every company in china is considered an SOE... state owned enterprise. This is known. There is no chance that the chinese government doesn't have a seat at the table of their equiv of the board of directors. That would contradict how corporations in China are allowed to operate.
I work at Lyft and have to work directly with Google on several of their various enterprise offerings.
Their support is downright AWFUL. Getting someone from Google to help is so challenging that they have decided that in order to work with them on their enterprise offerings you must go through a 3rd party vendor. Their third party vendors are all small companies with which my organization has very little trust for.
I will never knowingly try to do anything with Google again after the hellish experience I have had dealing with them and their vendors so far, it just isn't worth it.
My experience is the same. TRE/IF are much easier to adhere to then typical caloric restriction diets or more extreme diets like Paleo or Keto. Skipping a meal is something I get used to after a few days, constantly depriving myself every meal is so damn hard.
Yeah I made a serious go of Keto a couple years ago for about 4 months, and I had really good results with it, but there were a ton of drawbacks as well. Once I got adapted, I didn't have major cravings for carbohydrates, and I felt pretty good on a day-to-day basis, but every time I "cheated" and had a bite of cake for a colleagues birthday or something, I would crash and burn and basically go on a bender of compulsively eating carbs until I could get myself under control. Then it would take another week or so of willpower testing to get myself back on the wagon. Basically it felt like a very all or nothing thing.
There were a couple "weird" things as well. For instance, it affected my sleep, athletic performance and even though I was eating a ton of fiber and taking magnesium supplements, my regularity suffered to a massive degree. The other thing was that my weight rebounded fairly quickly after going off of it.
Basically, Keto seemed like I was doing something sort of extreme to my body, whereas fasting is just simply not eating sometimes, and feels very natural. Also you never have to order off-menu items, or explain why you can't take the cookie somebody baked for you.
this was my experience with keto as well, every time I had to requit carbs I had to go through a multi day to week long carb withdrawal/craving cycle, and the binge risk was so high.
cutting weight is only useful if it isn't going to instantly be regained, especially when you are making so many sacrifices to lose it!
There's subtle differences here. What this title refers to is commonly referred to as "time restricted feeding" or in humans "time restricted eating" if you are curious to learn more, google for a pod cast with Sachin Panda and Rhonda Patrick. They get into the details of this style of dieting at a mechanistic level really well.
Basically doing this over the long run will make you live longer, have a healthier metabolic system, lose weight, have healthier glucose levels, etc.
I'm on a mixture of TRE and intermittent fasting, and let me tell you, it works. I do it for longevity and energy. Weight management is just a bonus since now I can eat more of what I want without gaining weight since I am doing it in a smaller number of hours in the day.
I don't doubt any of that, I'm just confused on why 10/14 needs a special label or is defined as fasting.
If you goto sleep at 11pm and don't eat until 8am the next day, do you classify this as a 9 hour fast assuming you ate something 5 minute before sleeping?
At some point things are just "normal" based around your sleep schedule. Or to put it another way, if you drink water with breakfast at 8am but then don't drink anything for 3 hours, would you label that 3 hour time span as a "self imposed hydration cleanse"?
I don't understand your point. The study asked people to (typically) eat during 10 hours and not eat during 14 hours, hence the 10/14 labelling. This resulted in a moderate weight loss, about 8.6% less calories/day were consumed.
You're suggesting that other schedules might also work and that 10/14 is "normal". Whether it's normal in the statistical sense or not is an empirical question (the answer is probably "no"), and whether other schedules would have the same effect requires another study.
Maybe intention is the difference here. The "normal" people are simply running on routine with no designs to stick to that routine should a disruption appear. By actively intermittent fasting, you are declaring your intentions, likely with a specific goal in mind.
10/14 is the typical time restricted feeding window. the other most common is 8/16, and if you go lower you hit 6/18 which is considered intermittent fasting. These numbers matter in the context of clinical trials for various definitions. If you wish to remain naive to the subject feel free to ignore my initial comment. I gave you everything you needed there to figure it out for yourself.
That's actually a selling point of this method. Another way to put it is: Skip breakfast. If you eat at 10 pm last, skip breakfast and eat again at 12pm lunch the next day that works.
with time restricted eating it is typically recommended to have your last meal by 6 or 7 if you intend to sleep by 10pm. There are a number of health consequences to eating so late. The one most people care about has to do with the pancreas receiving melatonin and slowly beginning to shut down for the night, so when you eat late it has a lower insulin response than it would otherwise leading to more calories being stored as fat instead of being used as energy. There are some metabolic consequences as well.
is this supposed to be an unintended consequence? We all know that the cheap rides of Uber are (partially) the result of them dodging around employer obligations.
I disagree with this. What other job on the planet allows me to work when I want to work, bring my own tools, have no boss, and never even talk to the company I am working for?
To me, this is a lot like someone a hundred years ago asking, "what other job on the planet allows children to work around heavy machinery for half an adult wage?".
No one here is saying that people shouldn't be able to drive for a rideshare company. We're saying that people who choose to do that should at least be paid a minimum wage for their time and given basic worker protections. If you oppose this kind of thing, you should probably also oppose minimum wage laws in general (which is a valid opinion).
Even if it means that fewer people get the opportunity to to do it at all? I know people who drive for a little extra money while they work other jobs. This kind of flexibility is what might be at risk, excluding many people who need that extra income from ever getting the opportunity.
So the trade off is always "more jobs" vs "better jobs". A company can hire 10 people at 10 dollars an hour or 20 people at 5 dollars an hour.
Which situation is you believe is "better" depends on your end goal: Are you trying to make more small jobs, or are you trying to make jobs meaningful in their earning ability?
Framed another way, the people you know driving for "a little extra cash" are chipping away at opportunities for someone to be consolidating those jobs into a single, better job.
Not going to debate which is actually "better", because that's just personal opinions/economic model preferences.
People wouldn't take $5 per jobs if someone else was offering them $6 or $7... so better to have 15 people learning skills that hopefully let them move up in their profession & career to higher earning occupations.
There's a lot of assumptions here, biggest among them being
>>People wouldn't take $5 per jobs if someone else was offering them $6 or $7
Sure they would. Because a job isn't only wages, there's always some other factors involved in employment decisions. Someone might have med-school and limited free time. There's a ton of reasons why "job with lower pay and factor X" seems more appealing to someone than "job with higher pay only".
Look at game developers. They work horrible hours and often get paid less than similarly skilled devs in other fields. Why? Because demand for these jobs are extremely high relative to supply which provides management with greater bargaining positioning to lower wages.
Some of these people aren't trying to move to a career with higher earning, and see this as their end goal or "a tangential job I'm doing today". This allows them to drive down market rates on the job for people who are in a different circumstance and have higher financial needs.
We can get into a whole discussion about labor vs management and labor rights and best practices and all that. TL;dr- That's an opinion, and it's a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be.
No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed. You can demand people pay you more for a service but you can't force them to hire you in the first place.
>>No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed.
For some people, yes. But we're looking at the laborers as a whole, not the individuals (and my specific example was more from the perspective of the managers at a company with a limited budget for employees).
Some people will go from "contractor job" to no job. Other people will go from "contractor job" to "employee job".
Uber still needs drivers. They're not going to not have drivers because of this. Some people currently working for Uber will keep doing that. Some people currently working for Uber will not keep doing that. In the future, some people will apply to work for Uber and be both rejected and accepted as employees.
> A company can hire 10 people at 10 dollars an hour or 20 people at 5 dollars an hour.
No, it will probably exclude people who just want to work 2 hours some evenings whenever they have time to make some extra money, who'd make the full 10 dollars an hour like other drivers do in the time that they do work.
Frame it another way: You have 120 hours of shifts that you need covered at your job in a given week. You can hire 12 people who each work 10 hours, or 3 full-time employees.
The "better" choice again comes down to your goal: More jobs or "better", full time jobs.
There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better.
Consumers should also be considered. If casual drivers are excluded, the smaller pool of drivers will cause prices to rise. Some consumers who previously used ride sharing will go back to driving their own cars.
There's also the removal of a smooth transition driving as a career. If you can do it casually for a few hours you can discover if you enjoy it and want to quit your job and do it full time. If the only option is to be a full time employee, you have to go through the hiring process and take a risk of quitting your current job just to see if it's for you.
>>There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better.
And this is why I'm specifically and repeatedly not getting into the discussion of "which is better". Because that's a whole other discussion.
I'm just pointing out that when it comes to job creation, there's 2 axis. Both have pros, both have cons. You say X is better, I say Y is better, objectively there's data on either side, subjectively there's opinions on both sides, frankly I'm not interested in all that. Just pointing out that there's a rational opponent to your points. Not trying to be him.
No, workers lose their jobs. 2-3x increase in prices is not sustainable for such services except for a minority of rides. UberX will disappear and it will become only UberBlack.
Mmm I think you get the best of all worlds (as the hiring company) with part timers.
- <30 hours/week so no benefits
- you can only work in these hours
- take it or leave it cause we now can remove your ability to work for any other times
No marginal costs outside the min wage (no benefits) and honestly you don’t want more hours unless they are explicitly in the time and place you want them.
not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers. almost every driver drives for both companies. the drivers are going to get shafted here in total earnings. they will work fewer hours and make more per hour, but won't be able to drive crazy hours on both apps any more.
> but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers
This is a standard condition of many employment contracts that the employee not also work for a competitor. Uber and Lyft previously had no such condition because drivers driving for both companies helped their case that drivers should be considered independent contractors. But now that drivers are employees by fiat, Uber will obviously ban driving for Lyft (or anyone else) and Lyft will obviously ban driving for Uber (or anyone else).
Linked-in recruiters. Say what you will about the constant cold emailing, if you set sane guidelines for them (only interested in 99-100% remote positions with comp above $x, using y or z technologies) there is an entire industry of people who will go and do a lot of the work for you. Just make a copy/pasta of your desires and reply to their copy/pasta with it; ask for job descriptions up front along with comp ranges, once they show something you like you can move forward with actually getting on the phone with them.
This shouldn't be your only lead generation tool during a job search, but it is a ruthlessly effective force multiplier.
What's a good strategy for hunting on AngelList? During a recent job search for remote roles, AngelList was one places I searched.
I found a less serious crowd compared to indeed or linked-in about hiring now. Previously when working full time I connected with a founder over a two year period and ended up working on a year long project.
What's the best way of connecting through AngelList? Are most people connecting over a period of time or do you find most are using it like a job board where they try to fill a position asap?
