My understanding of MIPS was that it was meant to redirect linear force against the head, such as banging your head against a car in a relatively straight line, into a rotational force that would let the helmet slip off the head and that would reduce the amount of trauma to the skull. I never heard of anything about "brain rotation"
Wow, given that they're talking about something that invariably has a significant linear acceleration factor, that's a pretty... confident... way to put it.
Definitely. A lot of current startup darlings are shifting costs traditionally borne by the business to the workers. Uber is exhibit A here. Taxi companies, for all their flaws, at least paid for, maintained, and took on most of the risk of the cars. With Uber, all of that is on people desperate enough to drive for Uber. This strikes me as woefully inefficient systemically; large organizations are much better placed to manage cost and amortize risk.
For example, maybe I want to make extra money but don't want to be tied to a shift. This type of flexibility is amazing for lots of people. It's very appealing if you need extra money, and have a lot of time. Unfortunately, this aligned in an economic cycle where people needed work, and undervalued their value as workers(and for sometime bonuses, and gamification made this type of work very profitable i.e. 4k a week driving uber in SF).
The gig economy is more about having workers without giving them benefits and with making the workers shoulder the burden of shifting demand throughout the day. With food delivery you have the lunch rush and the dinner rush and outside of those windows your demand is a lot smaller. The gig economy means the company isn't on the hook for predicting or satisfying that demand; if there's too many workers for the demand, it's the workers who take the pay hit rather than the company. And if demand spikes unpredictably the company has an easy lever to push to get more workers out there (just notify workers of the spike, and surge pricing as needed to make the unplanned demand more attractive to the workers).
So the gig economy is really just auto scaling applied to human resources instead of computing resources.
Is that actually true, though? I've seen anecdotal reports from certain Uber drivers or whatnot, but I have not seen data. (It seems counterintuitive that such a huge amount of contractors would continue to choose that work over traditional employment in service jobs if it paid less.)
It could be that they're not factoring in the cost and maintenance of their vehicles because they foresee this as being a temporary period of their life. They're borrowing from the future cost of their cars.
From my experiences with Gig workers, I used to work in the engineering part of an early one, there will be definitely a bi-modal distribution between full time and part time workers. There will be those that will only want to 'pay a bill' with the proceeds. There will also be those that buckle down and organize their lives/finances around it. For the former, it wouldn't surprise me that they're earning less than service jobs, all in. However, the freedom of choosing one's hours really is powerful for those looking for just a few extra hundred dollars, plus the emphermeral cost against one's vehicles is easy to overlook.
First one, not treated as a crime. But there is a record, so that sucks.
Second one, leaving your 9 year old at a park all day while you are not there. I can see why that is a problem.
The third one is maybe where the is controversy. It would be nice if a 6 year old could play on the street by themselves. I think there is some discretion here and it depends what your street and suburb is like to some extent.
The last one is tragic and totally unfair to the family. Looks like another nail in the coffin for people without a lot of money in the US (who can't call a babysitter on short notice) and who use common sense. Then they get a criminal record, lose their jobs etc, can't get a new one etc. F'd.
Dawkins is known as an outspoken atheist. In interviews, he has called himself an agnostic about many matters of religious faith, instead endorsing reason.[citation needed] He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.
