The medical standard for death has equated it with brain death since at least 1981, though arguably it started in the 1960s. The history of the definition of death[1] is fascinating.
A party is a thing where multiple elected officials band together in a persistent coalition. The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?
On top of that, that section applies to how the votes of the electoral college delegates are counted. It doesn't specify how the electoral college delegates are chosen, which it leaves up to the states. There are plenty of interesting ways of choosing them that don't result in a structural incentive for a two-party race.
> The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?
I don't think it's a coincidence that every US state is structured as a smaller mirror of the federal government.
It's not a coincidence because they adopted their initial constitutions at around the same time or based them on the existing states that had. But we're talking about the electoral college and none of the states use something equivalent to that to choose their governor.
Using score voting instead of FPTP for state-level offices would be a straightforward legislative change in many states and still not require any change to the US Constitution even in the states where it would require a change to the state constitution, which is generally a much lower bar to overcome than a federal constitutional amendment.
The administration believes that rights, in this case the right of corporate existence, are granted by the state. This is opposed to the liberal conception that rights are a product of natural existence - an essential feature of being.
The right of corporate existence is granted (or at least regulated, heavily) by the state.
This administration believes that they don't need to treat all businesses equally under the law, and can use strong-arm intimidation tactics to get what they want. That is the problem.
You also have to understand that the foundation of money is debt in the sense that if we paid back all the debt, money wouldn't continue to exist. The sum total of debt exceeds the total quantity of money.
We were lucky enough to have PMs create a set of questions, we did a round of generation and labeled pass/fail annotations on each response.
From there we bootstrapped AI-as-a judge and approximately replicated the results. Then we plug in new models, change prompts, pipelines while being able to approximate the original feedback signal. It's not an exact match, but it's wildly better than one-off testing and the regressions it brings.
We're able to confidently make changes without accidentally breaking something else. Overall win, but it can get costly if the iteration count is high.
This is interesting approach, thanks for the insight! If I may ask, _approximately_ how long does it take to test a newly-released model with the current strategy?
Absolutely wild that none of the dissenting comments suggest a means of lowering or eliminating sexual harassment of women passengers. Why not start there? Get creative.
The most effective way of combating this for Uber would be to start doing deeper background checks, live interviews, in-depth assessments, customized testing on their drivers. Mandate video and audio recordings in the car that's streamed to them. Impose harsh penalties on harassment, including immediate dismissal and mandatory police reporting. You know, act like a real employer.
Right now they have all the reasons in the world to be as hands-off on their checks as they can be. They don't behave like a business with employees. It costs nothing to accept almost anyone and then just weed out the worst of the worst to avoid brand damage.
But making these changes would cut into the bottom line too much. They want all the unemployable and dangerous people to work for them because they're so desperate that they'll accept the meager pay. So instead of making any deep, difficult structural changes, they ask the software team to add a checkbox to the app. The checkbox itself is fine by me, but it's just them taping over an issue that stems from the way they do business.
You don't get to say "these people's rights are inconvenient, so until we make it more convenient, I say we ignore their rights." We either care about sex discrimination everywhere, or we don't care about it anywhere.
All I'm hearing is carve-outs and exceptions. "But when I do it, it's ok."
If you're excluding people based on sex/gender it's discrimination. We either care about sex discrimination everywhere, or we don't care about it anywhere.
All I’m hearing is bad-faith nonsense built on intentionally ignoring the concept of civil rights.
Why go on the internet and do this? Honestly. You know that your line of argumentation doesn’t even remotely care about being serious, yet you make it anyway. Why? To waste my time?
What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"?
Put yourself in her shoes. I don't mean this metaphorically. Put on women's clothes, makeup, and order an uber. In the time it takes for it to arrive, notice the thoughts that appear in your mind and get back to me.
Rather than their argument being a joke, you are misunderstanding the argument.
> What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"?
Nobody has argued this. This is a straw man you constructed so you can knock it over and claim victory.
Then create a better man. What are those claiming "sex discrimination" suggesting women do? Clarify. I'm happy to accept a better model. Correct me, please.
Well, obviously women should use this filter to discriminate for their safety. That's related to, but beside, the point others are making. Others are referring to Uber's policy, irrespective of the decisions made by their individual customers. (I mean, maybe some others are saying stupid shit, but there's at least some smart shit one can read, too.)
The policy for Uber to add this filter is a problem because it means they put a bandaid over the issue instead of solving it by being more strict in their hiring. Adding this filter means, to the corporate brain, they've "solved" the problem and therefore need to spend no more money on it. Frustratingly, that seems to be in a way which perpetuates the problem, when Uber could otherwise train their employees (whom they could also interview prior to hiring...), and even take appropriate action against the ones who act against their policy.
It's worth noting that tavavex went over this in their reply to your top-level comment; their point had never been that individual choices made by women are the reason this is a bad policy. In fact, a good summary of the more reasonable negative sentiment was included at the end of said comment:
> The checkbox itself is fine by me, but it's just them [Uber] taping over an issue that stems from the way they do business.
Yes, I realize women face real dangers in car share hiring. The solution isn't just to then just blindly discriminate against random, perfectly nice men.
> Feel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one.
> Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution.
You should be aware that these statements come off as extremely obtuse. A solution was shared at the top of the thread; albeit by a different commenter, but it makes sense that the second commenter would have the same suggestion in mind. You've not actually discussed the merits despite ample opportunity, instead agreeing that it's a better solution, but, because it's not been implemented, this solution is still necessary for the time being.
What you've not done is argued for why that should be the case, as opposed to the bare assertion that it is. It seems that would be beneficial to your point of view in this discussion, given that others seem to be saying that it should not be.
There are even simpler things: the rating system. There's no guarantee that the driver won't see what I rated him, so I won't report them.
There are ways to report if a man has been sexual with a woman, but they somehow just don't get kicked out of the driver network.
Also just a simple example: Uber engineering blog is full of examples of how they rewrote their app in native Android then web then native again, but nothing about how to solve the real problems humans experience when driving with them.
It just feels that they view Uber as a simple logistic problem where drivers / riders are interchangeable and less like Tinder that tries to match people with similar scores abd kicks out the worst.
Do you have any compelling ideas on how to do that? I don't think it's 'wild' that people criticizing a company action aren't starting their comments with "here's how I'd fix society".
It would be cool if people have better ideas, but someone criticizing this workaround doesn't need to suggest something better, and it's not weird for them to lack better ideas but still post. It's a hard problem. And "better than nothing" might get an idea approved but doesn't let it escape criticism.
Separate the services. There are women-only gyms, why not women-only Uber? Give it another brand name or make it a separate company and offer services for women drivers only, women riders only.
This would be illegal in the United States if it were a for-profit company. The US has pretty serious civil rights laws regarding employment and housing.
A divider's not gonna do anything. The threat of being in someone else's car is that they can take you anywhere, keep driving you around, harass and demand things from you. It's a position of trust. Not the same kind of trust as an airline pilot and their passengers, but there's still a large imbalance.
reply