There have actually been a few cases that have made it through the courts that apply “employee” status based on how the company treats the worker rather than how they’re paid.

Especially in cases where the worker is on long-term assignment somewhere like Google.

From the article, this looks like it’s for GM’s “Cruise” program, which is already out there in limited scope in a couple cities. It’s aself-driving car service limited to a small area of San Francisco and… I want to say Austin?

They’re already operating vehicles that are essentially “self-driving” now. This is about rolling out a new class of vehicle using the same technology, but without the human controls.

I don’t know a lot about the service, or what, exactly it does, but I suspect it works well because the area the vehicles operate in is extremely limited and the vehicles can have an incredibly detailed, and up-to-date map of that area. I’d also wager the area selected is free of most obstacles and has only one type of terrain, i.e., “downtown low-speed streets” or similar.

That said, I can’t imagine the NTSHA will allow a vehicle on the road without any sort of manual emergency control mechanism in place. Though, it may be very rudimentary, like others have suggested, a joystick and a throttle/brake intended to get the vehicle somewhere safe so people can get out.

It’s okay to say “No” to two things at the same time without having to choose one or the other.

For fuck’s sake, this article is nothing but outrage bait. Wired has gone to shit.

Let’s not forget the Saudi royal family. They really hate social media.

Yes, this is called regulatory capture.

Capitalism is great, but it absolutely must be tempered by regulation.

The problem comes when the capitalist gains influence over the regulator, aka, regulatory capture.

As an Xbox junkie, I want more stupid games on the Xbox platform.

But even I can recognize how bad this is for the industry.

In finding Comer liable to Bungie for those costs—as well as over $80,000 in legal fees and $25,000 in statutory damages—the court also laid out the basis for “a new common law tort” that paves the way for other companies to do the same. As Tewson describes it in her Twitter thread, “the Court has created a path for those with the resources to identify stochastic terrorists and hold them accountable to do exactly that and recover their costs in court.”

I am rarely on the corporation’s side, but in this case, the outcome is the right one. While there’s still a bar in that you need to be able to identify the person and have the resources to sue, this case sets a precedent that the behavior isn’t okay.

Here’s to hoping it stands on appeal, presuming the defendant bothers to appeal.

It was invite only for too long, and then, suddenly, it was required for everything Google.