18 ms·

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF ^ Actual court ruling which is linked in the

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF ^ Actual court ruling which is linked in the article itself. I find the article's headline misleading. The court ruled that a proposition that was passed by voters in California which classified these drivers as contractors was mostly constitutional and would be allowed to have the effect of law, noting that California's legislative branch was free to change the law if they had the requisite votes to do so. It wasn't the court, but California voters, which decided these workers are contractors. The court simply ruled that this is something voters are allowed to decide (and that lawmakers can change if they so choose).

akira2501 4y ago
Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose. Propositions amend the constitution of California. They can modify it, but they have to honor the rule itself and cannot simply remove it or abrogate it through this alteration. > Legislature can amend Proposition 22’s provisions with a statute passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses, so long as the statute is “consistent with, and furthers the purpose of,” the initiative and the Legislature complies with certain procedural requirements
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  > Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose... They can modify it, You know here all this time I thought that "modify" is a synonym of "change". So can lawmakers modify it or can they not modify it?
  - karmasimida 4y ago
    I read modifying it requires like super super majority like over 80% of approval from senate legislature, effectively it couldnt be done So it is yes and no i guess, in theory yes, in practice better forget about it. This is state constitution, it isnt meant to be modified as someone pleases
    - SllX 4y ago
      Our State Constitution is modified frequently at the ballot box. This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution because it was designed specifically to be extremely difficult verging on impossible to amend but not technically impossible to amend as part of its text; and voters approved it with a far lower threshold than it would take for the legislature to modify it.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution No, its not. The Constitution can only be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature.) This law can be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature), or it can be amended within certain bounds by a 7/8 vote of each house of the State Legislature without a vote of the people. It is, strictly, easier to amend than any part of the State Constitution.
        SllX 4y ago
        On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. We really do amend it regularly and most voters I talk to don’t put a whole lot of thought into whether it’s a constitutional amendment or a statute. If they’re for whatever it is, they’re for it, and if they’re against it, they’re against it. The mechanics matter to a minority of us.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. Perhaps, but the comparison isn’t “7/8 of the legislature vs. a bare majority of the people” it is “7/8 of the legislature or a bare majority of the people vs. a bare majority of the people”. It is absolutely not harder to amend Prop 22 than the State Constitution, or a normal initiative statute. It is easier. Perhaps only so slightly easier as to make no substantial difference, but your claim is that it is harder, and that is completely wrong. Even if it is not substantially easier, it is also not at all harder.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    change and modify some times have different meanings in legal systems and can apply to versioning of the laws (don't know if that is the case here) as an example you might say Law X section 7 says Uber drivers are contractors. In some systems a change would be to remove this provision or to say the opposite. a modification might be to add: The definition of contractor will follow the amended definition of contractor as in Law Y Section 9 - subsection Uber contractors.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      So in essence, the law system uses different rules for language and applies it to everyone, but almost everyone uses language in a people way, not in a legal way. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        In essence every complicated field has specialized jargon that differs from the common usage, also I'm not sure if this is the case in California legal system, I was just pointing out that some systems differentiate between what it means to change and modify - generally when discussions are made between experts in that system.
      - scld 4y ago
        In many engineering contexts, modify and change would mean two distinct things. Of course, it's context dependent but: - "Modify" this part on the widget: Please alter this part to function correctly. - "Change" this part on the widget: Please replace this part with a new part so that the widget functions correctly. e.g. if I modified a cover, it probably means I drilled an extra hole or something to make it fit.....if I changed the cover, it probably means that I found a new cover that had the right hole.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  The one and only job of lawmakers is to create or change laws as they so choose. Obviously lawmakers must still abide by laws in effect*, but they can absolutely change those laws if they have sufficient votes to do so. Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers, nothing is off-limits with enough votes. * Some countries suspend enforcement of laws within the physical space of legislative chambers. As an example, I understand over in Japan it's perfectly legal for a Diet member to murder someone in the Japanese Diet's legislative chamber because laws prohibiting murder aren't in effect in there. IANAL so I could be misled by urban legends.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    > Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers This really depends on how loosely you define "lawmakers." The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as 'lawmakers' but I guess could colloquially be sort of. There's of course the constitutional convention path, but that's even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of "lawmaker."
    - SllX 4y ago
      3/4 of the States and each and every State makes its laws and approves (or not) amendments through their own legislatures which are by definition lawmakers. Congress isn’t the only legitimate legislature in the United States.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as ‘lawmakers’ but I guess could colloquially be sort of. No, state legislators (and it is 3/4 of state legislatures that need to ratify) are absolutely, 100%, lawmakers. If one wants to differentiate federal from state lawmakers to refer specifically to either one, the appropriate adjective is used along with "lawmakers", but "lawmkers", without qualification, definitely encompasses both. > there’s of course the constitutional convention path, but that’s even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of “lawmaker.” No, again, the convention is an alternative to Congress for proposing amendments, but they are still ratified by state legislatures, comprised of state legislators, who are exactly within the usual definition of “lawmkers” without further qualification. (And do so exactly as much as when the exact same group ratifies amendments proposed by the other mechanism, not “even less kind-of-sort-of”.)
- arlort 4y ago
  > passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses Holy mother of supermajorities ... What's the procedure for reversing a ballot measure? Can only be done via a different ballot measure?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tayo42 4y ago
    thats why i almost always vote no on these now. its too hard to undo if there is unintended consequences or the vote was bought by some large company.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Yes, the people have primacy over the representative bodies, so usually a ballot measure can only be modified by a subsequent ballot measure. This one makes a special allowance for unilateral amendment, within certain bounds, by the legislature as well as being modifiable by a ballot measure (which can either be proposed by petition or by a simple majority of the legislature), and is therefore strictly (if only slightly) easier to modify than a normal ballot measure.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    The purpose of these things is to overrule the representative legislature when it doesn't match the opinions of the people (who are the real legislators who have delegated power to the representatives). It would be foolish to permit your agents to overrule the principals. It is the sensible thing to do.
  - pianoben 4y ago
    Yeah, it's a high bar to clear, but they didn't have to include that in the proposition. If they hadn't, then legislature would be entirely unable to modify it. Think about that before getting all fired up about 7/8 - most ballot initiatives completely exempt themselves from legislative amendment. That's the default.
    - 4y ago
- yonran 4y ago
  Correction: 2020 Proposition 22 was an initiative statute that modified the Business and Professions Code (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=BPC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=10.5.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...), not the California Constitution. And the clause that allowed amendments with 7/8 supermajority exists to make it easier to amend than if the clause did not exist, since by default initiatives can’t be modified by the legislature at all (Constitution Article II Sec 10(c) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%2010.&article=II https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...)! It is common to choose a threshold above the known opposition (my earlier comment with more examples https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306), and 7/8 is above the 73% that voted for AB5 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...).
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Propositions amend the constitution of California. Initiate Constitutional Amendments do, Initiative Statutes do not. Prop 22 was an initiative statute, and as such did not amend the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the legislative power resides in the people first and is delegated by them to the legislature to the extent that they have not themselves exercised it, an initiative statute, while subordinate to the State Constitution, cannot usually be altered by the legislature (the legislature can propose changes, but they must be passed by the people.) But, OTOH, Prop 22, as you note, contains a provision allowing a legislative hypermajority to amend it, and so can, in fact, be altered by the legislature unilaterally. On the gripping hand, though, those unilateral alterations that the legislature can make are explicitly limited, and do not include making app-based drivers regular employees rather than contractors.
uoaei 4y ago
[flagged]
- SllX 4y ago
  > At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? Regularly and governments live and die on their ability to advertise their policies and propagate their message in a convincing fashion. There were plenty of us that didn’t need to be advertised to to put a bullet through AB5’s heart in a manner humiliating to the Bill’s chief sponsor despite the deficiencies in Prop 22 for getting the entire job done, so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome? In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    > In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States. While that might be technically true in the absolutist way, bad things are still bad, even if it followed all the technicalities. If we play "the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws" and it ends up making it mandatory for everyone to cut off their thumbs, do you really think the population would just go "oh well" and grab some pruners?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      No, I’d expect that people would wake up, seek and gain a stay of the law, and repeal it in the next ballot measure cycle. (For the right price, I’d literally bet my own thumb on that being the outcome.)
    - SllX 4y ago
      We’re talking about the difference between W2s and 1099s, so I feel pretty good that my vote isn’t up there with literal bodily mutilation so you can put away the straw man; and if I thought AB5’s supporters and the “No” vote had the moral high ground, I wouldn’t have voted the way I did. I would in fact have voted the complete opposite of what I did, so keep that in mind. Do you want to try a different line of argument for why my vote should be nullified? There’s no “because someone on Hacker News thought it was bad“ exception in our democracy, so I’m kind of looking for something more here.
diceduckmonk 4y ago
> I find the article's headline misleading. I see Uber stock is up 6% pre-market. That suggests to me investors thinks Uber's liabilities are reduced as a result of this ruling.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  The fight over contractor status was versus regular employee status, which would require providing benefits. So, market rejoice, these driver folks are on their own. Editorializing a bit, but CA referendums are so silly. I was asked to vote to resolve an employee/employer dispute in kidney dialysis centers. There's so many of those types of things.
  - MrDunham 4y ago
    So, crazy enough, I know the head lobbyist for the group that was fighting against that kidney dialysis thing. It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it. Crazy that one special interest can get some signatures to fight for something like that with the only real goal to boost their profits well another special interest fights against it to save theirs. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process.
    - brvsft 4y ago
      > hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.
      - wcarron 4y ago
        So... parasites. Burned sounds appropriate
      - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
        Which produces as much value, in human terms, as burning them. Possibly less. I think the metaphor stands.

akira2501 4y ago

Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose. Propositions amend the constitution of California. They can modify it, but they have to honor the rule itself and cannot simply remove it or abrogate it through this alteration. > Legislature can amend Proposition 22’s provisions with a statute passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses, so long as the statute is “consistent with, and furthers the purpose of,” the initiative and the Legislature complies with certain procedural requirements

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
> Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose... They can modify it, You know here all this time I thought that "modify" is a synonym of "change". So can lawmakers modify it or can they not modify it?
- karmasimida 4y ago
  I read modifying it requires like super super majority like over 80% of approval from senate legislature, effectively it couldnt be done So it is yes and no i guess, in theory yes, in practice better forget about it. This is state constitution, it isnt meant to be modified as someone pleases
  - SllX 4y ago
    Our State Constitution is modified frequently at the ballot box. This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution because it was designed specifically to be extremely difficult verging on impossible to amend but not technically impossible to amend as part of its text; and voters approved it with a far lower threshold than it would take for the legislature to modify it.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution No, its not. The Constitution can only be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature.) This law can be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature), or it can be amended within certain bounds by a 7/8 vote of each house of the State Legislature without a vote of the people. It is, strictly, easier to amend than any part of the State Constitution.
      - SllX 4y ago
        On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. We really do amend it regularly and most voters I talk to don’t put a whole lot of thought into whether it’s a constitutional amendment or a statute. If they’re for whatever it is, they’re for it, and if they’re against it, they’re against it. The mechanics matter to a minority of us.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. Perhaps, but the comparison isn’t “7/8 of the legislature vs. a bare majority of the people” it is “7/8 of the legislature or a bare majority of the people vs. a bare majority of the people”. It is absolutely not harder to amend Prop 22 than the State Constitution, or a normal initiative statute. It is easier. Perhaps only so slightly easier as to make no substantial difference, but your claim is that it is harder, and that is completely wrong. Even if it is not substantially easier, it is also not at all harder.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  change and modify some times have different meanings in legal systems and can apply to versioning of the laws (don't know if that is the case here) as an example you might say Law X section 7 says Uber drivers are contractors. In some systems a change would be to remove this provision or to say the opposite. a modification might be to add: The definition of contractor will follow the amended definition of contractor as in Law Y Section 9 - subsection Uber contractors.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    So in essence, the law system uses different rules for language and applies it to everyone, but almost everyone uses language in a people way, not in a legal way. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      In essence every complicated field has specialized jargon that differs from the common usage, also I'm not sure if this is the case in California legal system, I was just pointing out that some systems differentiate between what it means to change and modify - generally when discussions are made between experts in that system.
    - scld 4y ago
      In many engineering contexts, modify and change would mean two distinct things. Of course, it's context dependent but: - "Modify" this part on the widget: Please alter this part to function correctly. - "Change" this part on the widget: Please replace this part with a new part so that the widget functions correctly. e.g. if I modified a cover, it probably means I drilled an extra hole or something to make it fit.....if I changed the cover, it probably means that I found a new cover that had the right hole.
Dalewyn 4y ago
The one and only job of lawmakers is to create or change laws as they so choose. Obviously lawmakers must still abide by laws in effect*, but they can absolutely change those laws if they have sufficient votes to do so. Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers, nothing is off-limits with enough votes. * Some countries suspend enforcement of laws within the physical space of legislative chambers. As an example, I understand over in Japan it's perfectly legal for a Diet member to murder someone in the Japanese Diet's legislative chamber because laws prohibiting murder aren't in effect in there. IANAL so I could be misled by urban legends.
- bmelton 4y ago
  > Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers This really depends on how loosely you define "lawmakers." The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as 'lawmakers' but I guess could colloquially be sort of. There's of course the constitutional convention path, but that's even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of "lawmaker."
  - SllX 4y ago
    3/4 of the States and each and every State makes its laws and approves (or not) amendments through their own legislatures which are by definition lawmakers. Congress isn’t the only legitimate legislature in the United States.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as ‘lawmakers’ but I guess could colloquially be sort of. No, state legislators (and it is 3/4 of state legislatures that need to ratify) are absolutely, 100%, lawmakers. If one wants to differentiate federal from state lawmakers to refer specifically to either one, the appropriate adjective is used along with "lawmakers", but "lawmkers", without qualification, definitely encompasses both. > there’s of course the constitutional convention path, but that’s even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of “lawmaker.” No, again, the convention is an alternative to Congress for proposing amendments, but they are still ratified by state legislatures, comprised of state legislators, who are exactly within the usual definition of “lawmkers” without further qualification. (And do so exactly as much as when the exact same group ratifies amendments proposed by the other mechanism, not “even less kind-of-sort-of”.)
arlort 4y ago
> passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses Holy mother of supermajorities ... What's the procedure for reversing a ballot measure? Can only be done via a different ballot measure?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tayo42 4y ago
  thats why i almost always vote no on these now. its too hard to undo if there is unintended consequences or the vote was bought by some large company.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Yes, the people have primacy over the representative bodies, so usually a ballot measure can only be modified by a subsequent ballot measure. This one makes a special allowance for unilateral amendment, within certain bounds, by the legislature as well as being modifiable by a ballot measure (which can either be proposed by petition or by a simple majority of the legislature), and is therefore strictly (if only slightly) easier to modify than a normal ballot measure.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  The purpose of these things is to overrule the representative legislature when it doesn't match the opinions of the people (who are the real legislators who have delegated power to the representatives). It would be foolish to permit your agents to overrule the principals. It is the sensible thing to do.
- pianoben 4y ago
  Yeah, it's a high bar to clear, but they didn't have to include that in the proposition. If they hadn't, then legislature would be entirely unable to modify it. Think about that before getting all fired up about 7/8 - most ballot initiatives completely exempt themselves from legislative amendment. That's the default.
  - 4y ago
yonran 4y ago
Correction: 2020 Proposition 22 was an initiative statute that modified the Business and Professions Code (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=BPC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=10.5.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...), not the California Constitution. And the clause that allowed amendments with 7/8 supermajority exists to make it easier to amend than if the clause did not exist, since by default initiatives can’t be modified by the legislature at all (Constitution Article II Sec 10(c) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%2010.&article=II https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...)! It is common to choose a threshold above the known opposition (my earlier comment with more examples https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306), and 7/8 is above the 73% that voted for AB5 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...).
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Propositions amend the constitution of California. Initiate Constitutional Amendments do, Initiative Statutes do not. Prop 22 was an initiative statute, and as such did not amend the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the legislative power resides in the people first and is delegated by them to the legislature to the extent that they have not themselves exercised it, an initiative statute, while subordinate to the State Constitution, cannot usually be altered by the legislature (the legislature can propose changes, but they must be passed by the people.) But, OTOH, Prop 22, as you note, contains a provision allowing a legislative hypermajority to amend it, and so can, in fact, be altered by the legislature unilaterally. On the gripping hand, though, those unilateral alterations that the legislature can make are explicitly limited, and do not include making app-based drivers regular employees rather than contractors.

uoaei 4y ago

[flagged]

SllX 4y ago
> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? Regularly and governments live and die on their ability to advertise their policies and propagate their message in a convincing fashion. There were plenty of us that didn’t need to be advertised to to put a bullet through AB5’s heart in a manner humiliating to the Bill’s chief sponsor despite the deficiencies in Prop 22 for getting the entire job done, so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome? In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States.
- oneplane 4y ago
  > In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States. While that might be technically true in the absolutist way, bad things are still bad, even if it followed all the technicalities. If we play "the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws" and it ends up making it mandatory for everyone to cut off their thumbs, do you really think the population would just go "oh well" and grab some pruners?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    No, I’d expect that people would wake up, seek and gain a stay of the law, and repeal it in the next ballot measure cycle. (For the right price, I’d literally bet my own thumb on that being the outcome.)
  - SllX 4y ago
    We’re talking about the difference between W2s and 1099s, so I feel pretty good that my vote isn’t up there with literal bodily mutilation so you can put away the straw man; and if I thought AB5’s supporters and the “No” vote had the moral high ground, I wouldn’t have voted the way I did. I would in fact have voted the complete opposite of what I did, so keep that in mind. Do you want to try a different line of argument for why my vote should be nullified? There’s no “because someone on Hacker News thought it was bad“ exception in our democracy, so I’m kind of looking for something more here.

diceduckmonk 4y ago

> I find the article's headline misleading. I see Uber stock is up 6% pre-market. That suggests to me investors thinks Uber's liabilities are reduced as a result of this ruling.

jvanderbot 4y ago
The fight over contractor status was versus regular employee status, which would require providing benefits. So, market rejoice, these driver folks are on their own. Editorializing a bit, but CA referendums are so silly. I was asked to vote to resolve an employee/employer dispute in kidney dialysis centers. There's so many of those types of things.
- MrDunham 4y ago
  So, crazy enough, I know the head lobbyist for the group that was fighting against that kidney dialysis thing. It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it. Crazy that one special interest can get some signatures to fight for something like that with the only real goal to boost their profits well another special interest fights against it to save theirs. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process.
  - brvsft 4y ago
    > hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.
    - wcarron 4y ago
      So... parasites. Burned sounds appropriate
    - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
      Which produces as much value, in human terms, as burning them. Possibly less. I think the metaphor stands.