for them.
matches what I see around me.
Probably not a good approach to take here because there are plenty of examples of everything he said. However there are simultaneously plenty of counterexamples. For example certain west coast cities where shop lifting has been de facto legalized due to non-enforcement rooted in the name of the social cause of the day.
Actually what he wrote appears to match a certain political stereotype in the US while being the opposite of the other one. So I guess it says more about his view of the US than anything else.
> > at least when they want any at all. It's not consistent.
This is because you are treating Americans as a monolithic group, failing to differentiate between various major clusters.
However I will say that at least
> > A lot of Americans are way too into punishment. It's seriously like a fetish for them.
matches what I see around me.
As an American who hungers for punishment, it's in fact a hunger driven by not punishing people (see SF, Chicago), allowing crime to persist, slaps on the wrist.
I've had my vehicle stolen, come time with the PROSECUTOR called me they tried to convince me to let them off the hook - like, is this the prosecutor speaking or the defense? That was DC. Never heard anything from that case, no justice provided.
And so that generates a certain hunger.
As far as our punishments, we are very lax. Look at illegal immigration in Singapore. The punishment is a literal beating with a stick. Not a soft beating, a leaves-lifelong-scars beating. Then, deportation. Imagine if the US did that. Singapore also has beatings for many other crimes. They are a "scrappy" country that probably couldn't afford room & board for prisoners, so beat and release it is, more economical. Not to mention anything to do with drugs is a death sentence. If the US believed in punishment like that there'd be a lot less problems. And that punishment system is very humane compared to Sharia law i.e. if you steal, you get your hands cut off. So I personally would support some extreme punishments by way of our punishments being too weak presently.
I've had my vehicle stolen, come time with the PROSECUTOR called me they tried to convince me to let them off the hook - like, is this the prosecutor speaking or the defense? That was DC. Never heard anything from that case, no justice provided.
And so that generates a certain hunger.
As far as our punishments, we are very lax. Look at illegal immigration in Singapore. The punishment is a literal beating with a stick. Not a soft beating, a leaves-lifelong-scars beating. Then, deportation. Imagine if the US did that. Singapore also has beatings for many other crimes. They are a "scrappy" country that probably couldn't afford room & board for prisoners, so beat and release it is, more economical. Not to mention anything to do with drugs is a death sentence. If the US believed in punishment like that there'd be a lot less problems. And that punishment system is very humane compared to Sharia law i.e. if you steal, you get your hands cut off. So I personally would support some extreme punishments by way of our punishments being too weak presently.
> Do you have any non-fictional examples
When George Floyd was killed news stations, independent journalists, and everyday people were trying to find any and all crimes he MAY have committed in the past that would justify his public execution.
As if any past crime could justify a public execution. This is the US, not revolutionary France.
When George Floyd was killed news stations, independent journalists, and everyday people were trying to find any and all crimes he MAY have committed in the past that would justify his public execution.
As if any past crime could justify a public execution. This is the US, not revolutionary France.
Europe always seemed to be tougher on crime than America. Like, you get caught doing or even dealing hard drugs in the states, 9 times out of 10 nothing will happen, especially in west coast cities. But do that in France (or more intense, Switzerland)? The police are plentiful and they come down fast so that small things (like shoplifting) don’t turn into big things. America is just weird, we actually are really permissive to a lot of smaller crime and aren’t putting someone in jail until they actually kill someone. It’s law and order but not really, definitely when compared to Europe.
It really is weird. Some little things are let go, but ultimately the "Land of the Free" locks more of it's own population behind bars than any other nation on Earth. A lot more. It's not even close. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcera...)
There are certain pockets where some drug offenses and low value shoplifting don't go as harshly punished, but others where they will destroy a person's entire life over it. Only a few states have legalized or decriminalized certain drugs. There are even states that legalized marijuana but left people behind bars who were locked up for doing what anyone outside of prison could now do freely.
Massive crimes tend to go unpunished or punished very lightly compared to minor crimes. Companies like Philips Respironics and Johnson & Johnson are literal serial killers who continued to sell products that they knew would give their customers cancer. They even tried to hide what they knew from the public so that more people would buy the dangerous products and die. Many people were involved in that, and there's no doubt about the guilt, but no one ever saw a single day behind bars for that.
Same with Purdue after they knowingly and intentionally hooked millions on deadly and addictive drugs, or the countless data breaches that go unpunished, or DuPont which managed to pollute the bodies of every last human and animal on the planet. Even the CrowdStrike incident (which resulted in multiple deaths) didn't end with a single person being punished to the extent that a person committing a minor crime would, for example, the purse snatcher who got 45 years in prison (https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/extreme-sentencing)
There are certain pockets where some drug offenses and low value shoplifting don't go as harshly punished, but others where they will destroy a person's entire life over it. Only a few states have legalized or decriminalized certain drugs. There are even states that legalized marijuana but left people behind bars who were locked up for doing what anyone outside of prison could now do freely.
Massive crimes tend to go unpunished or punished very lightly compared to minor crimes. Companies like Philips Respironics and Johnson & Johnson are literal serial killers who continued to sell products that they knew would give their customers cancer. They even tried to hide what they knew from the public so that more people would buy the dangerous products and die. Many people were involved in that, and there's no doubt about the guilt, but no one ever saw a single day behind bars for that.
Same with Purdue after they knowingly and intentionally hooked millions on deadly and addictive drugs, or the countless data breaches that go unpunished, or DuPont which managed to pollute the bodies of every last human and animal on the planet. Even the CrowdStrike incident (which resulted in multiple deaths) didn't end with a single person being punished to the extent that a person committing a minor crime would, for example, the purse snatcher who got 45 years in prison (https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/extreme-sentencing)
You know, I think we (the USA) are just messed up: we don't really have as much law and order that we think we do, and while countries like France focus on reforming people earlier by coming down hard on small crimes, we don't, and so we have a lot more people in prison for heavier crimes because we don't believe in fixing problems before they start.
I can't say about France. But in Switzerland, there is a "three strikes" system where if you are caught with drug, the first time you have a $100 fine; Then a higher fine, called "Day-fine" which is proportional to your income; Then maybe, just maybe, a jail sentence.
Comparing that to the US, where if you get caught dealing marijuana, you get a 5 years minimum sentence. That seems disproportionate to me. Maybe police in the US is more compassionate than some militants make it seem, and that's why they don't like catching people for that kind of crime?
Looking at Wikipedia[1] it appears the number of policemen per people is two times higher in the US than Switzerland, and about the same as France. If it is true that "the police are plentiful and they come down fast" in Switzerland (which I would not agree with), it is twice as true in the US.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Comparing that to the US, where if you get caught dealing marijuana, you get a 5 years minimum sentence. That seems disproportionate to me. Maybe police in the US is more compassionate than some militants make it seem, and that's why they don't like catching people for that kind of crime?
Looking at Wikipedia[1] it appears the number of policemen per people is two times higher in the US than Switzerland, and about the same as France. If it is true that "the police are plentiful and they come down fast" in Switzerland (which I would not agree with), it is twice as true in the US.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
> Comparing that to the US, where if you get caught dealing marijuana, you get a 5 years minimum sentence.
That is literally no state in the USA, discounting the states (like the one I live in) where marijuana is legal.
I had Switzerland swat come down hard on me just because I wasn't registered correctly in the apartment I was living in when I was staying in Lausanne. You don't screw around with swiss cops.
That is literally no state in the USA, discounting the states (like the one I live in) where marijuana is legal.
I had Switzerland swat come down hard on me just because I wasn't registered correctly in the apartment I was living in when I was staying in Lausanne. You don't screw around with swiss cops.
"slack" is the breeding ground for discrimination. Some races, genders, etc. will give more or less slack to each other.
immutable rules that apply to everyone reduces that discrimination (but obviously, the rules themselves can also be discriminatory)
immutable rules that apply to everyone reduces that discrimination (but obviously, the rules themselves can also be discriminatory)
Few weeks ago I took the bus; my bank card didn't work and I didn't have quite enough cash for a ticket. Bus driver took what I had and said it was okay. Closest ATM to where I live is about 7km.
This is the sort of basic compassion and humanity that needs to exist. Anything else would be cruel. This has always existed, and is increasingly made difficult by implementing systems that don't allow for these kind of exceptions. This is stripping regular normal people like that bus driver from their autonomy, and by extension, their humanity.
That the bus driver could possibly maybe perhaps be racist and wouldn't have extended that kindness if I had been non-white is an entirely separate matter. Forbidding kindness because some people could possibly maybe perhaps be racist is far far worse, and will affect everyone negatively.
This is the sort of basic compassion and humanity that needs to exist. Anything else would be cruel. This has always existed, and is increasingly made difficult by implementing systems that don't allow for these kind of exceptions. This is stripping regular normal people like that bus driver from their autonomy, and by extension, their humanity.
That the bus driver could possibly maybe perhaps be racist and wouldn't have extended that kindness if I had been non-white is an entirely separate matter. Forbidding kindness because some people could possibly maybe perhaps be racist is far far worse, and will affect everyone negatively.
In the UK there is a very large chain of shops called Timpsons. They cut keys, fix shoes, dry clean etc.
1) They are famous for employing people straight from prison
2) Their tills are just calculators, no electronic connections, no stock control
3) The staff are allowed to give out freebies. Fix shoes for free for people who look like they need it. They will give you free dry cleaning if you have a job interview
4) They still somehow manage to be profitable and growing. There are at least 3 in my town alone.
5) The MD is a great prison reform campaigner, who just got given the job of UK prisons minister.
6) The one kpi they measure is an index of employee happiness.
You can be successful without strict rules. He has only two.
Here is his book
HAPPY INDEX HB: Lessons in Upside-Down Management https://amzn.eu/d/1PEfVqc
1) They are famous for employing people straight from prison
2) Their tills are just calculators, no electronic connections, no stock control
3) The staff are allowed to give out freebies. Fix shoes for free for people who look like they need it. They will give you free dry cleaning if you have a job interview
4) They still somehow manage to be profitable and growing. There are at least 3 in my town alone.
5) The MD is a great prison reform campaigner, who just got given the job of UK prisons minister.
6) The one kpi they measure is an index of employee happiness.
You can be successful without strict rules. He has only two.
Here is his book
HAPPY INDEX HB: Lessons in Upside-Down Management https://amzn.eu/d/1PEfVqc
This is exactly right and one of the reasons why I hate computer software.
If you think about manual processes like standing in a line and talking to a clerk, you don’t necessarily have to start again from the beginning if there is a hiccup- the clerk can allow you to leave the line and go get the thing you need and then come back to the front, meanwhile serving other customers.
Computer software almost never even has this basic concession. If you spend 10 minutes filling out a form, and you get to a piece of information that is mandatory but you don’t have, the vast majority of systems will make you start over (sure you could just leave the window open but that logon session is gonna time out).
Flexibility makes the world a much more pleasant place even if it occasionally invites abuse. As a society we typically allow a small baseline of abuse in exchange for this flexibility, and we punish severe abuse to make sure the level stays tolerable.
But the other aspect is that flexibility is often pro-social. If you want flexibility you are strongly incentivized to be easy to deal with. If you are a jerk to everyone you will find a remarkable lack of flexibility.
If you think about manual processes like standing in a line and talking to a clerk, you don’t necessarily have to start again from the beginning if there is a hiccup- the clerk can allow you to leave the line and go get the thing you need and then come back to the front, meanwhile serving other customers.
Computer software almost never even has this basic concession. If you spend 10 minutes filling out a form, and you get to a piece of information that is mandatory but you don’t have, the vast majority of systems will make you start over (sure you could just leave the window open but that logon session is gonna time out).
Flexibility makes the world a much more pleasant place even if it occasionally invites abuse. As a society we typically allow a small baseline of abuse in exchange for this flexibility, and we punish severe abuse to make sure the level stays tolerable.
But the other aspect is that flexibility is often pro-social. If you want flexibility you are strongly incentivized to be easy to deal with. If you are a jerk to everyone you will find a remarkable lack of flexibility.
Conversely, Japan seems to get by fairly well without said slack whatsoever and a largely conformist society as a whole. Case in point, restaurant menus. Changing anything about your order is practically non-existent outside of maybe some Western chains. If it's not on the menu, you simply can't order it. All burgers come with tomatoes? Too bad. McDonald's Japan will not even sell you a large water. Even if you offer to pay full soda price, or even if you tell them to pour the soda out and then fill it with water (which is otherwise free), they simply refuse.
The same situation with the bus driver would also never happen, they could easily get fired for allowing it. Train conductors even have to apologize for being early. There's also a lot more open racism and discrimination in various ways (example: drinking bar admittance or apartment rentals) and in various parts of their society that goes completely unpunished.
The same situation with the bus driver would also never happen, they could easily get fired for allowing it. Train conductors even have to apologize for being early. There's also a lot more open racism and discrimination in various ways (example: drinking bar admittance or apartment rentals) and in various parts of their society that goes completely unpunished.
> Conversely, Japan seems to get by fairly well without said slack whatsoever and a largely conformist society as a whole
Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world
Their society comes at a heavy cost
Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world
Their society comes at a heavy cost
I'm skeptical their suicide rate is driven by fixed menus..
The USA has a relatively high suicide rate and is famously not conformist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
The USA has a relatively high suicide rate and is famously not conformist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
There is a LOT of slack in Japanese society. Using umbrellas while riding bicycles. Not wearing a helmet. Just two examples off the top of my head.
Lots of slack granted to foreigners who aren’t expected to know the rules. Lots of slack granted to Japanese people who are free to be normal, hikikomori, nerdy, NEET, sporty, etc. Slack to be and do whatever unless you bother someone.
It’s just slack you don’t really notice immediately unlike the menu stuff.
Lots of slack granted to foreigners who aren’t expected to know the rules. Lots of slack granted to Japanese people who are free to be normal, hikikomori, nerdy, NEET, sporty, etc. Slack to be and do whatever unless you bother someone.
It’s just slack you don’t really notice immediately unlike the menu stuff.
I wouldn't call those slack in the same sense of the word because rules aren't being bent or ignored. Helmets and umbrellas are things that are simply too widespread to have adequate enforcement on, same for seatbelts in most countries... so I don't consider that actively letting it happen or "slacking" the same way.
Foreigners might have some slack in some ways but in many ways it's quite the opposite... so there's both good and bad IMO.
"Free to be normal etc." I don't consider that slack either, that's just having a generic free society to me.
Foreigners might have some slack in some ways but in many ways it's quite the opposite... so there's both good and bad IMO.
"Free to be normal etc." I don't consider that slack either, that's just having a generic free society to me.
"extending kindness" is a cousin of corruption.
I think slack as well as rules can be systematically introduced to the system. Software lowers the cost to support "slack rules" (1 ride is free per year per human face).
I think slack as well as rules can be systematically introduced to the system. Software lowers the cost to support "slack rules" (1 ride is free per year per human face).
This is ridiculously complex, and thinking you can encode every possible eventuality in law or code is frankly not a serious suggestion. You need the "slack" exactly because it's just not feasible to do so. (Also: so many things can go wrong with your "facial detection" suggestion: internet not working, error in facial detection, broken equipment – never mind the privacy implications, or the cost of building and maintaining all of this, which would certainly be far far higher than any corruption, and still won't actually prevent corruption because drivers could still just let their mates pass without paying).
And yes, giving people autonomy also means they can do bad things. And that's something we can live with, and it's far better than forbidding them from doing good things. Your distrust of people borders on the misanthropic.
And yes, giving people autonomy also means they can do bad things. And that's something we can live with, and it's far better than forbidding them from doing good things. Your distrust of people borders on the misanthropic.
>This is ridiculously complex, and thinking you can encode every possible eventuality in law or code is frankly not a serious suggestion.
This actually sounds interesting and I would be down to help pull off such a Herculean task.
This actually sounds interesting and I would be down to help pull off such a Herculean task.
I think the point is that this is neither possible, nor is it sensible. Machine systems supervising humans is not human, it is Skynet.
I mean yes, it'd be a safe job to have for decades. You could get paid literally doing nothing.
But also no, this is lunacy. Not only 'itake would like to strip people of their autonomy, they'd also like to strip them from their capacity to do good? That's wishing us a fate worse than death.
Not that it's possible in practice anyway. It's a AGI-complete problem, and any lesser attempts are... well wake me up when any software system implements exceptions and slack around their rigid rules.
But also no, this is lunacy. Not only 'itake would like to strip people of their autonomy, they'd also like to strip them from their capacity to do good? That's wishing us a fate worse than death.
Not that it's possible in practice anyway. It's a AGI-complete problem, and any lesser attempts are... well wake me up when any software system implements exceptions and slack around their rigid rules.
To truly disrupt the outdated notion of 'kindness' and to introduce the sorts of efficiencies only a market can deliver you really need VC-funded Kindness As A Service.
Ideally with some LLM tech (though I'm old enough to remember when Blockchain would have solved this problem)
/s
Ideally with some LLM tech (though I'm old enough to remember when Blockchain would have solved this problem)
/s
Yep, we've had great luck with zero-tolerance laws. Why do we even need judges or juries; the law is the law and if you step one millimeter over the line, straight to jail.
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8101289/school-discipline-race
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8101289/school-discipline-race
> Black students are three times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students
Are Black 3x more likely to break to rules or do white students get 3x more slack?
Are Black 3x more likely to break to rules or do white students get 3x more slack?
In my, somewhat limited experience it's that predominantly black schools have far more rule breaking AND slack, but it eventually leans to such egregious offenses that severe punishment results. Everyday common occurrences at black schools would be practically unheard of and result in immediate suspensions at white schools but wouldn't even be acknowledged.
[deleted]
Yep, you're demonstrating exactly the problem GP was talking about.
These demands to eliminate any possibility of discrimination are shutting down institutions and gridlocking the society.
There's always someone that'll feel they're disadvantaged somehow - not just because of race or gender (the big, flashy topics), but also because the district they live in, or some minor accident, or any other reason. You try to equalize all that, you get systems that are hell to live through and don't even give you much for the trouble.
Also, you can hardly talk about kindness or other good traits and behaviors, in a world where you eliminate all space for showing it. Without slack, kindness is meaningless.
These demands to eliminate any possibility of discrimination are shutting down institutions and gridlocking the society.
There's always someone that'll feel they're disadvantaged somehow - not just because of race or gender (the big, flashy topics), but also because the district they live in, or some minor accident, or any other reason. You try to equalize all that, you get systems that are hell to live through and don't even give you much for the trouble.
Also, you can hardly talk about kindness or other good traits and behaviors, in a world where you eliminate all space for showing it. Without slack, kindness is meaningless.
Rules won't help you with discrimination. You can't write rules that won't be weaponized against you no matter how authoritarian you get.
The trick to fixing discrimination is to have people not wish to discriminate and exert social pressure on others who might try. Trying to box in people who do evil with more bureaucracy and tighter and tighter rules is not sane.
Rules can only ever be effective if they reflect the culture of a community.
The trick to fixing discrimination is to have people not wish to discriminate and exert social pressure on others who might try. Trying to box in people who do evil with more bureaucracy and tighter and tighter rules is not sane.
Rules can only ever be effective if they reflect the culture of a community.
Unfortunately, I think that uncompromising, inflexible rules are ultimately not a sustainable solution to that problem, either. Even when you're actively trying not to be discriminatory when writing such rules, you're nearly guaranteed to either make them so broad that they catch people who are genuinely doing nothing wrong or so narrow as to fail to catch a lot of obviously bad cases.
No; the long-term solution, hard as it is, is to gradually push society toward a point where that sort of systemic discrimination is viewed near-universally as anathema to justice and to the health of the society as a whole, and make more rules of the type where a clear principle is outlined, a rule is stated with the principle as its foundation, and the people identifying and enforcing rule violations are assumed to be able to use reasonable human judgement.
No; the long-term solution, hard as it is, is to gradually push society toward a point where that sort of systemic discrimination is viewed near-universally as anathema to justice and to the health of the society as a whole, and make more rules of the type where a clear principle is outlined, a rule is stated with the principle as its foundation, and the people identifying and enforcing rule violations are assumed to be able to use reasonable human judgement.
You are correct, but we would have to dramatically decrease the number of rules, which would be great but appears to be a non-starter with just about everyone who has a say.
You would have to dispense with a lot of rules that seem like obviously good things because of the unintended consequences.
You would have to dispense with a lot of rules that seem like obviously good things because of the unintended consequences.
Immutable rules can’t be perfect and are always at risk of being weaponized by whoever is in power at the time.
Slack and ironically strict enforcement are both abused like crazy by managers to manipulate/hit on female employees in low wage jobs.
It's like rolling stops at stop signs, a majority of people do it, it's socially accepted! Could we use technology to prevent it? Yes. Should we? I'd hope not.
Do you know how many times I've almost been hit by a car doing a rolling stop while running? We should absolutely use technology to prevent this.
I'm honestly not convinced by this line of reasoning at all. Most laws exist for a reason and should be followed. Or if they're bad laws, they should be changed.
I'm honestly not convinced by this line of reasoning at all. Most laws exist for a reason and should be followed. Or if they're bad laws, they should be changed.
The pressure on the law to break it -- compared to stop lights, where almost no one does -- does reveal that there is something bad about the law. The positive effects are:
- encourage turn taking
- help pedestrians in the 1% of urban areas where there actually are any
- bright line rule that's easy for police to enforce
- keep people from getting complacent about cross traffic
The negative effects are
- a complete stop takes more time than is needed to ensure the intersection is clear, which is a constant daily time drain and a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea.
Being lax on the rolling stops and just doing enforcement around those busy areas and high-speed stop sign ignorers seems like a nice equilibrium to keep the good effects and minimize the bad ones. Maybe nicer than we could achieve by letting the kind of people who participate in politics revisit the issue.
Do you live in an urban area so dense that you can't wait for cars to clear the intersection before you run out in front?
- encourage turn taking
- help pedestrians in the 1% of urban areas where there actually are any
- bright line rule that's easy for police to enforce
- keep people from getting complacent about cross traffic
The negative effects are
- a complete stop takes more time than is needed to ensure the intersection is clear, which is a constant daily time drain and a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea.
Being lax on the rolling stops and just doing enforcement around those busy areas and high-speed stop sign ignorers seems like a nice equilibrium to keep the good effects and minimize the bad ones. Maybe nicer than we could achieve by letting the kind of people who participate in politics revisit the issue.
Do you live in an urban area so dense that you can't wait for cars to clear the intersection before you run out in front?
> Do you live in an urban area so dense that you can't wait for cars to clear the intersection before you run out in front?
Every now and then I bump into someone like this who realizes that they're breaking the law and in the wrong, then tries to tell me I should still change my behaviour because they might kill me anyway.
Every now and then I bump into someone like this who realizes that they're breaking the law and in the wrong, then tries to tell me I should still change my behaviour because they might kill me anyway.
I bet you do bump into them, by not taking common precautions to keep out of their way. But I was always trained to behave as though cars couldn't see me, not because they might decide to break the law but just because you never know.
It's striking to me that the difference for you between "my time is too important to stop" and "I was always trained to stop anyway" is just whether it's you or someone else that would get hurt from your actions.
No, I think stop signs are a horrible design flaw that we have to live with, and rolling stops are the least bad way to work around that urban design flaw.
It is asinine to force arbitrary stops at random intersections that have no time-of-day or traffic sensitivity (i.e. am I alone on the roads at 2AM, or are children walking to school at 8AM). Or to put them at intersections with clear cross visibility (what exactly is the stop for?). Or the 4-way stop sign mess.
It is totally reasonable to require full stops in the latter case, but silly in the former. Unfortunately, stop signs make no distinction between the two.
The only reason to fully stop at stop signs is actually the a pillar / b pillar blind spots, or obstructed view from the road. If you were hypothetically driving an open top car in an open neighborhood (or a motorcycle, bike, scooter, moped), there's no new "information" you'll gain by fully stopping rather than slowing down (where as if you have an A/B pillar blind spot, a full stop can give someone time to appear from behind it).
See also: "Stop Signs suck and we should get rid of them" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM&t=1s
It is asinine to force arbitrary stops at random intersections that have no time-of-day or traffic sensitivity (i.e. am I alone on the roads at 2AM, or are children walking to school at 8AM). Or to put them at intersections with clear cross visibility (what exactly is the stop for?). Or the 4-way stop sign mess.
It is totally reasonable to require full stops in the latter case, but silly in the former. Unfortunately, stop signs make no distinction between the two.
The only reason to fully stop at stop signs is actually the a pillar / b pillar blind spots, or obstructed view from the road. If you were hypothetically driving an open top car in an open neighborhood (or a motorcycle, bike, scooter, moped), there's no new "information" you'll gain by fully stopping rather than slowing down (where as if you have an A/B pillar blind spot, a full stop can give someone time to appear from behind it).
See also: "Stop Signs suck and we should get rid of them" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM&t=1s
> - a complete stop takes more time than is needed to ensure the intersection is clear, which is a constant daily time drain and a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea.
A minor inconvenience to increase safety. It's also a time drain that your speed is limited but you see clearly the benefits of that, you are just against completely stopping because of a perceived sense of lost efficiency with your time.
> Being lax on the rolling stops and just doing enforcement around those busy areas and high-speed stop sign ignorers seems like a nice equilibrium to keep the good effects and minimize the bad ones.
This is what creates complacency over time, a driver gets used on doing rolling stops because they judge the intersections they cross as not so busy, over time they keep pushing that and normalising it, until complacency sets in and one day they do a rolling stop at the wrong time/place. If one is strict about doing it as often as possible it just becomes second nature and not a conscious decision.
It's unfortunate that America needs to drive so much and educate its drivers so little, traffic in the USA is just a little bit better than places like Brazil, and absolutely nowhere close to the civilised traffic I experiece in Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, etc.
Germany and its very car-centric society does a much better job on educating responsible drivers than the USA.
A minor inconvenience to increase safety. It's also a time drain that your speed is limited but you see clearly the benefits of that, you are just against completely stopping because of a perceived sense of lost efficiency with your time.
> Being lax on the rolling stops and just doing enforcement around those busy areas and high-speed stop sign ignorers seems like a nice equilibrium to keep the good effects and minimize the bad ones.
This is what creates complacency over time, a driver gets used on doing rolling stops because they judge the intersections they cross as not so busy, over time they keep pushing that and normalising it, until complacency sets in and one day they do a rolling stop at the wrong time/place. If one is strict about doing it as often as possible it just becomes second nature and not a conscious decision.
It's unfortunate that America needs to drive so much and educate its drivers so little, traffic in the USA is just a little bit better than places like Brazil, and absolutely nowhere close to the civilised traffic I experiece in Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, etc.
Germany and its very car-centric society does a much better job on educating responsible drivers than the USA.
> .. a reminder that you are following the rule because others will punish you and not because it's a good idea.
It's a bad idea according to you. Do you have actual data that proves rolling stop provides sufficient utility that a stop sign is supposed to provide?
There does not exist a single society today or in history where every single member of the said society agrees with every single rule governing them. If you are only prevented from following your society's various rules because of 'fear of punishment' then you sir are a frustrated anti-social. It's not supposed to be because of "fear".
> time drain
Ridiculous. Traffic safety is more important that your illusory 'loss' of whatever handful of minutes per day.
It's a bad idea according to you. Do you have actual data that proves rolling stop provides sufficient utility that a stop sign is supposed to provide?
There does not exist a single society today or in history where every single member of the said society agrees with every single rule governing them. If you are only prevented from following your society's various rules because of 'fear of punishment' then you sir are a frustrated anti-social. It's not supposed to be because of "fear".
> time drain
Ridiculous. Traffic safety is more important that your illusory 'loss' of whatever handful of minutes per day.
What? Your time is not more important than my life. Pedestrian deaths are rapidly thanks to this kind of mentality.
Near is a high visibility T junction with 3 stop signs. A couple of blocks down the smaller street (off the main street) is a school, and the junction is where some kids cross. There is ALWAYS a crossing guard with a giant hand held stop sign and reflective vest that will walk out into the junction so the kids can cross. This happens roughly 4 hours a day (2 in morning, 2 in mid afternoon) for, usually, 5 days a week, about ~9 months a year.
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to even stop at the stop sign during the __off hours__ when on the main road with the right-a-way. It shouldn't even be there if not for school hours. There are 2 main 4-way crossings a few streets to either side of the main junction for anyone wanting to cross at a cross walk in a sleepy suburb on the outer edge of a metro area. A rolling stop is more than generous at that time.
There is absolutely no reason what so ever to even stop at the stop sign during the __off hours__ when on the main road with the right-a-way. It shouldn't even be there if not for school hours. There are 2 main 4-way crossings a few streets to either side of the main junction for anyone wanting to cross at a cross walk in a sleepy suburb on the outer edge of a metro area. A rolling stop is more than generous at that time.
My experience of driving in the US is that stop signs are used a lot, so people get numb and treat them as Give Way/Yield signs (where you don't need to come to a dead stop, but must give way to any oncoming traffic).
In the UK, Stop signs are only used when there is limited visibility/blind corners, so if you see one, you know that you definitely need to stop. Once you step and creep forward, you'll realise why a stop sign was needed.
In the UK, Stop signs are only used when there is limited visibility/blind corners, so if you see one, you know that you definitely need to stop. Once you step and creep forward, you'll realise why a stop sign was needed.
Do you know how many times I've almost won the Superbowl? And the Stanley Cup?
AEB is the system you're asking for and it's slowly rolling out.
AEB is the system you're asking for and it's slowly rolling out.
> Do you know how many times I've almost been hit by a car doing a rolling stop while running? We should absolutely use technology to prevent this.
Technology that enforces full stops at every stop sign won't be smarter than human drivers. It won't know if you're not stopping because you need to get away from a tornado/serial killer/car accident/literally any other hazard, or you need to rush through in order to get a hospital/save a life/keep your bus above a certain speed or else it will explode/etc.
Brain-dead enforcement of any rule is a disaster waiting to happen. Life is complicated and full of edge cases. People should be allowed to use their brains when it comes to operating cars just like they should be punished when they fail to. Don't be so quick to give up everyone's freedom just so that you can feel a little more safe when jogging.
Technology that enforces full stops at every stop sign won't be smarter than human drivers. It won't know if you're not stopping because you need to get away from a tornado/serial killer/car accident/literally any other hazard, or you need to rush through in order to get a hospital/save a life/keep your bus above a certain speed or else it will explode/etc.
Brain-dead enforcement of any rule is a disaster waiting to happen. Life is complicated and full of edge cases. People should be allowed to use their brains when it comes to operating cars just like they should be punished when they fail to. Don't be so quick to give up everyone's freedom just so that you can feel a little more safe when jogging.
It's hard to drive in the US without rolling at stop sign because they are everywhere. EU and the rest of the world use two different signs: yield and stop. Yield tells that you need to give way but can go without stopping if it is safe and stop tells you must stop (used rarely, mostly in places with poor view).
IMHO yield sign is a better solution then lax enforcement of stop signs. And all-way stop can be replaced by roundabouts and mini roundabouts (I'm not a fan of high traffic multi-lane roundabouts but in places with low traffic, where all-way stops usually are used they work great).
IMHO yield sign is a better solution then lax enforcement of stop signs. And all-way stop can be replaced by roundabouts and mini roundabouts (I'm not a fan of high traffic multi-lane roundabouts but in places with low traffic, where all-way stops usually are used they work great).
The US has yield signs. The yield sign was in fact invented in the US. The first one in the world was installed in Tulsa Oklahoma in the 50s.
Then why they are so rare on the road compare to stop signs? I haven’t seen stats but my impression that in EU/UK there are at least 10x more yield signs than stop signs.
Because the US is obsessed with 3 and 4 way stops whenever they can (as opposed to a roundabout).
It's trivial to make a roundabout have yield signs. Some roads here are like that, where every 4-way intersection of stop signs is now a yield + roundabout. You can theoretically get all the way through without stopping.
But you can't have yields at a 4-way stop. Connecting 2 perpendicular roads at low speed is an incredibly common problem - the US chooses to do it in a stupid way.
It's trivial to make a roundabout have yield signs. Some roads here are like that, where every 4-way intersection of stop signs is now a yield + roundabout. You can theoretically get all the way through without stopping.
But you can't have yields at a 4-way stop. Connecting 2 perpendicular roads at low speed is an incredibly common problem - the US chooses to do it in a stupid way.
It's actually incredibly easy. There's a pedal called the brake, you apply pressure to it until your car comes to a complete stop.
I'm not convinced that coming to a complete stop is any safer than just slowing to 2-3 mph before continuing.
The real danger is from proceeding without looking around, but there's no way to enforce looking around. Coming to a complete stop doesn't change it. Someone who's going to proceed without giving proper attention is going to do so whether or not they come to a complete stop.
The real danger is from proceeding without looking around, but there's no way to enforce looking around. Coming to a complete stop doesn't change it. Someone who's going to proceed without giving proper attention is going to do so whether or not they come to a complete stop.
Should we use technology to prevent it? YES
Why do people roll through stop signs? Complaints about acceleration and uselessness.
I easily see two fixes for acceleration. Make stopping and starting less jarring on occupants and reduce the need for the driver to switch from gas to brake pedals.
Uselessness can be resolved by a number of ways, make the area around the stop more open for better visibility, but we can definitely use technology to prevent people from rolling through stop signs. Set up sensors so that only one roadway has an active stop sign, when the sensors detect a single vehicle the stop sign on their way can be disabled. When the sensors detect intersecting vehicles both stop signs are activated.
Why do people roll through stop signs? Complaints about acceleration and uselessness.
I easily see two fixes for acceleration. Make stopping and starting less jarring on occupants and reduce the need for the driver to switch from gas to brake pedals.
Uselessness can be resolved by a number of ways, make the area around the stop more open for better visibility, but we can definitely use technology to prevent people from rolling through stop signs. Set up sensors so that only one roadway has an active stop sign, when the sensors detect a single vehicle the stop sign on their way can be disabled. When the sensors detect intersecting vehicles both stop signs are activated.
> Why do people roll through stop signs?
Because coming to full and complete stop at a four way intersection when the area you are in is entirely deserted and there are zero other cars or people is stupid. We know why stop signs exist. They are very useful when there are other cars and people around. They keep people's behavior predictable and that makes us safer. They are pointless when nobody else is around though. It's still good to slow down just to be safe, but there's no reason to come to a full stop.
Because coming to full and complete stop at a four way intersection when the area you are in is entirely deserted and there are zero other cars or people is stupid. We know why stop signs exist. They are very useful when there are other cars and people around. They keep people's behavior predictable and that makes us safer. They are pointless when nobody else is around though. It's still good to slow down just to be safe, but there's no reason to come to a full stop.
I see people rolling through stop signs when pedestrians and o5er cars are plentiful. Obviously the way people drive has changed in the last 20 years, especially since police aren’t really writing tickets anymore.
>They are pointless when nobody else is around though. It's still good to slow down just to be safe, but there's no reason to come to a full stop.
And yet people still get hit rolling through stop signs.
And yet people still get hit rolling through stop signs.
> And yet people still get hit rolling through stop signs.
Not when there aren't any other people around they don't.
Stop signs are good things to follow when they are needed, and pointless to follow when they aren't. People who roll through when they shouldn't are just as bad as people who don't stop or slow down at all and laws do and should exist to punish them. There's no need for enforcement in all cases though. Consideration of context is justice. Brain-dead enforcement regardless of circumstance or outcome is just oppression.
Not when there aren't any other people around they don't.
Stop signs are good things to follow when they are needed, and pointless to follow when they aren't. People who roll through when they shouldn't are just as bad as people who don't stop or slow down at all and laws do and should exist to punish them. There's no need for enforcement in all cases though. Consideration of context is justice. Brain-dead enforcement regardless of circumstance or outcome is just oppression.
No, they get hit when the driver thinks there aren’t other people around.
That's what slowing to a crawl is supposed to minimize. Not even coming to a full stop can prevent all accidents. There's no cure for the the blind/drunk/distracted/texting driver. They'll change lanes into other cars on a road with no stop signs, and on roads with them they can fail to see the sign entirely.
But if you've stopped and turned your head to look down both sides of the street instead of relying on your peripherals that suck at detecting changes in motion, you've done yourself a huge service in not getting hit.
Traffic circles work wonders for these behaviors.
depends if you live in neighbor hood laid out on a grid like I happen to, having a 4 way stop at every cross street on the grid is annoying and lead to starting and stopping every 200-150 feet it's stupid as there is virtually no traffic. but building a roundabout in the middle of every one of those intersections would be massive overkill and waste of space as it would take out each corner house on said grid. the best approach would be a low speed limit replace the stop signs with yield sign and turn the streets into alternating one-ways so you only have to check one direction for on coming traffic at each intersection
Interestingly enough, I lived in a part of Quebec City called Limoilou which is laid out exactly like you describe. Low speed limit, alternating one ways, very few stop signs. I think there are some boroughs in NYC that are like that as well.
I have turned the wrong way down a one way street one too many times, even after living there for several years:) surprisingly easy to do when not on GPS (not all one ways are properly marked)
I have turned the wrong way down a one way street one too many times, even after living there for several years:) surprisingly easy to do when not on GPS (not all one ways are properly marked)
A small round about, which is really just a traffic calming circle, can work wonders for neighborhood speeding. I prefer them to speed bumps anyways.
I'd argue we should convert almost all stop signs with YIELD signs. Locations that actually require a STOP should probably be enforced.
I find whole concept of 4-way stop extremely weird. Either you have yield sign or you have equal crossing. STOP signs are only used in cases where there is a reason, like poor visibility or greatly different speeds.
Automated speed enforcement cameras make me want to don a mask and sneak out at night with a drill and a can of spray foam.
A portable bandsaw, and discovered by the Brits (they're covertly fighting back against some pretty invasive automated monitoring), also makes short work of metal poles.
Why wouldn't you direct this same sense of vigilante justice toward people who speed excessively and hurt other people?
Speeding does happen and it does kill people - https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
Just to be clear, I don't like red light cameras either, but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers?
Speeding does happen and it does kill people - https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
Just to be clear, I don't like red light cameras either, but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers?
I take a different attitude about speeding.
I don't think it's speeding itself that causes crashes, but aggressive driving, and speed merely exacerbates aggressive driving. It is possible to speed without being aggressive, and in those scenarios, I don't consider speed to be a significant risk.
The German Autobahn have HALF the driver fatality rate as USA highways despite have wide sections with no speed limits.
Speed is fine. Keep right except when passing and you won't force faster drivers to constantly change lanes to get around you.
I don't think it's speeding itself that causes crashes, but aggressive driving, and speed merely exacerbates aggressive driving. It is possible to speed without being aggressive, and in those scenarios, I don't consider speed to be a significant risk.
The German Autobahn have HALF the driver fatality rate as USA highways despite have wide sections with no speed limits.
Speed is fine. Keep right except when passing and you won't force faster drivers to constantly change lanes to get around you.
> but if you are gonna put on a mask and fuck some shit up, why don't you wait outside of a bar and wait for drunk drivers?
because one is damaging equipment that shouldn't exist, and the other involves ambushing a person on baseless suspicion. Presumably by force, given we're trying to fuck some shit up...
I'm going to pretend to ignore the whataboutism distraction
because one is damaging equipment that shouldn't exist, and the other involves ambushing a person on baseless suspicion. Presumably by force, given we're trying to fuck some shit up...
I'm going to pretend to ignore the whataboutism distraction
Try this on as a thought experiment: stopping drunk driving (including via physical force) is community self defense. Someone choosing to drive while intoxicated is an assault against everyone else in the area, and it is morally acceptable to use various means, including violence, to prevent that behavior.
> Try this on as a thought experiment:
this isn't a thought experiment, it's a simple rhetorical argument. But does calling it a thought experiment as if it was something wearable normally work?
But to answer your argument, I already agree that it's ethical to use force, even if it rises to the level that causes harm. But only if you're correct that you're preventing impaired driving. Humans are famously bad at making solo judgments like this to the standard I'd require to consider it acceptable. I wont advocate for someone to do something when I believe a negative outcome is more likely than a positive result.
But given violence means physical force with the intent to cause harm, I strongly disagree that the ethical way to behave involves intentionally causing injury. unintentional injury as an unfortunate byproduct is permissible in the is permissible in the "thought experiment" you propose, but only when it is actively avoided never when it's intentional.
I.e. I think you meant to say physical force not violence.
this isn't a thought experiment, it's a simple rhetorical argument. But does calling it a thought experiment as if it was something wearable normally work?
But to answer your argument, I already agree that it's ethical to use force, even if it rises to the level that causes harm. But only if you're correct that you're preventing impaired driving. Humans are famously bad at making solo judgments like this to the standard I'd require to consider it acceptable. I wont advocate for someone to do something when I believe a negative outcome is more likely than a positive result.
But given violence means physical force with the intent to cause harm, I strongly disagree that the ethical way to behave involves intentionally causing injury. unintentional injury as an unfortunate byproduct is permissible in the is permissible in the "thought experiment" you propose, but only when it is actively avoided never when it's intentional.
I.e. I think you meant to say physical force not violence.
Alternatively, you could just drive slower
Driving is the most dangerous thing we all do on a regular basis. You do not own the roads, you are not the center of the universe. Drive safely and try giving a crap about other people.
Not giving ideas but a paintball gun works wonders.
There are stop-sign cameras in Washington, DC, and there is a lot of complaining about them on the neighborhood listserv now and then.
Well yeah, it'd be extremely myopic to invent technology to solve this intermediary problem of rolling stops, rather than addressing the outcome via technology which we do all the time.
In addition to standard car safety features, there are cars that will engage breaks automatically if they detect imminent and unavoidable collision.
Also we have technology like traffic lights and red light cameras if stop signs are not good enough for the scale.
In the case of this Amazon thing, what I hope is that the inefficiency of it strangles itself to death. For example, if I tried to start a restaurant and I decided that the people working in the kitchen had to keep their mouth closed or get fired, then my restaurant would quickly go out of business.
In addition to standard car safety features, there are cars that will engage breaks automatically if they detect imminent and unavoidable collision.
Also we have technology like traffic lights and red light cameras if stop signs are not good enough for the scale.
In the case of this Amazon thing, what I hope is that the inefficiency of it strangles itself to death. For example, if I tried to start a restaurant and I decided that the people working in the kitchen had to keep their mouth closed or get fired, then my restaurant would quickly go out of business.
> The modern mindset prevents that - it's beaurocratic, rigid and extremely oppressive
I don't think it prevents it, the modern mindset encourages more individualism, individualism is the final frontier of slack
> that DEMANDS punishment for any rule breaking no matter how small and how stupid it is
I think small and stupid is sort of the point. And I don't think there's anything modern about it. In the middle ages, people were getting burned at the stake over super niche differences in Christian doctrine
I don't think it prevents it, the modern mindset encourages more individualism, individualism is the final frontier of slack
> that DEMANDS punishment for any rule breaking no matter how small and how stupid it is
I think small and stupid is sort of the point. And I don't think there's anything modern about it. In the middle ages, people were getting burned at the stake over super niche differences in Christian doctrine
[deleted]
Imho more worrisome is that governments can find easy justification to lock up or punish everyone “at will”; because HAVING data to jail someone doesn’t mean the government will uniformly ACT on it :-) they can be picky - and will be as we are seeing across Europe these days/months/years. Certain laws and offenders are rigorously enforced; others not so much…
Oh yes, we did learn this lesson in eastern Europe, didn't we? I guess our friends across the Atlantic will need to torture a generation to learn as well.
My current best guess, for the last decade, is that we will have to radically decriminalise things and reduce punishments for the remaining crimes.
If you catch every road traffic offence, the only people who will still have a licence will be people like me who don't have a car.
If the UK tried to fully enforce its drug laws, it would bankrupt itself with all the extra prisons it would have to build.
Even if the governments of the world don't care to use surveillance tech to catch all criminality, blackmailers will use it because it's already cheap and getting cheaper, which forces the governments to change anyway. (Though perhaps GenAI will get good enough fast enough that any image will be assumed fake by default).
But I really do mean radical decriminalisation (civil law offences are not criminal offences) not merely the illustrations of decriminalising hard drugs and reducing the penalties for speeding.
If you catch every road traffic offence, the only people who will still have a licence will be people like me who don't have a car.
If the UK tried to fully enforce its drug laws, it would bankrupt itself with all the extra prisons it would have to build.
Even if the governments of the world don't care to use surveillance tech to catch all criminality, blackmailers will use it because it's already cheap and getting cheaper, which forces the governments to change anyway. (Though perhaps GenAI will get good enough fast enough that any image will be assumed fake by default).
But I really do mean radical decriminalisation (civil law offences are not criminal offences) not merely the illustrations of decriminalising hard drugs and reducing the penalties for speeding.
Or maybe not - and you just punish the people that don’t agree with your political stance. It’s a bit surprising imho to see how people get locked up in UK for 15 months over Facebook posts whereas offenses/violations/crimes that may justify actual jail time go unpunished. If everyone could get punished at any time - governments may be very picky about WHOM to punish.
Indeed, any government can go down a very dark path very easily and very quickly if they let themselves.
If they go down the route of "everyone is guilty, let's find out what for when they cause problems for the elite", it's often (but not always) followed by rebellion and uprising — I think not usually the people themselves (though that can happen) but rather because the elite don't necessarily agree with each other and build factions of supporters. Even the Stasi fell, despite all their efforts.
When failure can be graceful instead of painful, I think that's better. I hope I'm right and that's not just wishful thinking.
If they go down the route of "everyone is guilty, let's find out what for when they cause problems for the elite", it's often (but not always) followed by rebellion and uprising — I think not usually the people themselves (though that can happen) but rather because the elite don't necessarily agree with each other and build factions of supporters. Even the Stasi fell, despite all their efforts.
When failure can be graceful instead of painful, I think that's better. I hope I'm right and that's not just wishful thinking.
how would blackmailers have any better luck than anyone else weaponizing the laws the cops often wont even go after criminals when you hand them video evidence and the criminals location found via tracking device on the stolen property.
Blackmail is about a threat to publish information that could damage reputation — criminal conduct would be such information, especially for an otherwise "upstanding citizen".
If they get as far as actually publishing whatever it was, that means they never got paid.
The UK also allows private prosecution, but that's going to be more of "personal vendettas between non-elites also get prosecuted" rather than "blackmail" given the latter is also a crime.
If they get as far as actually publishing whatever it was, that means they never got paid.
The UK also allows private prosecution, but that's going to be more of "personal vendettas between non-elites also get prosecuted" rather than "blackmail" given the latter is also a crime.
Scale and cost are definitely neglected aspects of these decisions.
I think this is a huge issue with respect to both enforcement of the law as well as surveillance and privacy. Sure, in the 1960s, a cop could sit on the side of the road with binoculars outside of town and watch for a half dozen blacklisted plate numbers associated with known criminal suspects. But today, automated license plate readers can do that 24/7/365 on every major road into and out of an entire city, tracking millions of people with an opex of just a couple kilowatts of compute.
When laws and norms written before computers say that certain activities are searches of private information and require warrants, while other activities are just observation of public information like your face and license plate, that implicitly granted a high probability of anonymity and privacy because of the cost of that observation and low value of the information relative to its cost. In the past couple of decades, those observations have become so much cheaper that the information can now be worth more than the cost of gathering it.
Amazon employee monitoring has a similar cost: Sure, human managers could discipline employees who were less productive; if someone has a problem with taking excessively frequent or long smoke breaks, lunch breaks, or bathroom breaks eventually an attentive manager will notice and talk to them about it, but it's not normal to track KPIs to the second. I suppose these aren't "key" performance indicators, they're barely relevant performance indicators, but when they're cheap to scale Amazon can monitor them.
Economics, not regulations, guaranteed your privacy and freedom: it was somewhere between irrational and impossible to employ an army of human observers to do what computers now do cheaply and easily. When that economic landscape changed, we should have made those regulations concrete.
I think this is a huge issue with respect to both enforcement of the law as well as surveillance and privacy. Sure, in the 1960s, a cop could sit on the side of the road with binoculars outside of town and watch for a half dozen blacklisted plate numbers associated with known criminal suspects. But today, automated license plate readers can do that 24/7/365 on every major road into and out of an entire city, tracking millions of people with an opex of just a couple kilowatts of compute.
When laws and norms written before computers say that certain activities are searches of private information and require warrants, while other activities are just observation of public information like your face and license plate, that implicitly granted a high probability of anonymity and privacy because of the cost of that observation and low value of the information relative to its cost. In the past couple of decades, those observations have become so much cheaper that the information can now be worth more than the cost of gathering it.
Amazon employee monitoring has a similar cost: Sure, human managers could discipline employees who were less productive; if someone has a problem with taking excessively frequent or long smoke breaks, lunch breaks, or bathroom breaks eventually an attentive manager will notice and talk to them about it, but it's not normal to track KPIs to the second. I suppose these aren't "key" performance indicators, they're barely relevant performance indicators, but when they're cheap to scale Amazon can monitor them.
Economics, not regulations, guaranteed your privacy and freedom: it was somewhere between irrational and impossible to employ an army of human observers to do what computers now do cheaply and easily. When that economic landscape changed, we should have made those regulations concrete.
They invented the thing from the sci-fi story 'don't invent the thing'. In this case the 'don't invent the thing' story is Manna.
https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
Wow thanks for sharing. The time flew by when I was reading. This is the fundamental lesson that humanity must learn. We must reject the impulse to give away our creativity to a mystical/technological sky daddy that incorporates us into its machine. And we must accept that might does not mean right.
Justice without mercy is cruelty.
Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution.
- St. Thomas Acquinas
Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution.
- St. Thomas Acquinas
Reminds me of the "Nosedive" episode of Black Mirror.
This is just a rehash of what their source https://www.freightwaves.com/news/should-truckers-be-allowed... reports which is, itself, almost entirely a rehash of social media commentary on the sourced Reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/AmazonDSPDrivers/comments/1f2y2cp/t...
Just reading the original quoted mid article without the extra commentary it's clear the story is unrelated to listening to the radio in itself and to do with the camera mechanism monitoring for other forms of distracted driving not being able to tell the difference:
> we were told that "a lot of mouth movement will set off the camera" and that we "needed to keep mouth movement to a minimum".
Still a shitty system by all counts... but a lot easier to talk about it directly than via rehashes.
Just reading the original quoted mid article without the extra commentary it's clear the story is unrelated to listening to the radio in itself and to do with the camera mechanism monitoring for other forms of distracted driving not being able to tell the difference:
> we were told that "a lot of mouth movement will set off the camera" and that we "needed to keep mouth movement to a minimum".
Still a shitty system by all counts... but a lot easier to talk about it directly than via rehashes.
Ok, we changed the URL to that from https://jalopnik.com/amazon-bans-its-drivers-from-moving-the.... Thanks!
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Rehashing, in this case, seems to mean communicating.
This isn't a random aggregator, Freight Waves is a well-known industry specific site.
A world where this wasn't rehashed by Freight Waves is a world where you have to read every Reddit board to gain knowledge.
> unrelated to listening to the radio in itself
None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline, includes the word listening.
I don't see how any of the headlines, on HN, Freight Waves, or Reddit, or content, on HN, Freight Waves, or Reddit, could be read as related to listening.
> but a lot easier to talk about it directly than via rehashes.
What does this mean, exactly?
EDIT: Can't reply due to HN timeout, maybe the HN link was originally to Jalopnik saying they can't listen to the radio, and it's cached in your browser? On my end, it's always been a link to Freight Waves with the headline "Amazon bans its drivers from moving their own lips...(something something, can't see, I'm on mobile)"
This isn't a random aggregator, Freight Waves is a well-known industry specific site.
A world where this wasn't rehashed by Freight Waves is a world where you have to read every Reddit board to gain knowledge.
> unrelated to listening to the radio in itself
None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline, includes the word listening.
I don't see how any of the headlines, on HN, Freight Waves, or Reddit, or content, on HN, Freight Waves, or Reddit, could be read as related to listening.
> but a lot easier to talk about it directly than via rehashes.
What does this mean, exactly?
EDIT: Can't reply due to HN timeout, maybe the HN link was originally to Jalopnik saying they can't listen to the radio, and it's cached in your browser? On my end, it's always been a link to Freight Waves with the headline "Amazon bans its drivers from moving their own lips...(something something, can't see, I'm on mobile)"
All of this completely ignores that the current source is Jalopnik so I'm not sure if I should take that as you agreeing there but just not in the second case. I will say Freight Waves is at least a better source than Jalopnik for this, they attempt some actual direct reporting instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers".
To be clear, I'm not saying the sites themselves are useless or not - just the wrong thing to post as a source for discussion here. From the HN guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter". Freight Waves would probably be acceptable enough for that, Jalopnik is pretty poor in this particular case.
> None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline I see, mentions listening.
Apologies, that is a slip on my part - meant singing along to the radio. A great example of why you should look at the original instead of commentary :p.
> What does this mean, exactly?
When you talk about what an article which talks about what another article talks about what people talk about what someone said it becomes a lot less clear than staging a conversation around what was originally said instead.
To be clear, I'm not saying the sites themselves are useless or not - just the wrong thing to post as a source for discussion here. From the HN guidelines: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter". Freight Waves would probably be acceptable enough for that, Jalopnik is pretty poor in this particular case.
> None of the links you mention, nor any comment or headline I see, mentions listening.
Apologies, that is a slip on my part - meant singing along to the radio. A great example of why you should look at the original instead of commentary :p.
> What does this mean, exactly?
When you talk about what an article which talks about what another article talks about what people talk about what someone said it becomes a lot less clear than staging a conversation around what was originally said instead.
I realize this part sounds particularly silly:
> instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers".
It should read more like:
> instead of things like the Jalopnik reporting "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers".
I.e. obviously it's not a rehashing problem for Freight Wave to report what its own user polls say.
> instead of talking about things like "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers".
It should read more like:
> instead of things like the Jalopnik reporting "That’s an opinion shared by many Freight Waves readers".
I.e. obviously it's not a rehashing problem for Freight Wave to report what its own user polls say.
You formatted your post, as if you were trying to debunk it, but nothing you said makes it better. Yes, there is technically a reason for that policy/recommendation, but it is essentially a bug in a safety system. Instead of fixing that bug, they've asked the drivers to alter their behaviour, so they don't trigger it. Asking drivers to concentrate on keeping their "mouth movement to a minimum" is actually worse for safety.
Debunk the distraction that is the focus being singing to the radio instead of the focus being what you pointed out here - Amazon using an unreliable safety system which places a lot of burden on drivers, regardless of the radio.
The version of the story (straight to Freight Waves instead of Jalopnik) the link was changed to at the time you made your comment was much better about getting to this point (one less layer of indirection).
The version of the story (straight to Freight Waves instead of Jalopnik) the link was changed to at the time you made your comment was much better about getting to this point (one less layer of indirection).
Laws agains this kind of workplace environments seem best long term.
Still, with the source being one “we were told” I guess we’re not sure if this is this official; this could be a manager’s threat or someone’s inaccurate understanding of what the camera is actually monitoring.
Ventriloquism, face masks or humming in the meantime then. Or quitting, like the author of the linked post - perhaps best for now.
Still, with the source being one “we were told” I guess we’re not sure if this is this official; this could be a manager’s threat or someone’s inaccurate understanding of what the camera is actually monitoring.
Ventriloquism, face masks or humming in the meantime then. Or quitting, like the author of the linked post - perhaps best for now.
I commented it elsewhere but it can be tough to balance general laws like that. E.g. right now, if an employer is aware people wear face masks so they can chat on the phone while they drive then the current set of laws allows a lot of liability to be placed on the employer when such accidents occur due to not taking safety seriously enough. Putting a general rule that an employer can't do this sort of thing then runs the risk of employers saying all sorts of things were for the workplace environment compliance, not safety negligence on their part. Putting specific rule exceptions instead becomes daunting to define, keep updated, and understand (for employees as much as employers).
I'm not saying some of this kind of thing can't be better served by some different laws, just it's probably not as easy to solve with a "quick" law or these other approaches as it might seem.
I'm not saying some of this kind of thing can't be better served by some different laws, just it's probably not as easy to solve with a "quick" law or these other approaches as it might seem.
> Still, with the source being one “we were told”
This is not true.
It makes me very itchy to see 2 comments in a row using innuendo and deconstructing sourcing in an erroneous way.
This is not true.
It makes me very itchy to see 2 comments in a row using innuendo and deconstructing sourcing in an erroneous way.
How do you find those comments erroneous?
Here, there is not one source saying “we were told”
The other handwaves about "rehashing" to wave away Freight Waves, while linking to comments on Reddit. You imply there's only one comment that says "we were told"
The other also implies the claim is they cannot listen to the radio.
The other handwaves about "rehashing" to wave away Freight Waves, while linking to comments on Reddit. You imply there's only one comment that says "we were told"
The other also implies the claim is they cannot listen to the radio.
It seems you are referring to my comment in some of those (and apologies if you're not) but my comment was not about waving away any point Freight Waves makes or says entirely but about which link the discussion should start around (which itself was far more about Jalopnik than Freight Waves). Nor was it implying anything about how many comments were on Reddit (or elsewhere) about it, just how it started and a recommendation people should read from there out instead of Jalopnik down. Dang has since changed the link to Freight Waves directly which is enough I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting.
As noted elsewhere, I did make a grave error in saying listen instead of sing to when writing the comment and by the time someone mentioned it it was too late to edit the comment. A great example of why you want to base discussion off of sources closer to the original first :).
As noted elsewhere, I did make a grave error in saying listen instead of sing to when writing the comment and by the time someone mentioned it it was too late to edit the comment. A great example of why you want to base discussion off of sources closer to the original first :).
[deleted]
I'm reminded that:
> The life of the American worker is inherently undignified [0]
Also, if you Google "Hacker News Undignified" you will find a bunch of posts related to work, even though there is nothing in the query that is inherently related to work.
I don't know the first thing about making documentaries, but a documentary simply titled "Undignified" that covers the bullshit workers have to go through would hit hard I think. Just give voice and documentation to the extra burdens so many workers have to endure; can you go to the bathroom when you need to? If you have a stationary job, can you sit? Or do you have to stand for 8 hours straight? Can you sing to the radio, or will a computer algorithm punish you for it? Etc. All of these burdens are optional, our society could accomplish its work without these hardships, but we choose not to. The delivery driver can both deliver packages and use a restroom, and a grocery store checker can scan items while sitting on a stool.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36264363 and https://dirt.fyi/article/2023/06/bad-waitress
> The life of the American worker is inherently undignified [0]
Also, if you Google "Hacker News Undignified" you will find a bunch of posts related to work, even though there is nothing in the query that is inherently related to work.
I don't know the first thing about making documentaries, but a documentary simply titled "Undignified" that covers the bullshit workers have to go through would hit hard I think. Just give voice and documentation to the extra burdens so many workers have to endure; can you go to the bathroom when you need to? If you have a stationary job, can you sit? Or do you have to stand for 8 hours straight? Can you sing to the radio, or will a computer algorithm punish you for it? Etc. All of these burdens are optional, our society could accomplish its work without these hardships, but we choose not to. The delivery driver can both deliver packages and use a restroom, and a grocery store checker can scan items while sitting on a stool.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36264363 and https://dirt.fyi/article/2023/06/bad-waitress
Seriously, this is why people need unions. People need to be represented so that they don't get fired when trying to fight stupid things. If the camera's backend detection system is so bad wit distracted driving alerts, then they will just have to manually view all videos that are alerted.
If everyone banded together tomorrow and didn't show up for work for 1 day, these problems would be solved. But, again, you can't even attempt such things as you'd be fired on the spot.
If everyone banded together tomorrow and didn't show up for work for 1 day, these problems would be solved. But, again, you can't even attempt such things as you'd be fired on the spot.
I would assume they're really just trying to "catch" people talking on cell phones, and people singing are causing "too many" false positives of the detection system?
I had a USPS mailman with a walking route that used a handsfree headset to work a 2nd job. Not sure what he was selling, but I overheard him close a deal while he had me sign for a package. It never seemed to affect his productivity, and I definitely respect the hustle.
Which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of people talking over headsets (and inevitably diddling their devices on occasion) while driving a large and less than nimble vehicle at high speeds.
Yeah, if he is walking, who cares. But if he is driving distracted and runs over someone, it becomes a lot harder to respect the hustle.
Is talking while driving illegal and I somehow missed it?
Do y'all just ride absolutely silent when you have passengers or...?
Do y'all just ride absolutely silent when you have passengers or...?
Under state-level "distracted driving" laws, it is illegal in most of the US to use a cellphone in your hand while driving. For novice drivers, any cellphone use while driving is also illegal in most of the US (including hands-free).
There's only a handful of places where headsets are considered a distraction.
A few US states, Singapore, Japan, UAE, South Africa .. some AUS states.
Pretty much everywhere else in the world, this is considered "normal behavior"
A few US states, Singapore, Japan, UAE, South Africa .. some AUS states.
Pretty much everywhere else in the world, this is considered "normal behavior"
Does what's considered normal matter for safety? Shouldnt it be based on what the science says?
So? That's an ad populum fallacy. Remember when plenty of places thought smoking cigarettes everywhere was normal?
In addition, laws often contain compromises for feasibility. I expect many jurisdictions permit hands-free conversations partly because it's difficult to prohibit them.
If you want to argue that phone-conversations while driving are safe compared to quiet driving, you should be pointing to experiments rather than popular belief.
In addition, laws often contain compromises for feasibility. I expect many jurisdictions permit hands-free conversations partly because it's difficult to prohibit them.
If you want to argue that phone-conversations while driving are safe compared to quiet driving, you should be pointing to experiments rather than popular belief.
Surely everyone is aware that driving while speaking on the phone is distracting. My partner occasionally tries to have an inane conversation about nothing while driving and I always cut it short.
I think that the main problem is if they were in the car with you then they'd be able to modulate the conversation in line with parts of the drive which are more or less demanding. It's much harder to do this successfully on the phone.
I think that the main problem is if they were in the car with you then they'd be able to modulate the conversation in line with parts of the drive which are more or less demanding. It's much harder to do this successfully on the phone.
Nothing about operating a vehicle is safe. I think it's unfair to judge someone morally for doing an activity that is common practice.
What does manslaughter have to do with hustle? Or are you just trying to point out that you disapprove of talking in the car on a hands-free device?
Huh? I think their meaning was pretty clear, but here's an artisanally-decompressed paraphrasing:
_________
If the delivery-person is walking, the potential impact of being distracted by their phone conversation is negligible. In that case, I sympathize and respect their efforts to conduct two jobs at once.
However the situation is very different when operating a delivery vehicle, where errors have a greater impact. In that context, their multi-tasking is no longer something to respect, but instead recklessness that should be condemned.
This is especially true if it leads to the death of a pedestrian, which might be a serious crime known as manslaughter.
_________
If the delivery-person is walking, the potential impact of being distracted by their phone conversation is negligible. In that case, I sympathize and respect their efforts to conduct two jobs at once.
However the situation is very different when operating a delivery vehicle, where errors have a greater impact. In that context, their multi-tasking is no longer something to respect, but instead recklessness that should be condemned.
This is especially true if it leads to the death of a pedestrian, which might be a serious crime known as manslaughter.
Certainly we agree death by cause of (at best) negligence is undesirable.
I asked if hustling via hand free driving was what you took umbrage with.
I asked if hustling via hand free driving was what you took umbrage with.
> what you took umbrage with.
Again, I am not that user. Insofar as I have "umbrage", it's that I don't think anything should need this much explaining.
> hustling via hand free driving
I believe that their concern is over dangerous driving, which includes but is not limited to cases where it is being caused by "hustling" with a hands-free device.
Is there a problem with that?
Again, I am not that user. Insofar as I have "umbrage", it's that I don't think anything should need this much explaining.
> hustling via hand free driving
I believe that their concern is over dangerous driving, which includes but is not limited to cases where it is being caused by "hustling" with a hands-free device.
Is there a problem with that?
Yeah. Splitting hair over driving definitions sounds like a miserable way to spend the next 50 years. You can’t just make shit up.
> Huh?
Okay we have to stop with this "huh???" nonsense. You knew what he meant, stop trying to make people seem unreasonable (yes, that is the purpose of this "huh?" even if you don't realize it)
This isn't Reddit.
Okay we have to stop with this "huh???" nonsense. You knew what he meant, stop trying to make people seem unreasonable (yes, that is the purpose of this "huh?" even if you don't realize it)
This isn't Reddit.
Hard to tell with Amazon. None of their logistics devs have labor experience or are interested in life on the shop floor so there's a weird disconnect between their systems and the actual work people are engaged with.
Even if that's "really" their objective, management could be fine with the risk of punishing drivers who struggle to comply with this for unrelated reasons. There's no reason to think they will seek fairness if the result achieves what they want well enough.
The point of the article is the bluntness of the tool, not that they are trying to reduce dangerously distracting phone calls, and understanding the true objective doesn't undo that.
The point of the article is the bluntness of the tool, not that they are trying to reduce dangerously distracting phone calls, and understanding the true objective doesn't undo that.
Yeah, with half a second's thought at the headline it should be obvious they're worried about people talking on the phone or bluetooth, which really is distracted driving. I was sort of flabbergasted at the focus in the article on "singing along to the radio" as if that's what this is about. I do get how that could be a bit of a false positive, but I doubt it's that common.
No, talking in a car has no measurable impact on safety. And talking on the phone is obviously even safer than talking to other people physically in the car, since you don't need to take your eyes off the road or tour hands off the wheel like you would be tempted to when talking to another person in the car.
Plus, the vast majority of people have a significant need for social contact. Working an eight hour shift alone in a car without any contact with any social contact (except a quick sign off when dropping a package), 5 days a week, is inhuman.
Plus, the vast majority of people have a significant need for social contact. Working an eight hour shift alone in a car without any contact with any social contact (except a quick sign off when dropping a package), 5 days a week, is inhuman.
> No, talking in a car has no measurable impact on safety. And talking on the phone is obviously even safer than talking to other people physically in the car, since you don't need to take your eyes off the road or tour hands off the wheel like you would be tempted to when talking to another person in the car.
Curious why you state that so confidently when every study I'm aware of has found the opposite.
(e.g., https://www.nsc.org/getmedia/2ea8fe8b-d7b7-4194-8ea5-306d30a...)
Curious why you state that so confidently when every study I'm aware of has found the opposite.
(e.g., https://www.nsc.org/getmedia/2ea8fe8b-d7b7-4194-8ea5-306d30a...)
So driving with a phone in your hand is as safe as keeping your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road? Got it.
No mention of talking to passengers in the car, I wonder why that was not tested, that would be a distraction as well.
[deleted]
> And talking on the phone is obviously even safer than talking to other people physically in the car
This is not true, because people physically in the car have the context of what's happening on the road, and can be aware enough to pause for a few seconds while you navigate a difficult situation that requires your full attention.
This is not true, because people physically in the car have the context of what's happening on the road, and can be aware enough to pause for a few seconds while you navigate a difficult situation that requires your full attention.
> No, talking in a car has no measurable impact on safety.
It measurably impacts my own ability to concentrate, I have noticed. We should dispense with such absolutist claims; there is no doubt that any action not directly related to driving a car has potential to impact safe operation of that vehicle.
The function of the law is to discover and enforce tolerances, balancing freedom with safety. We don't have to ignore even minimal safety implications in order to secure freedom, an honest conversation is better for both sides.
It is definitely inhumane to expect drivers to not move their lips or talk while working in solitude for 8-10 hours a day. Instead, we need to design our various systems such that they are capable of withstanding such a tolerance without severely impacting safety.
It measurably impacts my own ability to concentrate, I have noticed. We should dispense with such absolutist claims; there is no doubt that any action not directly related to driving a car has potential to impact safe operation of that vehicle.
The function of the law is to discover and enforce tolerances, balancing freedom with safety. We don't have to ignore even minimal safety implications in order to secure freedom, an honest conversation is better for both sides.
It is definitely inhumane to expect drivers to not move their lips or talk while working in solitude for 8-10 hours a day. Instead, we need to design our various systems such that they are capable of withstanding such a tolerance without severely impacting safety.
How did you measure your ability to concentrate?
I have ADHD and simply engaging in a conversation while driving is enough for me to miss turns, exits, etc. Sure, in the event of an impending crash I might go into the zone and avoid danger, but my general awareness is noticeably impacted.
It seems to be less so for people without ADHD in my experience, but we can't just say it has zero effect. It's better to discuss the threat to safety in terms of potential, since that accounts for individual variance.
It seems to be less so for people without ADHD in my experience, but we can't just say it has zero effect. It's better to discuss the threat to safety in terms of potential, since that accounts for individual variance.
Corporations don't need humans. They need mechanisms that efficiently do the work assigned to them. As that's currently not possible, corporations try to mechanize humans: give them a rigorous set of rules to follow and a machine to watch and punish them should they break the rules.
And most drivers I see who deliver packages are always on the phone talking to themselves via bluetooth. So I get the sentiment.
It's not like amazon is making it up. Studies have shown that music can have an adverse effect on driving.
It's not like amazon is making it up. Studies have shown that music can have an adverse effect on driving.
> Studies have shown
What studies? The only quality meta-analysis I could find showed mixed results, "It was concluded that, in some indicators, listening to music has adverse effects on driving. However, in many indicators, music has a positive impact on improving driving safety." [1]
Personally I find music can help me focus - both when driving and at work.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790125/
What studies? The only quality meta-analysis I could find showed mixed results, "It was concluded that, in some indicators, listening to music has adverse effects on driving. However, in many indicators, music has a positive impact on improving driving safety." [1]
Personally I find music can help me focus - both when driving and at work.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790125/
I read that one and a few of the one cited in that same link you posted. It goes both ways yes while listening to classical or lofi hip hop may help one relax and be calm, other music could distract you. I honestly have no skin in the game. But a decision like this coming from a data driven company begs the question. What data do they have?
From the link you posted:
On the other hand, listening to music while driving could raise the driver’s mental workload index and, thus, impair their driving performance. In fact, both driving and listening to music compete for the driver’s limited cognitive capacity.14 According to a study by the American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in-vehicle driver distraction, such as listening to music, is responsible for 25% of traffic accidents.15
From the link you posted:
On the other hand, listening to music while driving could raise the driver’s mental workload index and, thus, impair their driving performance. In fact, both driving and listening to music compete for the driver’s limited cognitive capacity.14 According to a study by the American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in-vehicle driver distraction, such as listening to music, is responsible for 25% of traffic accidents.15
roadside advertising has an adverse effect on driving. We should ban ads before we even consider vilifying music
Lots of counties do precisely that, and for exactly that reason. And, as others have noted, it's likely to reduce the talking-on-cellphone, which studies have shown is just as distracting and likely to cause an accident hands-free as holding the phone.
I don't think the villain is the music. I think the villain in this case is the distracted driving.
I for one listen to music at full blast and tend to drive spiritedly which requires full 110% concentration. So I would agree that there are bigger fish to fry than listening to music while driving. But I'm going to be honest and say I've seen folks who don't listen to music and do bonehead things on the road because they're distracted. So yes, let's bad roadside billboards. I'm with you on that.
I for one listen to music at full blast and tend to drive spiritedly which requires full 110% concentration. So I would agree that there are bigger fish to fry than listening to music while driving. But I'm going to be honest and say I've seen folks who don't listen to music and do bonehead things on the road because they're distracted. So yes, let's bad roadside billboards. I'm with you on that.
Tight performance requirements have a much worse effect on driving, so that would make this a case of lousy prioritization at best.
That's true, it would. I wonder what type of requirements they have.
How much stress does having quotas to meet by the end of the day impact the driving safety of a delivery driver? If Amazon isn't making it up but just applying sound metrics, does that include not having tight delivery quotas placed on drivers?
I get that having quotas to meet is stressful. I'm not arguing against that. I don't understand what type of quotas they would have. Unless you know, I would assume it's deliver the packages you have in your truck by the end of the day. It's all designed by a system that I assume is closely intertwined. For instance, I'm sure it wouldn't load a truck up with 1000 stops if it had no data that would indicate that it's possible.
And if every healthy driver (old,young, strong or weak) before you could move and complete 200 stops in a day but you can only do half of that. Does that mean the expectation is unrealistic or is it something else?
And if every healthy driver (old,young, strong or weak) before you could move and complete 200 stops in a day but you can only do half of that. Does that mean the expectation is unrealistic or is it something else?
It means that drivers are highly motivated to get their deliveries done in a day. Wait another minute for a safer chance to make a turn? Driver can't risk it, all those turns add up by the end of the day. So the driver tasks the riskier first traffic opportunity they get. And makes hundred of other safety choices daily based on meeting their quota.
Sure, previous driver Bob made 200 stops in a day, what does that have to do with safety? Especially considering Bob was forced to pee into a bottle to make his numbers:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/selling-bottles-of-amazon-dr...
Sure, previous driver Bob made 200 stops in a day, what does that have to do with safety? Especially considering Bob was forced to pee into a bottle to make his numbers:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/selling-bottles-of-amazon-dr...
Is peeing in a bottle when you are in a rural area where there are no bathrooms uncommon?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Truckers/comments/qd1l4x/how_many_o...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Truckers/comments/qd1l4x/how_many_o...
If Amazon is controlling for things down to talking, they damn well better control for the fact that human beings produce waste and need to use restrooms.
That's actually a reasonable explanation.
And then it seems the manager failed to articulate that point (or perhaps they did, but people are the meeting were so upset that they weren't quite listening anymore).
And then it seems the manager failed to articulate that point (or perhaps they did, but people are the meeting were so upset that they weren't quite listening anymore).
How can anyone consider that reasonable?
that is an insane overreach by the employer. They should be outraged!
that is an insane overreach by the employer. They should be outraged!
It's called "distracted driving" and it's perfectly reasonable for employers to take measures to prevent people from engaging in it:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
The concern here is most likely people diddling with their phones (which tends to accompany such conversations but may be harder for the cameras to detect), followed by the distraction of zoning over a long conversation over any kind of device. Not singing along with the radio, obviously (which is what people seem to be reacting to so emotionally here).
You don't have to like it, and I would never work with Amazon in any capacity anyway (not for this, but for a whole bunch of vastly more important reasons).
But it's definitely neither insane, nor overreach on their part.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
The concern here is most likely people diddling with their phones (which tends to accompany such conversations but may be harder for the cameras to detect), followed by the distraction of zoning over a long conversation over any kind of device. Not singing along with the radio, obviously (which is what people seem to be reacting to so emotionally here).
You don't have to like it, and I would never work with Amazon in any capacity anyway (not for this, but for a whole bunch of vastly more important reasons).
But it's definitely neither insane, nor overreach on their part.
I am going to go out on a limb and say delivery quotas are the largest contributor to unsafe driving by Amazon delivery drivers. How far has Amazon loosened up delivery quotas, back them down to the proven safest levels, has Amazon done?
[deleted]
I think it's reasonable to require "no talking on phones" and I'd even go so far as to say "no listening to music" when you're driving a large commercial truck on the public roads.
If you think this is strict, have a look at what UPS requires of its drivers. They have very specific rules for how to do everything related to delivering packages and operating the vehicles. And not that I've specifically focused on it, but I can't recall ever hearing music playing in a UPS truck.
If you think this is strict, have a look at what UPS requires of its drivers. They have very specific rules for how to do everything related to delivering packages and operating the vehicles. And not that I've specifically focused on it, but I can't recall ever hearing music playing in a UPS truck.
Let's ask the drivers themselves, and find out what they have to say on the subject. From tevesh21:
Granted, these posts were from 5 years go and UPS may have cracked down since then. But if their posts are to believed, they've no need keep that gun in the glove box in case they ever need to find a speedy way to check out, just yet. As to the drivers stuck working for Amazon -- we can't be so sure.
For the most part, we have the freedom to do most anything we want. However, we’re not supposed to waste company time (going to pick up a friend) and there’s specific rules that prohibit non ups employees from being on the package car. As for music, yes. Different drivers use different methods, I personally use earbuds, some drivers use a speaker.
I listen to audiobooks and a couple podcasts once I'm done with my commercial stops (ie: not talking to customers anymore). Sometimes when I want to finish work faster, I'll put on some high energy music to keep me motivated, but that's only occasionally because it's harder on the body.
Granted, these posts were from 5 years go and UPS may have cracked down since then. But if their posts are to believed, they've no need keep that gun in the glove box in case they ever need to find a speedy way to check out, just yet. As to the drivers stuck working for Amazon -- we can't be so sure.
UPS trucks don't have radios but it's not banned to listen to music and UPS drivers do listen to music when they want to. This is a ridiculous idea.
> no listening to music
Do they get to keep a gun in the glove box? You know, for when they need to kill themselves?
Do they get to keep a gun in the glove box? You know, for when they need to kill themselves?
I don't know how much Amazon itself really "cares" as much as not having clear safety guidelines and safety systems can result in liability when accidents do occur due to distracted driving on grounds the employer knowingly didn't try to prevent such accidents and was the reason for the employee to be driving at the time.
> No matter how badly Amazon treats its workers, we all keep shopping there
This doesn’t have to be true. I cancelled prime and haven’t shopped at Amazon in years.
This doesn’t have to be true. I cancelled prime and haven’t shopped at Amazon in years.
I suspect most of the people frequent here still use AWS in some capacity if nothing else...
What does AWS actually offer that is useful that isn't provided elsewhere?
I'm sure there's lots of stuff but you can't really stop using AWS unless you stop browsing a pretty large chunk of the Internet.
Not really what we're talking about. We're talking about being a direct customer of AWS vs other providers.
Relief from the IT procurement policy antipattern.
True.
A lot of Internet services are on AWS
But I would not, personally, deal with the royalty of dark patterns
A lot of Internet services are on AWS
But I would not, personally, deal with the royalty of dark patterns
Why? Sure in the case of work, but as an individual AWS is incredibly expensive! Can't be paying those crazy prices for my personal things.
Only because of work.
Prime is a good service. I don’t see why people should have to choose between workers being treated well and not having to deal with the hell that is shopping at a physical store.
Seriously. Drive to the store. Find parking. Walk to the general location where item should be. Item isn’t there. Try to find a clerk (there are 2 in the whole store). Get item or settle for whatever is there. Wait in line. Self checkout (we were told this would reduce wait time). Pay more because store is more expensive. Drive home. The whole thing took an hour of your time and you didn’t even get the exact thing you wanted. Also, good luck if you have kids or are busy or don’t have a car or are disabled.
The solution is labor laws. Voting with your wallet. Doesn’t. Work. It has never worked. Voting with your wallet is the solution companies want you to try because they know actual regulation would actually work.
Seriously. Drive to the store. Find parking. Walk to the general location where item should be. Item isn’t there. Try to find a clerk (there are 2 in the whole store). Get item or settle for whatever is there. Wait in line. Self checkout (we were told this would reduce wait time). Pay more because store is more expensive. Drive home. The whole thing took an hour of your time and you didn’t even get the exact thing you wanted. Also, good luck if you have kids or are busy or don’t have a car or are disabled.
The solution is labor laws. Voting with your wallet. Doesn’t. Work. It has never worked. Voting with your wallet is the solution companies want you to try because they know actual regulation would actually work.
Pull in to the store that I'm passing on my way home anyway, get an item that I can be pretty sure is not counterfeit or broken, have it immediately not in a day or two or next week, it's not all bad.
Yes I sometimes shop online but these days I try to go direct to the manufacturer's own web store, or I'll buy it on a product-niche site such as bhphoto.com that isn't chock full of anonymous sellers hawking made-in-china garbage.
Yes I sometimes shop online but these days I try to go direct to the manufacturer's own web store, or I'll buy it on a product-niche site such as bhphoto.com that isn't chock full of anonymous sellers hawking made-in-china garbage.
> anonymous sellers hawking made-in-china garbage
I know this is a common complaint, but I haven’t experienced it personally. A lot of the things I get on Amazon are name-brand items I would’ve bought in a store anyways (e.g. paper towels or mouthwash).
I know this is a common complaint, but I haven’t experienced it personally. A lot of the things I get on Amazon are name-brand items I would’ve bought in a store anyways (e.g. paper towels or mouthwash).
Ironically I detest online shopping and opt for brick and mortar when possible.
"the hell that is shopping at a physical store"
Someone may say similar words about shopping at Amazon and they wouldn't be wrong.
"the hell that is shopping at Amazon's counterfeit infested online store"
Someone may say similar words about shopping at Amazon and they wouldn't be wrong.
"the hell that is shopping at Amazon's counterfeit infested online store"
I'm actually making a point of shopping brick and mortar these days for that exact reason. It's gotten to the point where I'm not able to tell what's real and what's a scam on there so it's not worth the risk -at all.
That’s fine, you don’t have to prefer Amazon. Some people do, but that’s beside point, which is that workers should have rights to protect them, and voting with your wallet isn’t an effective way to get there.
"Shop at Amazon" and "shop at physical store" aren't the only two options.
Labor laws that will never happen. Yeah, sure, you can't stop Amazon exploiting its workers by 'voting with your wallet', but you _are_ complicit in the abuse by spending there.
I'm sure there are piss-poor drivers that don't sing along and really good drivers that do.
They should drop all the restrictions on 'distracting' activity and just fire poor drivers rather than trying to make poor drivers into good ones.
They should drop all the restrictions on 'distracting' activity and just fire poor drivers rather than trying to make poor drivers into good ones.
If you want to pay bottom of the barrel wages you’re gonna get employees that are at the bottom. An accident could cause many times a workers annual wage, so they’re trying to go for preventative measures.
I’m honestly surprised they can still find people who want to work for them.
I’m honestly surprised they can still find people who want to work for them.
That’s easy to say when it’s someone with our level of opportunities but some people don’t have a whole lot of other options. And it’s not like Door Dash and Uber are any better.
> I’m honestly surprised they can still find people who want to work for them.
The slow and steady eradication of middle class jobs + the lack of a humane and dignified safety net + the need for food, clothing and shelter. I think very few people want to work as an Amazon warehouse worker or driver, as in make a career of it. It's one of the USA's many Jobs Of Last Resort.
The slow and steady eradication of middle class jobs + the lack of a humane and dignified safety net + the need for food, clothing and shelter. I think very few people want to work as an Amazon warehouse worker or driver, as in make a career of it. It's one of the USA's many Jobs Of Last Resort.
If "singing along" is a leading indicator of being in an accident, then amazon should absolutely not employ drivers that sing along. People get injured or killed in accidents, we dont need to observe them if we have sufficently strong signals that show risk (IE: driving at 100mph, driving while drunk, etc). What I don't understand is if you tell drivers "dont sing along" does that negate the predictive value of "singining along" as a signal for propensity to be involved in an accident.
[deleted]
I really dislike Amazon and already don't shop there, but am I the only one who can at least consider the idea that this isn't necessarily unreasonable?
Driving is dangerous, period. I don't think we'd object as much to Amazon trying to make sure that drivers don't text and drive. Talking and driving isn't as distracting, but it is at least somewhat distracting. I've definitely seen cab drivers chatting away, driving aggressive, and missing little cues that could have easily led to an accident.
Amazon is pretty understandably trying to limit liability and disruption here. The drivers are not on personal time in personal vehicles. They're on company time in company vehicles, and employers almost universally regulate employee behavior to some degree or another.
Now, maybe this isn't effective, or a step too far, and they should certainly improve their talking detection, but I wouldn't personally dismiss the intent and approach out-of-hand. It could realistically actually save a life.
edit, to clarify the question I have here: What behavior is reasonable for Amazon to monitor and regulate for drivers? Any? Something just less than this?
Driving is dangerous, period. I don't think we'd object as much to Amazon trying to make sure that drivers don't text and drive. Talking and driving isn't as distracting, but it is at least somewhat distracting. I've definitely seen cab drivers chatting away, driving aggressive, and missing little cues that could have easily led to an accident.
Amazon is pretty understandably trying to limit liability and disruption here. The drivers are not on personal time in personal vehicles. They're on company time in company vehicles, and employers almost universally regulate employee behavior to some degree or another.
Now, maybe this isn't effective, or a step too far, and they should certainly improve their talking detection, but I wouldn't personally dismiss the intent and approach out-of-hand. It could realistically actually save a life.
edit, to clarify the question I have here: What behavior is reasonable for Amazon to monitor and regulate for drivers? Any? Something just less than this?
I kind of agree with the spirit of what you're saying but not really - at amazon's scale, even a 1% increase risk of traffic accident amongst their massive fleet means a significant number at the end of a fiscal year in terms of cost. Then, it seems like a good decision and not unreasonable. IMO the unreasonableness is that a company like Amazon is allowed to scale to a size where this kind of monitoring is deemed necessary to the bottom line - a smaller company doesn't really care as much about that small increased risk because the effect on their bottom line isn't as large compared to the cost of implementing controlling measures like this.
Aside from their bottom line there is the human element. How many other people does the 1% of the increased risk of traffic accidents affect? We can say this is for the benefit of the company sure, but any company with a large fleet trying to reduce traffic accidents regardless of their reasoning is a net win for society.
how about the misery we are inflicting on the workers who we have already reduced to pissing in bottles and limiting their water intake so we can get our plastic shit from china a few minutes faster. while it may not kill any of them directly how much is each low level misery worth when scaled across thousands? how miserable can we make multitudes before it equals the risk of maybe causing an accident where someone dies? Is one life continued existence worth more than say 20,000 people having and increased depression rates?
> but I wouldn't personally dismiss the intent and approach out-of-hand
I would. Every time I've seen an Amazon driver they're busting ass, sprinting across lawns. Of the drivers I've talked to it's incredibly stressful, and to make your quota you have to drive a bit more "confidently". And let's not even get into the piss bottle stuff.
If their intent was truly safety, they would probably want to start there. But they're not. Because keeping high quotas is important for the bottom line. Hiring employees, scaling vans and infrastructure is expensive. So it follows to optimize cash you squeeeeeeze each employee as far as they can go.
I would. Every time I've seen an Amazon driver they're busting ass, sprinting across lawns. Of the drivers I've talked to it's incredibly stressful, and to make your quota you have to drive a bit more "confidently". And let's not even get into the piss bottle stuff.
If their intent was truly safety, they would probably want to start there. But they're not. Because keeping high quotas is important for the bottom line. Hiring employees, scaling vans and infrastructure is expensive. So it follows to optimize cash you squeeeeeeze each employee as far as they can go.
Talking on your phone while driving (hands free or otherwise) is associated with a 4x increase in likelihood of accident.[1] Correlation != causation etc, but it seems reasonable to forbid talking on the phone while driving a giant delivery van until we have concrete evidence that it is safe.
Now, the particular way Amazon is going about enforcing this is creepy as hell, and well into the “I’m not comfortable with the privacy trade-off” zone for me.
1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=...
Now, the particular way Amazon is going about enforcing this is creepy as hell, and well into the “I’m not comfortable with the privacy trade-off” zone for me.
1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=...
A workers union would never allow this. For example the ALPA in the United States where I live has strict rules about when the cockpit voice recorder can even be accessed and by whom. Even after an accident it’s virtually never released - only the radio traffic.
Amazon has used layers of 'delivery contractors' who 'employ' the delivery drivers to bust any unionizing. Recently it was ruled that Amazon is a co-employer so they won't be able to continue that tactic going forward. Amazon is a horrible company.
https://teamster.org/2024/08/teamsters-win-groundbreaking-jo...
https://teamster.org/2024/08/teamsters-win-groundbreaking-jo...
Stop working for and stop buying from this company
unionize, boycott, strike
unionize, boycott, strike
Amazon has hidden behind 'contractors' employing 'delivery drivers' in order to union bust up until now. However a recent court ruling might change things.
https://teamster.org/2024/08/teamsters-win-groundbreaking-jo...
https://teamster.org/2024/08/teamsters-win-groundbreaking-jo...
Unfortunately they won't, people want their cheap crap right now no matter how much suffering it causes for the underprivileged.
It’s because individual consumer choice is a really bad way to get companies to change their behavior.
Thousands of people have stopped buying anything from Amazon, and the only change in the world is that those people don’t get the convenience that Amazon provides; Amazon is still doing all the same things.
As an individual, your only two choices are: shop at Amazon and get the benefits and Amazon still exists exactly as it does today, or don’t shop at Amazon, don’t get the benefits, and Amazon still exists exactly as it does today. The only person that suffers if I stop shopping at Amazon is me, it doesn’t make one persons life better.
This is a Collective Action Problem, and it can’t be fixed by consumer choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
Thousands of people have stopped buying anything from Amazon, and the only change in the world is that those people don’t get the convenience that Amazon provides; Amazon is still doing all the same things.
As an individual, your only two choices are: shop at Amazon and get the benefits and Amazon still exists exactly as it does today, or don’t shop at Amazon, don’t get the benefits, and Amazon still exists exactly as it does today. The only person that suffers if I stop shopping at Amazon is me, it doesn’t make one persons life better.
This is a Collective Action Problem, and it can’t be fixed by consumer choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
I agree but I also think it’s even worse than you explained because it’s always the bottom tier that gets squeezed the most. So if Amazon was, by some miracle, to get financially hit by people shopping elsewhere, those delivery drivers would still see the blunt end of further cost savings.
Why have boycotts worked in the past then?
A boycott is different than just a general call to not patronize a business.
If a boycott is organized and specific, with an obtainable demand, it can work. A general “we don’t like Amazon’s business practice so don’t shop there” won’t work, but a “everyone in our 2 million member group won’t shop there until you grant workers X benefit, and we will also boycott any partner company until it happens” has an actual chance of success, since there is a specific thing for Amazon to base a choice on (is the cost of the lost business more than benefit x). If I just don’t patronize them but don’t have a specific demand, Amazon isn’t going to be put into any sort of position to make a trade off decision.
A boycott is never going to put a company out of business.
If a boycott is organized and specific, with an obtainable demand, it can work. A general “we don’t like Amazon’s business practice so don’t shop there” won’t work, but a “everyone in our 2 million member group won’t shop there until you grant workers X benefit, and we will also boycott any partner company until it happens” has an actual chance of success, since there is a specific thing for Amazon to base a choice on (is the cost of the lost business more than benefit x). If I just don’t patronize them but don’t have a specific demand, Amazon isn’t going to be put into any sort of position to make a trade off decision.
A boycott is never going to put a company out of business.
There haven't been many successful boycotts in the past. Despite decades of BDS campaigning Israel is still around (and so are Sodastream, Coca Cola and a host of other companies targeted by BDS). The only one I can recall of having worked was the Shell boycott [1], but that one was easy to pull off as there is healthy competition in the gas sector whereas there is barely any in convenient online shipping.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar
Ironically the only reason there is healthy competition to Shell was because the government stepped in to break up Standard Oil, who had a monopoly up to that point.
I know this is an unpopular opinion on HN but it always comes back to governments being the ones who need to regulate industry because literally nobody else has both the incentives and the power to enact that kind of change. You either have industry self regulate, but as we’ve seen, the incentives just isn’t there for them to behave. Or the customers boycotting a business, and has been discussed already, customers can’t agree on a collective action large enough to make any difference at all.
I know this is an unpopular opinion on HN but it always comes back to governments being the ones who need to regulate industry because literally nobody else has both the incentives and the power to enact that kind of change. You either have industry self regulate, but as we’ve seen, the incentives just isn’t there for them to behave. Or the customers boycotting a business, and has been discussed already, customers can’t agree on a collective action large enough to make any difference at all.
It's ok and normal to be a hypocrite, why deny something so natural at the expense of jumbling your mind up in a spaggheti of excuses.
It's actually surprisingly easy to convince friends and family to cancel Prime or atleast comparison shop. Everyone has gotten some cheap crap from China they never would have bought if they could have seen it in real life and had to suffer with it or go through an increasingly annoying return process. Prime shipping is no longer two days, just a when they feel like getting it to you. Ask them why do you always give your money to a company that gives you crap?
Prices on things you'd actually want to buy, well known quality brand, are often the same price else where. With unknown brands you're usually better off paying more else where to make sure you get something that someone somewhere in the company decided wasn't totally terrible and worth selling instead of AliExpress drop seller garbage.
Prices on things you'd actually want to buy, well known quality brand, are often the same price else where. With unknown brands you're usually better off paying more else where to make sure you get something that someone somewhere in the company decided wasn't totally terrible and worth selling instead of AliExpress drop seller garbage.
I tend to try and buy direct from electronics sellers but a large number of them sell through amazon.
Which is funny because one step I've had to adopt to avoid fraud is going to the manufacturer's website to find where to buy the item. I can't trust the amazon listing that comes up on a search.
It's less about wanting cheap crap now and more about amazon having a huge market presence that makes avoiding them difficult.
Which is funny because one step I've had to adopt to avoid fraud is going to the manufacturer's website to find where to buy the item. I can't trust the amazon listing that comes up on a search.
It's less about wanting cheap crap now and more about amazon having a huge market presence that makes avoiding them difficult.
Its on the employees then namely the managers but also the ground-level folk to organize. There's a reason companies like Amazon go after unions so hard.
But even before that, I feel like there is enough information on working at Amazon at this point that anyone with the ability to choose between Amazon and another job should pick the latter. Worker strikes are just as effective.
But even before that, I feel like there is enough information on working at Amazon at this point that anyone with the ability to choose between Amazon and another job should pick the latter. Worker strikes are just as effective.
Agreed. People used to be fine with slavery, they’re not going to cancel a useful service over poor working conditions.
If they're working there, they believe its their best option.
If you're successful at causing amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
Imagine telling them they don't have job anymore because you know better than them whats good for them
If you're successful at causing amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
Imagine telling them they don't have job anymore because you know better than them whats good for them
> If you're successful at causing amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
This feels like a bit of a straw man — if Amazon start losing potential sales because people don't like how they're treating their workers, they'll fix their workers rights before they let the company crumble out of spite.
Customer pressure is a real lever in these scenarios.
This feels like a bit of a straw man — if Amazon start losing potential sales because people don't like how they're treating their workers, they'll fix their workers rights before they let the company crumble out of spite.
Customer pressure is a real lever in these scenarios.
This argument is absurd. You can tell how absurd it is because if you just take it to it's logical conclusion, suddenly you're supporting indentured servitude in Dubai.
Do you support that? Almost certainly not. So the only resolution is you don't actually believe this argument.
Do you support that? Almost certainly not. So the only resolution is you don't actually believe this argument.
Indentured servitude prevents switching jobs, so we can't assume its their best option. As long as workers are free to switch jobs, we can assume its their best option, that despite all of the downsides, they think its worth it.
I'm guessing Amazon pays above average and that's why people keep working for them despite their reputation. The people there have a choice. Keep making more at Amazon but be treated poorly, and that's a choice they make.
If Amazon doesn't like a worker, they can fire them.
If a worker doesn't like Amazon, they can quit.
You can hate Amazon, thats fine, you can choose to never work for Amazon, thats fine, but lets not lie to ourselves. The people who choose to work at Amazon want to work there. They all applied, accepted the job, and show up every day.
I'm guessing Amazon pays above average and that's why people keep working for them despite their reputation. The people there have a choice. Keep making more at Amazon but be treated poorly, and that's a choice they make.
If Amazon doesn't like a worker, they can fire them.
If a worker doesn't like Amazon, they can quit.
You can hate Amazon, thats fine, you can choose to never work for Amazon, thats fine, but lets not lie to ourselves. The people who choose to work at Amazon want to work there. They all applied, accepted the job, and show up every day.
> Indentured servitude prevents switching jobs
No it doesn't, you're fully allowed to switch once you've paid off your debt. The debt that people chose to take on in exchange for housing, transportation, a new shot at life.
That's not my argument of course, but it's a hypothetical argument if you want to appeal to the "free market always good" type people.
> If Amazon doesn't like a worker, they can fire them.
> If a worker doesn't like Amazon, they can quit.
False dichotomy, you've run head-first into the hypocrisy of modern Capitalism. These actions do not have equal power because the labor market is not a free market.
Amazon firing a worker can literally cost them their life, whereas a worker leaving does nothing to Amazon. This is because the labor market is almost perfectly tipped, rigged, in the employer's (buyer's) favor.
In order to fix the leverage and create a free market, the employees would need to unionize, which is the correct solution here. Then, if Amazon does something evil, the employees can say "fix it or we walk" and that actually means something.
> The people who choose to work at Amazon want to work there
Your understanding of choice is infantile, almost comically so. You're purposefully leaving out the pressure of life from this decision. I think you'll find starvation a powerful coercive technique.
No it doesn't, you're fully allowed to switch once you've paid off your debt. The debt that people chose to take on in exchange for housing, transportation, a new shot at life.
That's not my argument of course, but it's a hypothetical argument if you want to appeal to the "free market always good" type people.
> If Amazon doesn't like a worker, they can fire them.
> If a worker doesn't like Amazon, they can quit.
False dichotomy, you've run head-first into the hypocrisy of modern Capitalism. These actions do not have equal power because the labor market is not a free market.
Amazon firing a worker can literally cost them their life, whereas a worker leaving does nothing to Amazon. This is because the labor market is almost perfectly tipped, rigged, in the employer's (buyer's) favor.
In order to fix the leverage and create a free market, the employees would need to unionize, which is the correct solution here. Then, if Amazon does something evil, the employees can say "fix it or we walk" and that actually means something.
> The people who choose to work at Amazon want to work there
Your understanding of choice is infantile, almost comically so. You're purposefully leaving out the pressure of life from this decision. I think you'll find starvation a powerful coercive technique.
> If they're working there, they believe its their best option
Choice. Not having it makes you a victim.
We should not blame victims
> amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
That is a false dichotomy
Amazon crowds out alternatives
Choice. Not having it makes you a victim.
We should not blame victims
> amazon to crumble and they lose their job, would you really feel good?
That is a false dichotomy
Amazon crowds out alternatives
Amazon can somehow successfully (1) control a driver's working conditions to the extent that they dictate how much they are allowed to move their lips and (2) argue that they aren't employees but independent contractors. What a world.
I notice when I get a taxi often the drivers seem to be constantly talking to someone on the phone, like they have long running low intensity conversations going for long periods of time.
Probably talking to friends/family that drive taxi as well. Just passing time while driving around town.
Yes! I wondered if I was the only one thinking that. I'm often confused if they are on the phone or not.
>> I'm often confused if they are on the phone or not.
Yeah cause there’s long pauses I guess.
I get the impression they’re talking to their wives.
Maybe just talking to family/buddies.
Perhaps these long running low intensity conversations are what Amazon wants to stamp out.
Yeah cause there’s long pauses I guess.
I get the impression they’re talking to their wives.
Maybe just talking to family/buddies.
Perhaps these long running low intensity conversations are what Amazon wants to stamp out.
The fact that amazon has cameras pointing at the drivers all day long is creepy enough. They force their workers to piss in bottles and then they film/watch them doing it?
Do they think that having to carefully monitor the movement of your mouth might also distract someone who is trying to drive?
Or did they not think about that at all because this is somewhere between lip service (heh) to driver safety and an abuse tactic?
Or did they not think about that at all because this is somewhere between lip service (heh) to driver safety and an abuse tactic?
This is where my mind was too. On top of that, what is people's response when they're feeling tired on a road trip? Turn up the radio on something fun and sing along to get your energy levels back up. Chew gum to keep their mouths busy. Deep breathing?
Sure they could pull over on a road trip but when you're working for Amazon the company known for piss bottles... The option is to, I guess, fall asleep at the wheel?
Sure they could pull over on a road trip but when you're working for Amazon the company known for piss bottles... The option is to, I guess, fall asleep at the wheel?
It's time to advertise ventriloquism lessons to Amazon drivers.
Or the drivers could protest by wearing masks over their mouths.
Or the drivers could protest by wearing masks over their mouths.
[deleted]
Is this about singing or being on the phone (even while on headset?)?
And the singing merely gives false positives?
I've been in Ubers where the driver was constantly on the phone. While they do it handsfree, actually calling on the phone, whether handheld or handsfree, massively increases the risk of an accident.
(I've always wondered why handsfree calling is considered safer than handheld calling when you drive an automatic).
And the singing merely gives false positives?
I've been in Ubers where the driver was constantly on the phone. While they do it handsfree, actually calling on the phone, whether handheld or handsfree, massively increases the risk of an accident.
(I've always wondered why handsfree calling is considered safer than handheld calling when you drive an automatic).
Jesus this is some horrible panopticon shit. I hope everyone involved in building the system to do this feels horrible about it being used this way.
Really gotta remember to check back in this thread and see if there’s any new accounts claiming to be someone involved in this and talking about how they got to the point where this feels like a sensible business decision.
Really gotta remember to check back in this thread and see if there’s any new accounts claiming to be someone involved in this and talking about how they got to the point where this feels like a sensible business decision.
The sad truth is, most people simply don't care about anything that doesn't affect them. Yes, there are people who do care, like many of us here on Hacker News, but we are very much in the minority. And even among those who do care, very few are really willing to do anything about it, far from enough to bring about any meaningful change.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Unless you've been living under a rock (congrats if so!), you should have noticed the US being on the idiocracy + corporate dystopia timeline.
And no, the builders of this don't feel bad. They feel "excited" to be blessed by some 0.1%er's capital and get that FAANG experience on their CV.
And no, the builders of this don't feel bad. They feel "excited" to be blessed by some 0.1%er's capital and get that FAANG experience on their CV.
> According to Reddit users that Freight Waves cited, Amazon has begun monitoring mouth movements on its drivers through a camera in the cab of its delivery fans.
This kind of allegation really calls for a better source than "Reddit users are saying". I'm not saying it can't be true, but there's any number of ways that an anonymous commenter's report of what an unspecified person said in their morning briefing could give a false or misleading impression of Amazon policies.
This kind of allegation really calls for a better source than "Reddit users are saying". I'm not saying it can't be true, but there's any number of ways that an anonymous commenter's report of what an unspecified person said in their morning briefing could give a false or misleading impression of Amazon policies.
They want robots. And while we wait for ai the humans just have to pretend to be ones.
Artificial robots if you will
Artificial robots if you will
"No matter how badly Amazon treats its workers, we all keep shopping there"
Who is "we"?
Not me.
Who is "we"?
Not me.
Nor I, I actually live in a country where Amazon mostly does not work. It's how most, if not all major publications talk about Amazon. I see it as part of a narrative of "oh no, anyway", and an attempt to ensure apathy to the whole situation. It's absolutely not an attempt to get us to think critically about how, and from where we consume. If the narrative that Amazon is abusive to their staff, _but we're not going to do anything about it_ like we are told, then we won't think further into other major problems in our western supply chain.
And this is why you need GDPR or similar privacy laws.
GDPR is a bit more than just cookie notices. I'm pretty sure that this would be a textbook case and if a company tried to continue such a program after being told to stop it, they'd have a good chance of paying the 4% of global revenue max fine for it.
Labor laws in many countries would also have an opinion on such a system.
GDPR is a bit more than just cookie notices. I'm pretty sure that this would be a textbook case and if a company tried to continue such a program after being told to stop it, they'd have a good chance of paying the 4% of global revenue max fine for it.
Labor laws in many countries would also have an opinion on such a system.
Well, if you want to sing out, sing out
And if you want to be free, be free
'Cause there's a million things to be
You know that there are[deleted]
It’s probably not for singing but for talking on the phone. Even blue tooth talking definitely distracts.
How dystopian.
Just wear a mask and talk
Amazon needs slaves or robots whichever is cheaper.
Wear a facemask. For safety. Problem solved.
There can be no joy, only the efficient allocation of capital.
We all love data-driven decision making… until we don't.
I worked with a hospital at risk of de-acreditization. They had worse outcomes than the other hospitals around them (people were way too likely to get infections at the hospital, die, etc). Turns out they had more gut knife wounds than any other hospital. All data driven decision making shutting them down would have done was make the next nearest hospital the one with worse outcomes, and so on, and so on.
Plus I'm guessing the best data driven safety change would be a reduction of package delivery load if Amazon is really doing data driven safety changes.
Plus I'm guessing the best data driven safety change would be a reduction of package delivery load if Amazon is really doing data driven safety changes.
I don't recall ever doing so.
zingababba(1)
zooq_ai(3)
I can only imagine how this started at Amazon.
Self aggrandizing midwit (middle or upper middle management): “I need a project to demonstrate “leaders are right a lot and invent & simplify” principle come feedback time.”
Self aggrandizing midwit to their team: “Remember we have cameras in delivery vans go figure out what else we can do with them”
Shaking in the boots middle manager or IC: “Hey remember the drivers occasionally hit the curbs because they don’t have time to pee, we should look at their faces use our awesome Rekognition stack to bang this out”
Midwit: Great I will write a PRFAQ !
IC: Here it it boss, i banged out the PoC without going to the bathroom all day!
Midwit: I am glad WE ALL WORKED TO GET THIS OUT.
Self aggrandizing midwit (middle or upper middle management): “I need a project to demonstrate “leaders are right a lot and invent & simplify” principle come feedback time.”
Self aggrandizing midwit to their team: “Remember we have cameras in delivery vans go figure out what else we can do with them”
Shaking in the boots middle manager or IC: “Hey remember the drivers occasionally hit the curbs because they don’t have time to pee, we should look at their faces use our awesome Rekognition stack to bang this out”
Midwit: Great I will write a PRFAQ !
IC: Here it it boss, i banged out the PoC without going to the bathroom all day!
Midwit: I am glad WE ALL WORKED TO GET THIS OUT.
This isn't about singing. This is about foreigners talking on the phone while driving. It's uncanny but nearly every foreigner I've seen doing gig work has their phone to their ear talking in their home tongue.
Nothing wrong with that unless they're driving.
1. It's distracting, truly distracting. 2. It's a possible means of working while at work.
It's actually good that Amazon didn't just record the convos and reprimand people based on an AI oversight of whether it breaks the above rules.
Nothing wrong with that unless they're driving.
1. It's distracting, truly distracting. 2. It's a possible means of working while at work.
It's actually good that Amazon didn't just record the convos and reprimand people based on an AI oversight of whether it breaks the above rules.
> No matter how badly Amazon treats its workers, we all keep shopping there.
Because they keep working there. So the workers think the conditions are worth it in exchange for their paycheck. If I disagree and shop elsewhere I'm effectively disagreeing with the workers and telling them I think they are making a bad deal and I don't want to contribute to their livelihood. But I don't actually know that they can make a better deal elsewhere.
Before I move my purchase to Newegg or whatever should I first make sure that their working conditions are better? Or just judge by how often I see each company mentioned in the media?
I think that the voluntary nature of employment is a sufficient circuit breaker. If it gets bad enough we can and do leave for better opportunities elsewhere. It wouldn't be the first, second or third time for me, and that includes minimum wage jobs. So I don't feel the duty to investigate the working conditions of each business I deal with.
Because they keep working there. So the workers think the conditions are worth it in exchange for their paycheck. If I disagree and shop elsewhere I'm effectively disagreeing with the workers and telling them I think they are making a bad deal and I don't want to contribute to their livelihood. But I don't actually know that they can make a better deal elsewhere.
Before I move my purchase to Newegg or whatever should I first make sure that their working conditions are better? Or just judge by how often I see each company mentioned in the media?
I think that the voluntary nature of employment is a sufficient circuit breaker. If it gets bad enough we can and do leave for better opportunities elsewhere. It wouldn't be the first, second or third time for me, and that includes minimum wage jobs. So I don't feel the duty to investigate the working conditions of each business I deal with.
Slave work was also voluntary in a sense, it’s just that the alternative was your masters torturing and killing you.
Still is that way. You can refuse, but you will find yourself in nice tiny room with no distractions...
> If I disagree and shop elsewhere I'm effectively disagreeing with the workers and telling them I think they are making a bad deal and I don't want to contribute to their livelihood.
The fact that you can't order a product with any certainty that what you get won't be co-mingled fake trash from a third party is the best reason to stop ordering from them tbh.
The fact that you can't order a product with any certainty that what you get won't be co-mingled fake trash from a third party is the best reason to stop ordering from them tbh.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the availability of other work. I'm glad you've been able move between jobs, but it isn't always easy or available.
You are probably also taking for granted a lot of the labor rights which were won over the last 100 years. For example, blacklisting used to be a thing, and it certainly did prevent job mobility, that was the whole point.
You are also right that you as a CONSUMER should not have to check every company's credentials before doing business with them. But you as a CITIZEN might want to have your government do this through things such as minimum wage laws and overtime laws.
You are probably also taking for granted a lot of the labor rights which were won over the last 100 years. For example, blacklisting used to be a thing, and it certainly did prevent job mobility, that was the whole point.
You are also right that you as a CONSUMER should not have to check every company's credentials before doing business with them. But you as a CITIZEN might want to have your government do this through things such as minimum wage laws and overtime laws.
We can all do better.
Everyone else in this thread frustrates me, but I understand it. Compassion is ingrained in us, while free market economics is not.
Nobody here is really thinking through what happens if they are successful at boycotting and destroying Amazon. What would they say to these people they're supposedly helping?
"I got you laid off! You don't have to work here anymore! You're free! Maybe you can't feed your family now but at least you can move your lips while you drive!"
Nobody here is really thinking through what happens if they are successful at boycotting and destroying Amazon. What would they say to these people they're supposedly helping?
"I got you laid off! You don't have to work here anymore! You're free! Maybe you can't feed your family now but at least you can move your lips while you drive!"
Success in a boycott is not necessarily destroying Amazon. Success is making this decision cause enough financial pain to Amazon that they reverse it, and the next time some Frederick Taylor wannabe proposes something terrible along the same lines, everyone else reminds him of how much it hurt when they tried to stop the delivery drivers from singing along to music. Success is this weakening Amazon enough for their low-wage workers to unionize and demand representation on the board of directors and a bigger share of the profits.
If the workers want better conditions they can leave.
If all options are below what we would consider moral then we should change laws. The solution to a problem in a free market is not inside of one company.
Why does change have to come through workers leaving Amazon? Why can’t it change via the workers negotiating with Amazon leadership?
It sounds like you assume that corporations are immutable things, whose contracts and policies may never be changed. But we are having this conversation because Amazon’s policies changed, and the workers it affects are complaining. Why isn’t “Amazon rescinds this policy change” a solution to this problem?
It sounds like you assume that corporations are immutable things, whose contracts and policies may never be changed. But we are having this conversation because Amazon’s policies changed, and the workers it affects are complaining. Why isn’t “Amazon rescinds this policy change” a solution to this problem?
We can do that too. This is not a sophie's choice.
Why are these the only options? Because you said so?
Other truckers have UNIONS. Their cockpit recorders can only be accessed under strict guidance and policy - not willy nilly to piss off the truckers. Plus they get reasonable quotas so they don't have to bust their asses and drive sleep deprived.
> the solution in a free market...
... is to create a fair labor market. The labor market is not a free market, because companies have infinitely more leverage. If you're truly a free market activist, you must be pro-union. Introduce a little competitiveness into hiring practices.
Other truckers have UNIONS. Their cockpit recorders can only be accessed under strict guidance and policy - not willy nilly to piss off the truckers. Plus they get reasonable quotas so they don't have to bust their asses and drive sleep deprived.
> the solution in a free market...
... is to create a fair labor market. The labor market is not a free market, because companies have infinitely more leverage. If you're truly a free market activist, you must be pro-union. Introduce a little competitiveness into hiring practices.
[deleted]
I agree that boycotting Amazon is not the answer, but government action might be. And government action only happens if the politicians think enough of their constituency thinks something is a problem.
This is silly, because you are imagining that Amazon could disappear with no other change in society.