Just a distributed denial of service attack.
It is amazing how so few systems are inherently robust to DDOS.
A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
151–160 of 250 posts
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#152Stack overflow’s TOS has a binding arbitration clause, [1] despite overwhelming user feedback to the contrary. [2]
Y Combinator’s TOS has an arbitration clause. [3] If you’ve created an account on HN, you’ve agreed to arbitration.
[1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#153As a European, reading these articles on arbitration, no-compete, required licenses, 'right-to-work', tipping, "gig work", firing over zoom, and so much more, it seems U.S. workers could really use some collective bargaining? Here unions are the obvious century-old solution to improve working conditions, why don't workers organize there? Are we just lucky here, like with universal health care?
You're not that lucky, I can literally make 5x more in the US as a software engineer than in Europe.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#154Is this current news? In trying to find non-pay-walled coverage (FU,NYT), I quickly found previous stories on this from February and in November. The November 25 article[1] mentions the "squirming out" remark by the judge. A WaPo article from February 16 [2] mentions that each of the 5000 Dashers who filed for arbitration had to put up $300. [1] https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-accuses-doordash-of-try... [2] http…
Posted here a few months ago as well [1] when the judge's decision was given. This NYT article doesn't add anything new, and I suspect it's a result of the defense lawyers calling in favors order to put pressure on DoorDash which filed for it's IPO in February.
DoorDash is most likely going to use the surge in traffic because of the coronavirus to help push their IPO through sooner than later, taking advantage of the fact they're one of the few types of businesses benefitting from the lock down. If the defense can threaten that IPO, DoorDash might be more pliable to a deal...
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took State Farm to small claims court. They paid to upgrade it to general division at the last possible moment, which significantly increases the logistics and complexity of the case. I think they did it as an intimidation tactic. Corporations are horrible.
What was the result?
They settled the morning of the hearing for exactly as much money as I asked for before I took them to court. They admitted that the attorney alone cost much more than the settlement. Not to mention the court fees they had to pay.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#156The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…
> (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees).
The agreement specifies the arbitrator you use. In this case, the fees are set by the arbitration company, not by any contract between the parties to the dispute. It's not a matter of "who picks up the fees"; there's one fee for the company and a different, much smaller fee for the complainant.
(Of course you could have a contract specify that one or the other party was responsible for the other's arbitration costs, but that's not happening here and seems unlikely in other areas.)
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#157Hi To ALL
This is noman here i am good writer and poet i have publish to many books but now i am getting start website you can check on below link
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#158Stack overflow’s TOS has a binding arbitration clause, [1] despite overwhelming user feedback to the contrary. [2] Y Combinator’s TOS has an arbitration clause. [3] If you’ve created an account on HN, you’ve agreed to arbitration. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309756 [3] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
[deleted]
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#159Stack overflow’s TOS has a binding arbitration clause, [1] despite overwhelming user feedback to the contrary. [2] Y Combinator’s TOS has an arbitration clause. [3] If you’ve created an account on HN, you’ve agreed to arbitration. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309756 [3] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
ianal and all that - but these tos are dubious. They can be ruled unconscionable, not enforceable because they are easy to miss, and being overly favored to tho company.
Ignore the arbitration clauses and talk to your lawyer.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that refutes anything. Java is a complicated language and I personally wouldn't hire anyone who are vain enough to say "I know Java". In any case, the very next sentence of the article is "Not very well, anyway", which definitely supports the claim that he taught himself Java.
You wouldn't hire anyone who says "I know Java"? That seems extreme. Some people do know Java and are completely justified in saying so.
Well, I suppose it was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the thought of someone saying "I know Java" made me think of something like that "I know Kung Fu" moment from The Matrix, as if there's some amount of knowledge after which you just have the skill. I consider Java to be one of these things like Kung Fu, or Chess, or photography, where thinking that you now know it just means that you're so early in your learning process that you can't see the full lay of the land yet.