So you're saying it might actually be news??

DoorDash is pretty much scum, stealing $130m in wages from their own "contractors"

Sounds like your wife has a good case for a lawsuit

Have you wondered why its cheaper and less variable than trials?

My understanding is that it's cheaper because it is mediated by largely by a single person in a conference room, rather than the heavier process of collecting a jury. And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

Collecting a jury doesn't cost the participants of a lawsuit anything. And the vast majority of civil cases do not make it to trial.

>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.

>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?

> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. (I admitted to not knowing and was open to being corrected. I appreciate you actually correcting my understanding, rather than assuming I hadn't even considered it.)

Have you proven why? To make my point again: we just feel like it won't work so we don't even try

The issue of whether or not "forced" arbitration agreements are binding is different, but in this context I don't see it being something an employee can get out of. Some states have laws, for example, that destroy arbitration agreements in employment contexts for sexual harassment claims. If you have anything to offer, I'm more than happy to consider it. Short of that, I don't really see what point you're actually making besides "Maybe? I don't know!"

Huge assumptions there

Oh yeah, no murderers, just a system that makes them...

That's because current AI models are incapable of doing knowledge workers' jobs. At least for me as an attorney, Harvey is only actually useful when it comes to helping me sort through large amounts of data. Even then, I can't trust its judgment (it has shown to be very poor) so it's only so useful

Current AI models are incapable of doing software development either, but that isn't stopping some people.

what do you mean by this?

Harvey can be pretty useful and has all sorts of tailoring done to it to provide utility to legal professionals. I don't really see any of that here. Like someone else pointed out, the main benefit of Harvey is being able to say "well we used the leading legal AI provider."

Let alone the staff to get the old fogeys at my firm using it..

> It cannot be taken seriously unfortunately.

What, like his views on the antichrist?

Is this supposed to be a "gotcha" type of comment or something?

I don't think so

It's not obvious to me what's the point of your comment then, tbh

That his views on the antichrist shouldn't be taken seriously. Not sure why you're pretending there is more to it than that very obvious point.

Was assuming that's just obvious and that we were discussing something beyond the obvious

Ah, assuming.

Not hosting a defectively designed product doesn't obviate the liability of selling a product that is defectively designed. The liability is for designing and selling a dangerous product, not for hosting it.