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

491–500 of 640 posts

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

#491

Post by AnthonyMouse »

viraptor wrote: post #468
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual problem is that it's a stupid law. You effectively have two options. Option one, Uber signs up as many drivers as they have customers during off-peak hours and then if you want to drive only during peak hours to take advantage of surge pricing you can't and if you want a ride then there won't be enough drivers, because they won't sign up any more if they'd have to pay someone for 8 hours to have them only…

Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff. Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known.

> Option three: They get enough drivers to cover most of the peak, and end up paying for some idle time otherwise. Just like almost every company with permanent staff.

That only works when the difference in demand between peak and off-peak is small relative to the cost of idle workers. In this case it isn't.

> Alternatively option two with an explicit, upfront decisions who is actually part-time, so there are no surprises and the rules are known.

Then you'll be objecting that the majority of people are classified as part-time because there will be a lot of people who get 40 hours some weeks and zero other weeks due to changes in seasonal demand etc.

Also, the result of that would be that in the slower weeks, one person gets 40 hours and one person gets 10 instead of each person getting 25 hours, and that's obviously not to the advantage of the person whose hours you're cutting. Which in turn implies that the person getting 40 will be signing up for some fresh hell like "you get 40 hours but we choose when they are" and then they're both getting screwed by the change.

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

#492

Post by ogleopoly »

Terr_ wrote: post #418
titanomachy wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#493

Post by ALittleLight »

cycomanic wrote: post #409
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine a small restaurant doing similar // These are 'zero hour' contracts a popular tool in the UK for businesses you screw over poor employees. There is some utility for workers too - some people need to be able to say 'I'm not coming in today', or 'I'm leaving right now', often due to carer responsibilities though. The power lies with the business and the workers bad circumstances are often being exploited.

That's not the same though, in zero hour contracts you get told how many hours you being asked to work and you can decide to come in or not. You're not called into the restaurant to cook 2 burgers and the told we don't have customers right now so you're off work and the 20min when the next customer comes in you have to work again. Completely different scenario.

That's not like the scenario with Uber either though. Nobody is telling the drivers they have to work again.

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

#494

Post by latency-guy2 »

ogleopoly wrote: post #476
bschne wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what has repeatedly bothered me about Doctorow, he writes quite compellingly on the surface, but the arguments are often sketchy at best, and the pandering to/expression of outrage often dominates any attempts at clear analysis.

[flagged]

It's you saying that. Notice how none of what you said appears in their comment. This is a strong indicator that you are arguing against yourself.

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

#495

Post by ogleopoly »

danny_codes wrote: post #244
dataflow wrote: post #51

I can't say I buy this argument? I think for some of the cases (like Uber?) it might be correct, but are they sure there isn't another force at play in a lot of other cases? I recall reading that with apartment rentals in NYC, the problem was (is?) apparently that there are literally contracts in place preventing landlords from deviating from the recommendation. That's the crux of the problem, not the app recommendat…

Did you read the article? The claim is that the app acts as a smokescreen to hide collusion. Or rather, it’s a new way to collude, and thus works as an obfuscation tactic. The app itself is immaterial: it’s using the technology as a way to dodge the law. In this case, w have laws against price fixing. Using an app for price fixing is a way for the price fixer to say, hey, it’s not me, it’s this other company that tel…

[flagged]

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

#496

Post by ogleopoly »

sotix wrote: post #360

> Josh Saltzman, owner of the DC sports bar Ivy and Coney. Ten years ago, Saltzman charged $3 for fries; now it's $6 – and Saltzman's margins have declined. Saltzman has a limited number of suppliers, and they all get their potatoes from Big Potato, and they bundle those potato orders with their other supplies, making it effectively impossible for Saltzman to buy his potatoes from anyone else. I understand there will…

[flagged]

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

#497

Post by ogleopoly »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #191

I think the key insight that the article misses is that when consumers interact with an app they have an excess of trust in "the app". I run an ecommerce site. It's hard as a small retail operation to keep inventory in sync and model the complex network of supplier relationships for special-orders: we can get some products in a day, some things in a week, some in 6 months. Nonetheless customers assume that the comput…

The article isn't about consumer apps, though, it's about websites that all four companies in an industry use for "optimal pricing", which just launders collusion through a Python backend. I would considering giving the piece a reread.

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

#498

Post by ogleopoly »

killerstorm wrote: post #279

Well, it used to be a crime to offer a communication service without government explicit approval. But an app like Skype made it possible for people to communicate for free. Was it bad? Do we need government to define what kind of business people can conduct?

[flagged]

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

#499

Post by ogleopoly »

vitiral wrote: post #263

Why are there not local competitors to checks notes cook, bag and freeze potatoes at a 10x markup? Might it be an overly large regulatory burden on starting said competitor?

No, it's because it's not profitable to do so, and the big players will kill your business. This is also tangentially mentioned in the article... You think you can compete with PotatoCo, which makes billions of dollars, has massive scale, owns several Senators, and which every last potato farm in America is already using? And you want to blame the food regulations that keep people from getting sick and dying?

But sure, just go "start a frozen potato company". Why didn't anyone else think of that until Hacker News?

Post reply on HN