The Bay Area Newsgroup reports:
Despite high salaries and world-class amenities, San Jose is the least affordable place for tech workers to buy a home. [Alternate URL here] A new analysis by the American Enterprise Institute found the typical tech worker and his or her partner — with two incomes totaling $200,000 — can afford just 12 percent of the homes for sale in the San Jose metro area.

The picture in San Francisco and the East Bay is nearly as bad, with just 21 percent of homes for sale fitting in the budget of an average tech couple. The high-hurdles to home ownership are fueling a Bay Area exodus that has contributed to the state’s sluggish population growth in recent years, researchers say. Study author Ed Pinto, director of the AEI Housing Center, said tech workers can afford their pick of homes in almost every other U.S. city. “But in those places like San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles,” he said, “that is not the case.”

The analysis gives another explanation for the Bay Area exodus. And it’s not only workers who are leaving. Tech heavyweights HPE and Oracle have announced moves of their headquarters from Silicon Valley to Texas. Pinto believes the spread of remote work will only accelerate migration from the Bay Area. With new workplace flexibilities, tech workers have a choice between high-cost regions near their offices and low-cost regions with bigger houses and remote work. “Work from home is winning,” he said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Study Finds The Least-Affordable City for Tech Workers: Silicon Valley’s San Jose

Long-time Slashdot reader cusco quotes a new report from IEEE Spectrum:

In August 2018, a passenger aircraft in Idaho, flying in smoky conditions, reportedly suffered GPS interference from military tests and was saved from crashing into a mountain only by the last-minute intervention of an air traffic controller. “Loss of life can happen because air traffic control and a flight crew believe their equipment are working as intended, but are in fact leading them into the side of the mountain,” wrote the controller. “Had [we] not noticed, that flight crew and the passengers would be dead….”

There are some 90 reports on NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System forum detailing GPS interference in the United States over the past eight years, the majority of which were filed in 2019 and 2020. Now IEEE Spectrum has new evidence that GPS disruption to commercial aviation is much more common than even the ASRS database suggests. Previously undisclosed Federal Aviation Administration data for a few months in 2017 and 2018 detail hundreds of aircraft losing GPS reception in the vicinity of military tests. On a single day in March 2018, 21 aircraft reported GPS problems to air traffic controllers near Los Angeles. These included a medevac helicopter, several private planes, and a dozen commercial passenger jets. Some managed to keep flying normally; others required help from air traffic controllers. Five aircraft reported making unexpected turns or navigating off course. In all likelihood, there are many hundreds, possibly thousands, of such incidents each year nationwide, each one a potential accident. The vast majority of this disruption can be traced back to the U.S. military, which now routinely jams GPS signals over wide areas on an almost daily basis somewhere in the country.

The military is jamming GPS signals to develop its own defenses against GPS jamming. Ironically, though, the Pentagon’s efforts to safeguard its own troops and systems are putting the lives of civilian pilots, passengers, and crew at risk… Todd E. Humphreys, director of the Radionavigation Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin, says. “When something works well 99.99 percent of the time, humans don’t do well in being vigilant for that 0.01 percent of the time that it doesn’t.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Are the US Military’s GPS Tests Threatening Airline Safety?

“The same legalese that can ban Donald Trump from Twitter can bar users from joining class-action lawsuits,” warns the official Editorial Board of the New York Times, urging “It’s time to fix the fine print.” [Alternate URL here]

[M]ost people have no idea what is signed away when they click “agree” to binding terms of service contracts — again and again on phones, laptops, tablets, watches, e-readers and televisions. Agreeing often means allowing personal data to be resold or waiving the right to sue or join a class-action lawsuit… Because corporations and their lawyers know most consumers don’t have the time or wherewithal to study their new terms, which can stretch to 20,000 words — about the length of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” — they stuff them with opaque provisions and lengthy legalistic explanations meant to confuse or obfuscate. Understanding a typical company’s terms, according to one study, requires 14 years of education, which is beyond the level most Americans attain. A 2012 Carnegie Mellon study found that the average American would have to devote 76 work days just to read over tech companies’ policies. That number would probably be much higher today.

At its core, the arrangement is unbalanced, putting the burden on consumers to read through voluminous, nonnegotiable documents, written to benefit corporations in exchange for access to their services. It’s hard to imagine, by contrast, being asked to sign a 60-page printed contract before entering a bowling alley or a florist shop… Though courts have held terms of service contracts to be binding, there is generally no legal requirement that companies make them comprehensible. It is understandable, then, that companies may feel emboldened to insert terms that advantage them at their customers’ expense.

That includes provisions that most consumers wouldn’t knowingly agree to: an inability to delete one’s own account, granting companies the right to claim credit for or alter their creative work, letting companies retain content even after a user deletes it, letting them gain access to a user’s full browsing history and giving them blanket indemnity. More often than not, there is a clause (including for The New York Times’s website) that the terms can be updated at any time without prior notice. Some terms approach the absurd. Food and ride-share companies, like DoorDash and Lyft, ask users to agree that the companies are not delivery or transportation businesses, a sleight of hand designed to give the companies license to treat their contract drivers as employees while also sheltering the companies from liability for whatever may happen on a ride or delivery. Handy, an on-demand housecleaning service, once sought in its terms of service to put customers on the hook for future tax liabilities should their contract workers’ job classification be changed to employee…

“This is one of the tools used by corporations to assert themselves over their customers and whittle away their rights,” said Nancy Kim, a California Western School of Law professor who studies online contracts. “With their constant updates to terms and conditions, it amounts to a massive bait-and-switch….”

“We have become so beaten down by this that we just accept it,” said Woodrow Hartzog, a Northeastern University law professor. “The idea that anyone should be expected to read these terms of service is preposterous — they are written to discourage people from reading them….”

The Board urges the U.S. Congress to consider requiring greater transparency about terms and their changes — as well as simpler explanations. “If a company’s online service is open to 13-year-olds, as many are, then the terms of use need to be written so an eighth grader can understand them.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – ‘Terms of Service’ Agreements Are Unbalanced, Need Reforming, Urges New York Times