Maybe people should start tipping in cash again. Every service person I've asked has preferred it.
Its preferred because it is common to not report cash tips on taxes. If I could make a percentage of my wage tax free I would prefer it as well.
Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#12How on earth was this an "algorithm glitch" or anything close to "black box"? It's how they calculated pay, by setting a minimum hourly rate and subtracting any tips from that before paying out themselves. This reporter is far too trusting. > Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithm…
Or the developers are just stupid. Now they simply can add a simple if-statement.
if driver_pay [Edit:] LOL as seen below. That's probably how they coded it.
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#13How on earth was this an "algorithm glitch" or anything close to "black box"? It's how they calculated pay, by setting a minimum hourly rate and subtracting any tips from that before paying out themselves. This reporter is far too trusting. > Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithm…
I think they mean black box to the person paying and the one being paid not to Instacart.
Though this is kind of frustrating. Because 99%+ Instacart themselves knew what the formula is. I give a 1% change they legitimately did the math wrong and somehow got it through QA and code review into production and a 99% chance they are being intentionally deceptive by calling it an "algorithm glitch".
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#14How on earth was this an "algorithm glitch" or anything close to "black box"? It's how they calculated pay, by setting a minimum hourly rate and subtracting any tips from that before paying out themselves. This reporter is far too trusting. > Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithm…
Or the developers are just stupid. Now they simply can add a simple if-statement. if driver_pay No need to bother with unit tests on that one. [Edit:] LOL as seen below. That's probably how they coded it.
Actually you should have tested your code, because this does a no-op equality test against 3 (==), rather than your intention to set driver_pay to 3 (=)
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the developers are just stupid. Now they simply can add a simple if-statement. if driver_pay No need to bother with unit tests on that one. [Edit:] LOL as seen below. That's probably how they coded it.
Actually you should have tested your code, because this does a no-op equality test against 3 (==), rather than your intention to set driver_pay to 3 (=)
[deleted]
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#16How on earth was this an "algorithm glitch" or anything close to "black box"? It's how they calculated pay, by setting a minimum hourly rate and subtracting any tips from that before paying out themselves. This reporter is far too trusting. > Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithm…
Or the developers are just stupid. Now they simply can add a simple if-statement. if driver_pay No need to bother with unit tests on that one. [Edit:] LOL as seen below. That's probably how they coded it.
I thought you did that intentionally to be sarcastic / ironic...
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#17“Glitch” US Labor law doesn’t allow tip theft, and changing pay rate dependent on tip value is clearly tip theft.
Someone who has worked in a service job can answer this better but I'm not sure that is true. My understanding is that restaurants routinely pay less than minimum wage and then up your wage to minimum if your tips don't come up to at least minimum wage. I'm not sure how this is any deferent. Though doing it without the person being paid even knowing is abhorrent.
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#18Instacart should fix the other glitch, it used to be roughly one hour. Now it is tomorrow, or the day after. Not exactly insta.
And the quality has gone way down, they'll buyers would suggest a better deal, now they pick the worst if it makes their shopping faster
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#19How on earth was this an "algorithm glitch" or anything close to "black box"? It's how they calculated pay, by setting a minimum hourly rate and subtracting any tips from that before paying out themselves. This reporter is far too trusting. > Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithm…
The original article https://www.workingwa.org/instacart-eighty-cents has a screenshot from an email with Instacart explicitly describing how it works and confirming that the calculation was correct.
Re: Reeling from algorithm glitch, Instacart institutes $3 minimum fee for drivers
#20Funny. That would have been an interesting postmortem but I think they just eat the tip. That’s what it sounds like at least.