The screen isn't glossy like a phone. It's matte, so you don't get noticeable fingerprints on it. The touchscreen is good because it saves putting buttons on the case, meaning the screen can be bigger. However the Paperwhite isn't all that responsive so the touchscreen can be a little frustrating.
Sorry I'm not getting it. Feel free to correct me at any stage if I'm wrong.
1) You can drive a car in Germany if you meet some basic legislative requirements (Führerschein etc.)
2) You can carry a friend as a passenger - perfectly legal.
3) You could carry a stranger who asked you for a ride - perfectly legal.
4) That stranger could give you gas money - perfectly legal.
5) But if you use your smartphone to find strangers willing to pay you for a ride at this point your activity becomes so unsafe that you need to jump through a whole bucketload of extra hoops? Why is that exactly?
Up until 5 you have two people making free decisions.
When you get to number 5 you have a commercial company and an individual, and that changes the relationship.
Here's a US example.
I can drive a car, but if my employer asks me to take a parcel from work to the post office to be posted I need to make sure my insurance covers that commercial activity or I am uninsured.
Well Uber provides insurance during the ride, but anyways...
Why are people in favor of using tax dollars preemptively to defend extremely-profitable insurance companies? If their customers aren't following their contracts, the burden is on them - and I don't see a problem with that. Its not Uber's fault.
In the meantime, Germany is banning a company that has shown they lower DUIs upon introduction.
I think you all missed his point. Yes he knows there are laws. He's questioning why the laws exist. There's clearly a lot of confusion about this because up thread we have people saying it's not about safety, and then we have lots of other people saying it is about safety.
To me having insurance valid for commercial use seems reasonable, but you don't need special licenses or laws to enforce that. Just have a law that says "you must have insurance valid for the kind of driving you do" (which I suspect Germany already has).
The basic point being made here is there is no technical or medical reason why the amount of money being charged suddenly makes driving fundamentally different. You're driving the same car on the same roads with the same driver. So why have governments made it so complicated?
There is a difference: Regular insurances do NOT cover commercial activities – so if you want to drive for uber, you need to get a commercial insurance.
This is everything the court asked for: Appropriate insurance and regular checkups (yearly instead of biyearly).
> you don't need special licenses or laws to enforce that. Just have a law that says "you must have insurance valid for the kind of driving you do"
Licenses provide the proper checks and balances proving that the driver has complied with their legal requirements. The license is typically shown somewhere in the taxi, so the fare can see that they are covered if anything bad were to happen.
That's of course assuming the fare knows about this, which for foreigners isn't always the case.
While there have been a lot of replied I think the main reason 5) is not legal is because it is much more likely that a driver will do this 12h a day for 6-7 days a week.
So he will spend more hours on the road which is more demanding for him as well as his car, which is why it requires more regulation.
5 is not about safety. You enter a regulated market once in case 4 the money you give to the stranger exceeds the cost attached to the ride, smartphone or not. On top, you have no insurance coverage anymore.
Hey Chris. Sorry to hijack this thread. Just to say I'm loving Link Bubble and think it's a great idea. However the other day I was listening to a song in the background, using youtube.com in a link bubble, as the youtube app doesn't play in the background. But the bubble closed halfway through the song and it stopped playing. It might be a good idea to somehow detect if music was playing (like Chrome does, not sure how hard that would be) and not kill the bubble. Or maybe not kill youtube/soundcloud/whatever bubbles until the user does it manually. Just a suggestion! Cheers.
Github still holds quite a lot of nines in terms of uptime. It's just that it's extra visible when something big like Github goes down.
The important part you should consider is to switch go git. I'd recommend starting to use Github, and if you find that it's down too much, look at alternatives or at hosting a solution yourself.
When moving from svn to GitHub what you're actually doing is moving from a centralized svn system to a centralized git system.
The big difference is that in the second case you can keep working on your local repo without touching the central repo, at any time add new remotes to your local repo and pull and push from your peers.
If GitHub is down, you just keep working. If your svn server is down, you just pile your local work waiting for it to come back up, the tool will not help you in that case.
Moving from svn to git is a no brainer, even if you keep using it as if it were svn most of the time.
If Github would only host git repositories, you'd be right. But people use Github for the issue tracker, source browser, code review system. Those are just as centralized as the svn server. And in my opinion, they are at least as important as a source control server to get things done.
Apparently they have been ddos'ed multiple times recently. I wouldn't have noticed, if it didn't appear on HN though. My impression is that they have people who are quite capable of dealing with these issues. I would rather have a provider that gets under attack, but has the resources to mitigate it, than one that is rarely attacked, but would be destroyed by it.
Well if you're only using GitHub for hosting the repo then you can still work with your copy of the repository while GitHub is offline (since you're in distributed not centralise version control territory).
Git has a file protocol so you can also just sync your changes between one another via a network share of your repo. Or SSH or email each other pull requests.
You could simply hire better employees rather than disrespecting your candidates. I wouldn't bother pretending that it has anything to do with "risk management". At best, you sound extremely cheap. At worst, it makes you sound like you repeatedly make poor hiring decisions and scramble to adjust for this.
Right, but as I said, after the three months, we settle the difference - and it's not 80% either, actually, more like 7%, but hey ho. We've never had anyone object, and it's pretty common practice.
