I own this.
I’m guessing the author doesn’t have this issue, but the model sold in the US has a volume limiter limit on them. My daily headphones aren’t easy to drive, so this was a concern I have that many other people might not care about.
I ended up having to import mine to get a device that doesn’t have this enforced.
Edit: Sorry I was clumsy with my words. It’s a limit on volume, since it’s an option for high gain.
A contrived metaphor: if an unleashed dog bites a person, is the dog owner no longer responsible for the incident?
You could say that it’s up to the car owner to install a steering wheel, like how a dog owner should use a leash. But this would be a gap between when the person receives the car and when they could install the steering wheel (assuming the wheel installation can be performed).
In 2016, the first known fatality linked to a self-driving car took place when a Tesla Model S failed to stop and crashed into a semitrailer truck.
Ah, this one is hard to forget. I remember this one vividly because it sparked all sorts of philosophical discussions around the use of self-driving cars. Hypothetical scenarios like “Between a family of 5 with children, should the car choose to kill the driver to save the family” and the different variations of the trolley problem.
Determining the responsible party was always a puzzle to me. The current state of auto-pilot requires hands-on attention from the driver, so the accountable party is arguably the driver. But with a fully autonomous vehicle, where the steering wheel isn’t installed, is the car manufacturer accountable for deaths and accidents?
IIRC, Gitlab labels it “merge train”
Can’t afford the new minimum wage, but they can afford the lawyers and the lawsuit.
With the per-delivery model, the drivers have the option to pick and choose which jobs to accept.
Being speculative, I believe the scare tactic being used is: the driver can be assigned very unattractive deliveries without the power to refuse. As someone that does not do deliveries for any of these companies and periodically viewed posts from /r/doordash, I can only guess that this will hurt a smaller percentage of drivers that formulate a metagame to maximize their delivery income.
From reading only the article and none of its cited sources: the change requires a $.50/minute increase while the driver is in the middle of a gig, or $17.96 (which is the rounded $18 in the headline). Assuming the driver is literally doing a job every minute (i.e. no gaps in-between deliveries), then that’s a $30 for an entire hour. So the cost-effective alternative is to have the employee on an hourly wage and just pay them $18/hr for x hours that they’re scheduled for. The quotes in the article explained how the switching from a per-job model to a “do as many jobs in the hours we schedule you for” means they’ll lose the benefit of flexible work schedules.
That said, I think the economy will speak for itself. Given the number of times I see companies complain in the media about “nobody wants to work”, they’ll need to pony up the money in order to maintain their share in the market.
Every day, that list of people grows: https://xkcd.com/1053
Overall, not surprised.
Couple of points I noticed were missing:
These are their most affordable models, so I’m reading this article in terms of the Model X & Model S, and not every owner. The data did say that the Model 3 was predominantly male-owned, and I expected nothing less from a car marketed as a sports car.
A state that was once identified as “Camry California”, the Model Y exceeding Camry sales in the state is a big enough deal to include that data to qualify an article that describes all Tesla owners.
Those are the only unique characteristics. You can compensate other differences on a phone like adding an additional DAC and/or amp.