Re:Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail d...
by thaumasiotes on Thursday February 04, 2021 @08:46AM
(#26025238)
Why? That objection is surreal -- you're taking the position that there's nothing wrong with a 101% threshold, and there's nothing wrong with a 70% threshold, but an 88% threshold goes too far? Too far in what direction? "Numbers you can mention aloud in polite company"?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Prop. 22 faces first legal challenge as SEIU, ride-hail d...
by slg on Thursday February 04, 2021 @01:35PM
(#26028352)
> you're taking the position that there's nothing wrong with a 101% threshold, and there's nothing wrong with a 70% threshold, but an 88% threshold goes too far?
That wasn't my position. My position is that a 88% threshold in practice might as well be 101% and it is dishonest to include it and pretend like it is the near equivalent of 70%.
My comment on the pedantry was mostly on the fact that a lack of threshold is a null value and not equivalent to 101%. A null value is not larger than 88%. This 88% value is higher than previous propositions that have included a threshold and is therefore "unprecedentedly high".