 |
|
|
|||||
As snow piled up in front of bus stops and fire hydrants during New York City’s second winter storm of the year, city workers have tried to move fast to remove it before snow hardened into ice. A new internal tool makes that job easier to track. The city’s Department of Sanitation (DSNY) now tags infrastructure that’s been plowed in a mobile mapping tool that employees can update on the go. “We have started the work of geotagging every single bus shelter and crosswalk,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said Monday, and overnight, he said the city cleared more than 1,600 crosswalks, 419 fire hydrants, and nearly 900 bus stops. [Screenshot: Courtesy of New York City Department of Sanitation] DSNY handles trash collection, but it’s also tasked with snow removal from city streets and bike lanes, areas within its legal obligation. DSNY sometimes provides supplemental services too, plowing pedestrian infrastructure like curb ramps, unsheltered bus stops, and fire hydrants that property owners are responsible for. In the past, this supplemental work was done piecemeal, but under Mamdani, the amount of supplemental service has “vastly increased,” says Joshua Goodman, a DSNY deputy commissioner. “That necessitated a need to formally track this work,” he says. [Screenshot: Courtesy of New York City Department of Sanitation] Cities from Bellevue, Washington, to Syracuse, New York, use digital maps to show residents when streets get plowed, and New Yorkers can track when their streets were last plowed on PlowNYC, a public site launched in 2013. DSNY needed its own PlowNYC, but for bus stops and more. “We developed an internal mapping tool, and Sanitation Supervisors make live updates from the field when one of these locations in their assigned section is complete,” Goodman tells Fast Company. “So maybe it’s a bit simpler than the terminology impliesit’s essentially someone making updates to a central database on their work cell phonebut it’s a big development for us, especially so quickly.” “This is our first storm using it, but it is allowing greater efficiency around clearing these important areas,” he adds. [Screenshot: Courtesy of New York City Department of Sanitation] Preparations began following the snowstorm in January, when sites were surveyed for the mapping tool. The interface looks like a typical maps app, and while perhaps simpler than what the idea of “geotagging” might conjure, the database of information the tool stores is vast. New York City has about 13,000 bus stops and about 83,000 crosswalks in commercial corridors. The tool was designed by the DSNY operations management division, which is its data and analytics team. To handle snow from the latest storm, DSNY has delayed trash and recycling collection so its workers can prioritize snow removal, and it’s hired hundreds of emergency temporary snow shovelers for $30 per hour. That’s a pop-up snow shoveling army with tens of thousands of sites and miles of ground to cover. Tracking this work with clipboards wouldn’t be efficient. By developing an internal tool to better monitor their job, DSNY found a quick solution to solve a pressing problem.
Category:
E-Commerce
For decades, a legal degree felt like a golden ticket, a safe career choice because a robot could never take a lawyers job. Today consumers are increasingly turning to new technologies like generative artificial intelligence for answers to their legal questions without the assistance of a lawyer. No wonder: The high cost of legal services places them beyond the reach of most Americans. Some outside the profession see this market failure as an opportunity. Legal technology startups armed with AI agents are securing billion-dollar evaluations, and after recent leaps in AI models and new featuresincluding one from Anthropic that can help automate legal taskssome legal and tech stocks went into shock. The sense that “something big is happening” also left at least some lawyers wondering whether the robots are finally coming for their jobs, and asking if this is the beginning of the end of the legal profession? It doesnt need to be. Lawyers could try to wage what will certainly be a losing campaign against the encroachment of new technologies on areas of American life typically dominated by lawyers. Instead, the American legal profession can learn to run with the machines and not against them, fulfilling their ethical duty to ensure all Americans have access to justice by harnessing these technologies to deliver affordable and accessible legal services at scale. These two powerful phenomenathe emergence of new technologies and the fact that tens of millions of Americans face their legal problems without a lawyerwill certainly encourage Americans to rely on new and widely available tools regardless of whether the information and guidance these consumers receive is accurate. And it often isnt. Indeed, according to one recent report, there are nearly 1,000 documented cases of lawyers and unrepresented litigants referencing fictitious court decisions and other legal authorities in court filings because of AI hallucinations: instances where the AI fabricated the legal sources upon which those litigants relied to their detriment, resulting in fines and other punishments from the courts. The tragic reality driving many Americans to these imperfect alternatives to professional legal help is not that consumers are choosing between a lawyer and a bot; they are all too often facing their legal problem with no lawyer at all. This is especially true in areas where the fees available to lawyers are low, yet the stakes for the consumer high: where a tenant faces eviction, an immigrant is at risk of deportation, a homeowner might lose their home to foreclosure, or a victim of identity theft faces a mountain of debt they did not accumulate themselves. Roughly 93% of low-income and half of middle-income Americans go without adequate legal representation when confronted with legal problems like these. This access-to-justice crisis, as bad as it is, leads to larger and even more troubling concerns. When lawyers are not available to vindicate important interests, that threatens other critical values all Americans should cherish: individual liberty and dignity, civil rights, equal justice, and the rule of law. But this isnt the first time that the legal profession has faced these sorts of challenges. At the turn of the 20th century, industrialization led to reorganization of the bar into larger and larger law firms to respond to the growing and more complex demands of their clients. Simple technologies like the telephone, telegraph, and typewriter made the practice of law more efficient, allowing lawyers to provide more comprehensive services to their corporate clients. Ironically, many of the measures elites in the bar formulated to respond to these societal and technological changes led to the current market failure. Indeed, instead of welcoming more lawyers into the profession to meet the growing need for its services, elites in the bar erected barriers to entry where few existed before (at least if you were white and male). They built high walls and wide moats to prevent dilution of the legal services market, including requiring an expensive legal education and more challenging bar exams before an aspiring lawyer could begin to practice. These requirements had the desired effect: limiting access to the profession and artificially inflating the cost of legal services. What is more, many of these barriers endure and continue to drive up the cost of legal services today. This time is different though. Never before has it looked like technology could truly displace lawyers. Indeed, tools like CitizenshipWorks, an online portal that helps individuals apply for citizenship, and Depositron, which assists tenants in New York seeking a return of their security deposit from their former landlords, are meeting critical needs without the fees a lawyer might otherwise charge for these services. Think of it as the expansion of TurboTax-like products to other areas of the law. There are certainly situations where there is no substitute for a living, breathing lawyer, like when a criminal defendant is facing a felony charge, or when a complex and novel business transaction requires unique legal skills. But when the alternative is no legal representation at all, as is the case with far too many American consumers with far simpler legal needsneeds that can be met through technological innovationsthe profession has an obligation to find ways to address those needs, even when doing so will bring down the price of legal services or displace some traditional legal jobs. In the face of such threats to their position in society, however, lawyers must remember that the point of the legal system is not to serve as a full-employment plan for lawyers; it is to help people solve their legal problems. This market opportunity is one that lawyers can actually seize. Instead of ignoring new technologies or erecting even higher walls to their adoption, the legal profession should embrace and shape these technologies, creating an array of options for individuals, families, and businesses to address their legal problems at lower cost, and at scale. Big Law is already adopting many of these new tools to serve their well-heeled clients; the present cost of building effective systems may mean that the widespread adoption of such technologies at the high-end of the legal services market actually makes the access-to-justice gap worse, not better. Instead of exacerbating legal access inequality, the profession should build bridgesaided by new technologiesthat will span the chasm between those who require legal assistance and those who can afford it, even if the services that solve Americans legal problems in the not-so distant future are not always delivered by lawyers alone. Theres plenty of legal work to go around. Lawyers should be the ones figuring out how to put new technologies to useto serve the legal needs of all Americans in creative, ethical, effective, affordable, and accessible ways. When they do that, they will serve the professions most important values and functions, and advance what should be its highest ideals.
Category:
E-Commerce
Communicating on group chats has quickly become a way of life, but what are the rules?We used to use email, the phone or talk in person. Now we use platforms like iMessage, WhatsApp or Slack to coordinate a night out with friends, a kids’ birthday party, a work project or even to discuss sensitive military information as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did by sharing details of airstrikes in a Signal chat.But while group chats have exploded in popularity because of their informality, that also creates its own challenges: discussions can veer off topic, repetitive or basic questions can irritate group members, and that viral meme you think is funny could also offend.The principles of digital etiquette remain the same as other kinds of etiquette, but they are also “context specific and many of the rules are implicit rather than explicit,” said Rupert Wesson, a director at Debrett’s, the British etiquette guide, who outlined key tips for The Associated Press: Think before messaging Etiquette is always based on the idea of care and consideration for others, Wesson said. So it helps to think about how the recipients might be affected by your message.That means, for example, not wasting other members’ time by asking questions that could be easily answered by doing a Google search, or scrolling up or searching through the previous posts.The Trent Windsurfing Club near Nottingham, England, which communicates with members using both WhatsApp and email, spells out other considerations in a 15-point list on its website.“Don’t get angry if someone doesn’t respond to your messages in a group. No one is obliged to do so. Better send him/her a direct message,” the club says.Also, “Before sending a video, picture, meme or any content, analyze if such material will be in the interest of the majority of the members of the group.”And avoid sending videos or files that are very large, because “nobody likes to saturate the memory of their smartphone or waste their data/internet plan on nonsense,” its guidance says. The club did not respond to a request for comment. Remember the aim of the chat Always consider the chat group’s purpose. For those created with a specific and practical function in mind, just stick to the task and don’t post any more than you need to, Wesson said.On the other hand, “some groups are there for frivolity and here, more is more,” he added.It should be obvious, but don’t post personal stuff in a company or business-related chat, and refrain from posting work-related material in a group with friends or family.It doesn’t hurt to lurk first before weighing in, partly because on some chat platforms new members can’t see what was posted before they joined.“It is always best to err on the side of caution until you are very clear on the purpose and culture of the group,” Wesson said. Consider the size of the group Do you need to respond to every message? There’s often someone who feels the need to type out a reply to every post, even if it’s just to say “thanks.” But doing so in a big group might be somewhat akin to an email reply-all storm.Wesson advises considering how many people are in the chat.“If there are three of you in the group, a response, if only an emoji, is almost expected,” Wesson said. “In group of 50 or more it is practically a criminal offense.” Keep it clean and decent, especially at work This is an especially important point when it comes to work communications, with many white collar workers now using chat platforms like Slack and Microsoft Teams rather than email to communicate.These platforms feel less formal than email but don’t forget to follow the same guidelines as you do with other company communications.“Assume anything messaged can be forwarded and be especially cautious of work chats (however informal they appear),” Wesson said. “As countless people have discovered at employment tribunals, any diversion into anything indecorous can be career limiting.” Less can be more in chats Chat messages should be short and sweet.One reason is that your words could come across differently depending on the person reading the message, so stick to using short sentences to avoid being misinterpreted.If it’s about work, and you want to discuss something in more length and detail, consider an in-person meeting, a phone call, or email instead.“No one wants to read a 7-inch-long unformatted message when an organized attachment would have worked better,” the experts at The Emily Post Institute the American equivalent of Debrett’s advised in a blog post on business communications. Message clarity and style matter It’s not a college essay, so the rules around grammar, punctuation or even emoji don’t need to be too strict.“You should not feel too constricted and nor should you judge others for playing fast and loose with the King’s English,” Wesson said. “Just let brevity and clarity be your guide.”Speaking of emoji, they’re fun and can convey your meaning as well as the most thoughtful turn of phrase, Wesson said. But don’t abuse them because they can be a “minefield.”There’s a world of difference between, for example, the crying emoji and the crying with laughter emoji, he said. It’s best to play it safe and avoid emoji when, for example, sending condolences, Wesson said. How to properly leave a chat group If you’re getting annoyed by the number of message notifications from a big chat group, or you feel uncomfortable because of some of the comments, just put it on mute. And don’t be afraid to leave the group if you don’t need to be in it.Before leaving, consider letting the chat administrator know.“The group administrator has a responsibility to ensure the chat serves its purpose and that things don’t get too out of hand,” Wesson says.What should admins do if certain people are causing problems?“If things are going awry, deleting a member is an option but perhaps a little drastic. A quiet DM or a brief muting should always be considered first,” Wesson says. If you do leave the chat, should you say farewell? Again, it depends on the context. If it’s for a one-off event with a lot of people you don’t know, there’s probably no need.But if, say, you’re part of a remote work project, it would be a good idea to notify everyone.“When leaving make it clear that you are removing yourself immediately so the chat does not fill up with people wishing you farewell,” Wesson said. Is there a tech topic that you think needs explaining? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your suggestions for future editions of One Tech Tip. Kelvin Chan, AP Business Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||