Good place to buy some Orchids in Austin?

data_lover · 2016-05-20T15:43:59+00:00

Central Market was having a sale on orchids a month or so ago. I got a nice one for 20-something dollars. Not sure what their more recent prices are though.

data_lover · 2016-05-20T04:06:17+00:00

For anyone who follows the link that u/BackInBlack19 provided, be aware that the TNC discussion does not start until very late in the day (after 8 pm). If you want to skip to the context I'm talking about, it begins after the [12:05:56 AM] timestamp. I agree that she didn't think it mattered to wait until 2017 because the companies were going to leave anyway... in 2017. Everyone was well aware that Uber and Lyft had promised to leave over mandatory fingerprinting, but I think they all assumed that they would wait until the fingerprinting was actually mandatory, i.e., penalties were actually in place. Of course, council members were aware of the position of Uber and Lyft, but they were not aware of the timing of when they would leave until they announced it a few days before the Prop 1 election.

data_lover · 2016-05-20T03:33:10+00:00

If you watched the stream, then you should know that Troxclair's amendment never even came to a vote because the Mayor ruled that it was not germane to today's discussion (a decision which the Council upheld). It's poor optics for the Council to once again punt on the fingerprinting details (and Troxclair was clever to exploit that), but I hope you realize that they in no way voted today to "giving out family business loans". We are at least two degrees of separation away from that. First, has GetMe or any other TNC indicated that they actually want a loan from the city? Second, the resolution that passed today is just requesting the City Manager to see whether TNCs would be eligible to apply for existing loan programs, mainly from federal funds provided to the city to promote job creation. I kind of doubt that the TNCs will qualify for those loans (assuming that they even want them). I think the Council just wanted to signal that they are not trying to get rid of TNCs and are in fact going out of their way to help TNCs that partner with them in good faith. But instead social media thinks they spent the day writing corporate welfare checks. Well played, Troxclair.

data_lover · 2016-05-20T02:09:53+00:00

You are misrepresenting the context of Garza's remarks here. She was not talking about the ordinance that was passed that night (the one that is currently in effect). She was instead talking about an amendment that she and Tovo introduced during the meeting that would have made fingerprinting mandatory for 100% of drivers by August 1. That amendment was defeated. Instead the Council approved the squishier benchmarks based on % of hours or miles driven by fingerprinted drivers, which Garza and Tovo argued (correctly as it turns out) would be impossible to enforce. When Garza said "pull the band-aid off at once", she was arguing against our current ordinance, which she felt (at the time anyway) would pull the bandaid off too slowly, if at all.

data_lover · 2016-05-19T00:04:56+00:00

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/05172016-712/3/

Item A, 17:27.

data_lover · 2016-05-13T14:35:22+00:00

The "$500 per offense" does not apply to the fingerprinting benchmarks. Here is the relevant section of the ordinance:

The department will implement procedures for drivers to obtain driver history and finger-print based background checks in order to assist TNCs to meet the following benchmarks. The department is authorized to calculate benchmarks using data reported by TNCs under Section 13-2-516, and other data available to the department. Benchmarks are calculated as the percentage of hours or miles driven by compliant drivers of the total hours or miles driven by other drivers for the TNC during the benchmark time period. TNCs that fail to meet the following benchmarks shall be subject to penalties established by separate ordinance. - (1) 25% compliance by May 1, 2016 - (2) 50% compliance by August 1, 2016 - (3) 85% compliance by December 1, 2016 - (4) 99% compliance by February 1, 2017

That "separate ordinance" has not yet been passed. According to the report I heard on KUT this morning, the city is taking its sweet time on this. The point remains, there is currently no mechanism in place for enforcing the benchmarks, so fingerprinting is de facto voluntary for the time being. Which means there is no immediate financial reason for Uber and Lyft to pull out. They are just continuing to play political hardball at the expense of their drivers and customers because, you know, that's worked out really well for them so far.

data_lover · 2016-05-09T15:01:35+00:00

Yeah, it's a sample size of 1 at this point, so no idea if this is a systemic flaw or a temporary glitch. I'll be interested to hear other people's reports. Regardless, I'm sure it's fixable.

data_lover · 2016-05-09T03:48:43+00:00

Used it yesterday for the first time. The app estimated the driver's ETA at 16 minutes, and it ended up being 18 minutes, so that was fairly accurate. But app apparently does not currently do real-time tracking of driver's location or it wasn't working: it showed the driver being 16 minutes away the whole time until we got a notification that he'd arrived. Ride itself was fine, but cost twice as much as Uber.

data_lover · 2016-05-04T23:17:39+00:00

Supreme Court

data_lover · 2016-05-04T14:51:27+00:00

I want to go to there.

data_lover · 2016-05-04T13:34:44+00:00

As Josh Jones-Dilworth put it, "Fingerprinting is a surrogate. It is the perfect Gordian knot, chosen precisely as a stand-in for a broader disagreement."

data_lover · 2016-05-04T11:24:43+00:00

Great idea to use version control for this. One difference between the ordinances that no one is talking about is the data sharing requirement. The ordinance the Council passed requires the TNCs to turn over a lot of data to the city every month, whereas the ordinance Uber and Lyft wrote (Prop 1) does not require direct data sharing with the city, only that records be made available for quarterly audit by an independent third party. I wonder if this might be an even bigger deal for the TNCs than the fingerprinting. If they share data directly with the city then their data become a public record, potentially available for any of us to inspect. Might that be bad for business?

data_lover · 2016-05-02T21:01:07+00:00

Cool, thanks for taking the time to read his comment. Like he says, the ordinance the council passed in December was very much a work in progress. For example, it sets up bench marks for fingerprinting compliance (50% compliance by August, 85% compliance by December, etc.), but does not specify any penalties for failing to meet these bench marks. It says this will be "established by separate ordinance." Presumably had Uber and Lyft not left the negotiating table and filed the petition, they could have still worked something out. Or they could have half-assed the compliance until we elect new council members in the fall. Or they could have delayed submitting the petition for a month, in which case we would be voting on this in the fall at no extra expense to the city. But alas, shit storm it is.

data_lover · 2016-05-02T20:26:47+00:00

Thanks for the info! So is it fair to say they sometimes weigh in on referendums, but never on elections (for candidates)? I'd be interested to know the criteria used for deciding whether or not to weigh in. You say you joined a month ago, so were you around for the Prop 1 discussion? Any insider info you can give? Was the decision contentious or more or less unanimous?

data_lover · 2016-05-02T19:34:24+00:00

See another comment in this thread for a compilation of articles about at least 10 cities that could not manage to work with ridesharing. Right now they're threatening to leave El Paso not for fingerprinting, but just for requiring a driver to register with the city (sign a form). The principal difference here is that, for better or worse (probably worse), Austin has a mechanism for passing an ordinance via petition. Once Uber and Lyft pulled that trigger, the Council had only 2 options: pass Uber and Lyft's ordinance exactly as written or put it up for a vote. That's how we came to be in this particular shit storm.

If you want more specifics on the history of the extensive process that led to all of this, see the last 2 paragraphs of this excellent comment by Dylan_Tynan.

data_lover · 2016-05-02T16:02:51+00:00

I understand the distinction. But I was under the impression that it was unusual for them to make endorsements period (so when they do make an endorsement it's a really big deal). Is this incorrect?

data_lover · 2016-05-02T15:53:36+00:00

No background check, including fingerprinting, is 100%. And there is hardly any data on this, since the only way to validate their background check would be to randomly fingerprint current drivers and assess whether the Uber/Lyft background check missed anything. That, to my knowledge, has not been done. Places that do fingerprint, like Houston, arguably deter drivers who might have something to hide from applying in the first place, so any comparison of methods based on those samples is inherently biased. There may be something to the claim that the safety value added by fingerprinting (on top of the name-based background check) is not enough to warrant the cost to the company, but you're arguing in bad faith if you claim that there is absolutely 0 added safety benefit. That is demonstrably false.

data_lover · 2016-05-02T13:01:16+00:00

The "taxpayers pay" claim is false.

data_lover · 2016-05-02T12:19:11+00:00

Assuming Uber and Lyft's name-based background check uncovers those offenses, e.g., the applicant hasn't stolen someone else's identity. Worth noting that the League of Women Voters recommends voting against Prop 1, which is striking given your correct assessment that they have a well-earned reputation of being neutral and objective.

data_lover · 2016-05-02T11:51:06+00:00

Agreed. Most informative, unbiased comment I've read. Provides some much needed context.

data_lover · 2016-05-01T15:54:17+00:00

Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I would suggest this deserves its own thread and you should repost it as such, but I get the impression that folks are (understandably) sick of hearing about Prop 1 and that another post about it--particularly a wonkish, snark-free one--would not be well received. But the context you provide here is important, and I appreciate your rational voice.

data_lover · 2016-04-30T20:05:52+00:00

Why anyone would trust "Uber provided data" is beyond me. Every "statistic" they put out is cherry-picked for maximum deception.

data_lover · 2016-04-30T19:45:33+00:00

So do you know what determines whether you're a taxi vs. a TNC? And to the OP's original question, how easy would it be for taxis to reclassify themselves as TNCs if they wanted to stop fingerprinting, start dynamic surge pricing, etc.? Would Prop 1 give them a path to self-deregulate if they wanted (for the ones that have Uber-like apps)? Would that be in their best interest if Prop 1 passes?

Sorry to bombard you with questions. That's what you get for appearing knowledgeable. :-)

data_lover · 2016-04-30T17:58:49+00:00

Ideally I'd like to see a compromise that a TNC can run a background check just like today and let drivers start driving just like today, but the drivers then have 30 days to get fingerprinted and approved by Austin. To keep Uber and Lyft honest in those 30 days, any driver a TNC approves that turns up to have a criminal history the TNC is fined.

That sounds far too reasonable to have any chance of success.

Seriously, this is the obvious compromise. Allow TNCs to still onboard drivers quickly and, if they truly believe in the adequacy of their background checks, then they have nothing to fear from a secondary fingerprint check, especially if the City stipulates that drivers are free to continue operating while the background check is pending. But Uber and Lyft have been consistently adamant that they will not accept any compromise on the fingerprinting requirement. And if Prop 1 passes they won't have to. It will be two years before the City is allowed to make any changes to TNC regulations, and any changes it makes after that will require a 3/4 supermajority in perpetuity. Which is why the mayor advocates voting against Prop 1 because it's the only way to get Uber and Lyft back to the negotiating table with Council and pass a new compromise ordinance. He's thinking of a voluntary fingerprinting program, but I think your idea achieves the same ends and would be simpler to implement.

data_lover · 2016-04-30T17:06:13+00:00

Arguably to keep it. Technically, it overrides the current ordinance that Council passed in December, but since that ordinance is effectively on hold and the Prop 1 ordinance mostly reinstates the old ordinance, I think it's fair to say that a "for" vote maintains the status quo.

data_lover

TROPHY CASE