Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's not a crime if we do it with an app

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 640 posts

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#411

Post by titanomachy »

ryukoposting wrote: post #383

I will continue to shout this at clouds and hope something changes: As tech industry practicioners, we are some of the only people in the country who have both the desire to affect positive change, AND the agency to do so. Don't work for these companies. If your company does business with these companies, criticize it and encourage your coworkers to do the same.

It's possible that the folks who find themselves working at Potatotrac are not genius leetcoders who can get a new FAANG job anytime they want. They're probably just ordinary people trying to make enough money to buy an occasional $10 potato for their family.

Airbnb or Uber, on the other hand...

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#412

Post by bongodongobob »

gruez wrote: post #374
bongodongobob wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overturn citizens united and/or fully treat businesses like a person (jail, death).

>Overturn citizens united Who are all the people lobbying to keep long firm fraud hard to prosecute? >and fully treat businesses like a person (jail, death). Getting stuff on credit and then defaulting on the debt isn't illegal for natural persons either.

I have to believe you are a bot.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#413

Post by marcosdumay »

Cheer2171 wrote: post #61
marcosdumay wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws are just. Some aren't.

Oh so it seems you are unaware that in modern societies, there is a thing where if laws are unjust, we have a whole system for changing them. It's called government. If your definition of 'unjust' is different than the political system's definition, you have to push for social change to change the political system. You don't get to short-circuit this just because you're an 'innovator'. How do you feel about protester…

> How do you feel about protesters who carry out acts of civil disobedience, violating laws to draw attention to the issue?

Some laws are just, some aren't.

I can even accept exceptions for proportional acts of violence against evil people... But the way you speak is normally used by people trying to perpetrate moderate (a few times even large) acts of violence against large groups of innocent people. So, if that's what you want to know, I normally make exceptions for proportional acts of violence against that last group.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#414

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #167
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen some pretty gnarly fights between grocery store security and shoplifters. Back when I worked in one I had to take our security guard to the hospital to have a bite wound treated. There are more of them nowadays, with guns prominently displayed. It feels like we're not far from a world where they stop bothering to chase them down and just start shooting them in the back. I think you just have a nice neighbor…

No, you didn't. Loss Prevention in damn near any store are not allowed to even make physical contact with a shoplifter - it's a "you're fired" level policy violation. LP document, try to get the person to stop by hanging around or chasing them out of the store, try to convince the person to drop stuff, and if the person cooperates, keep them hanging around until law enforcement shows up. Companies don't want employee…

I did. I was working as a cashier for the first one, this was several years ago. I was asked to help put handcuffs on the shoplifter since our LP guy had is hands full restraining him. I should have objected to being asked to stand by as backup when confronting a shoplifter, but I'm a pushover.

But just this year I saw a grocery store security guard beat the shit out of a homeless person that they caught stealing (this was in the receiving area, not the parking lot--no cameras as far as I'm aware). This may not have been within policy, or legal, but it surely happens. It takes a certain sort to opt into a job where your primary function is intimidating people all the time.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#415

Post by Terr_ »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #229
KennyBlanken wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Theft and shrink (from employees) accounts for 5% of losses and it has not gone up - at all - from historical trends. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myth... https://www.vera.org/news/the-truth-about-retail-theft https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities... https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/business/shoplifting-retail-c...

As multiple of these articles acknowledge, any attempt to debunk shoplifting information from official crime data is on shaky ground, because most thefts are not reported to law enforcement. The guy who strolls out of Target with a bag full of shampoo isn’t in the crime data unless some store employee sees it happen and decides it’s worth calling the police to make a report about. I don’t think this is something wher…

Yet if the large grocery store chain doesn't consider it even worth a phone-call or web-form-submit--knowing they already have the footage of the event--it does kinda blunt the idea that it's a big problem.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#416

Post by toast0 »

lesuorac wrote: post #348
pwg wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stock dividends and stock price appreciation are two sides of the same coin. Both are "money returns to investors in the business". All that differs between them is the tax treatment each gets come tax time.

> All that differs between them is the tax treatment each gets come tax time. And that if you hold a stock for say 10 years and somehow sell during a recession you could make ~0$ on that stock if it only did buybacks. While with a dividend you'd have come out ahead. Conceptually they have very different incentives as well. With buybacks you want a company to have high volatility as well as to make short term decision…

> And that if you hold a stock for say 10 years and somehow sell during a recession you could make ~0$ on that stock if it only did buybacks. While with a dividend you'd have come out ahead.

A stock with buybacks should be compared to a stock with dividend reinvestment.

If you do something other than reinvest dividends, you should sell some shares every year.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#417

Post by ricardobeat »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #349
arrosenberg wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget about oil for a second. Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal. I'm not stupid, I understand supply and demand. COVID was 4 years ago. Explain the $8 box of cereal.

What it costs to produce is irrelevant in an equilibrium price for supply and demand. I'm not sure you do understand. Many people are buying the cereal for $8. Its that simple. There is enough demand for it at $8 that the company is happy with the market clearing their supply at that price point. If people were not buying the cereal at that price, they would lower it, or have gone out of business by now. If someone c…

> If someone could produce a substitute for far cheaper, and undercut, they would

Not when a cartel controls 97% of the market, distribution, placement, and is very keen on maintaining the status quo, as posited by the article.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#418

Post by Terr_ »

titanomachy wrote: post #411
ryukoposting wrote: post #383

I will continue to shout this at clouds and hope something changes: As tech industry practicioners, we are some of the only people in the country who have both the desire to affect positive change, AND the agency to do so. Don't work for these companies. If your company does business with these companies, criticize it and encourage your coworkers to do the same.

It's possible that the folks who find themselves working at Potatotrac are not genius leetcoders who can get a new FAANG job anytime they want. They're probably just ordinary people trying to make enough money to buy an occasional $10 potato for their family. Airbnb or Uber, on the other hand...

It's also unlikely that the person working on the Russet Quality Calculator feature has any knowledge about the market shares of each customer and their boardroom deals.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#419

Post by AngryData »

Eextra953 wrote: post #23

Does anybody know whats stopping ethical and slightly less greedy companies from outcompeting these conglomerates? Its a question I keep coming back to because if the market were efficient then competitors should be able to use that same data to undercut big potato (or big whatever). This never seems to happen.

By time a market is lopsided enough to incentivize startups to replace them, the established monopoly has built up a warchest of funds that is able to squash most any potential competition.

And even assuming companies don't resort to skeevy tactics to prevent competition, the companies that incentivize profit the most are going to have the most capital to expand and have the highest growth out of any potential competitors and fully saturate the market the fastest.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#420

Post by FireBeyond »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #389
steveBK123 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they d…

> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200…

> The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods.

That's Uber's business problem to solve, though, not ours.

Sucks to be them. The solution isn't "well, let's make it easier for Uber and screw over their not-employees".

The government, the people, are not obligated to ensure profitability is possible for every corporations every idea.

Post reply on HN