G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft • Hacker News Board

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#201

Post by crdb » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

hissworks wrote: post #177

crdb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it was the case (wouldn't that be convenient for my reputation) but it was a more standard culture fit problem, they didn't think we'd work well together. Specifically, the job involved a lot of cross-office coordination and I'm more of a "get the job done", technically focused kind of manager than the more political nature of the managerial role in question (political in the sense that you need to help multip…

Thanks for the insights. Sounds like a fair procedure. Curious to hear more about what you found cool about their communication methods. I've been thinking about this a lot as I'm surprised how inefficient a lot of Big Corp communication methods can be, especially those with a field/regional organization. Inclined to agree that knowledge radiates outwards, but tinkering with ideas about how to best receive feedback i…

I can't speak specifically about Uber (not sure what is fair to disclose or not) and definitely not about Rocket. However, I can speculate on what I learnt from both. It's not (or not "just") about "communication methods" but an organisational problem.

In the hypothetical case where I'd be running a company like that, I'd want a small team of people who are both technically and operationally extremely able, and personally likeable and politically capable; preferably people who have proven themselves and have credit internally (or such achievements as to reach the same reputation even as an external hire).

I'd task them to overview everything that is happening globally, coordinate trials and experiments so that several hundred could run at the same time globally, and share back information and results across the world. They'd be in effect the repository of knowledge of the company, the institutional memory (so much wheel gets reinvented!) and they most crucially wouldn't be based in HQ in the Bay Area, but a distributed global team constantly roaming and meeting all the local teams. They wouldn't have or need authority to "get things done" by steamrolling over the local office (as the IBM Black Team did [1]), instead convincing them that it's a good idea to try.

They would include specialists in every discipline that is important to the company from finance to statistics, to make sure that there is always at least one team member that can be on the same level as a local specialist (both to avoid taking stupid decisions, and to be credible in conversations).

[1] http://www.t3.org/tangledwebs/07/tw0706.html

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#202

Post by bdcravens » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #167

Aloha wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Edison who also invented the lightbulb, phonograph, motion pictures, carbon microphone, fuel cell, stock ticker, and alkaline battery.

Well, or scientists working for his firm.

Steve Jobs is listed on 323 patents.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#203

Post by joombaga » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

sjm-lbm wrote: post #179

Aloha wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Edison who also invented the lightbulb, phonograph, motion pictures, carbon microphone, fuel cell, stock ticker, and alkaline battery.

I'm far from an expert on all of the details, but I find it amusing how similar Edison was to Steve Jobs: both non-engineers that seemed to have enough technical intuition to facilitate an amazing amount of development within their organizations, all while taking (perhaps) more credit than they deserved and running their businesses in occasionally ruthless ways. Yet, somehow it's popular to want to emulate Steve Jobs…

Perhaps this is because there is no (obvious/singular) Tesla to Jobs' Edison.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#204

Post by chefkoch » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

spydum wrote: post #189

mbesto wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about trucking? According to this[0] there are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States. I hate to go down the route of "machines are going to replace everything", but doesn't autonomous automobiles and AI based routing mean these people effectively get eliminated? http://www.alltrucking.com/faq/truck-drivers-in-the-usa/

Given that trains require far less cognitive load to operate than a tractor trailer (sorry engineers!), and yet still require humans to operate.. I wonder if ever? I'm actually curious why trains haven't been automated at this point (in the US at least). It seems like an ideal first step (no navigational issues, retrofit some collision avoidance mechanisms, remote control, etc, and you are up and running).

I guess the train driver is an small percentage oft the cost of running a train compared to the cost of a truck driver.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#205

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

spydum wrote: post #189

mbesto wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about trucking? According to this[0] there are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States. I hate to go down the route of "machines are going to replace everything", but doesn't autonomous automobiles and AI based routing mean these people effectively get eliminated? http://www.alltrucking.com/faq/truck-drivers-in-the-usa/

Given that trains require far less cognitive load to operate than a tractor trailer (sorry engineers!), and yet still require humans to operate.. I wonder if ever? I'm actually curious why trains haven't been automated at this point (in the US at least). It seems like an ideal first step (no navigational issues, retrofit some collision avoidance mechanisms, remote control, etc, and you are up and running).

[deleted]

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#206

Post by puranjay » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

asafira wrote: post #19

pbnjay wrote: post #9

So Google+Ford, Lyft+GM, Tesla on both sides software/hardware... Where is Uber's Hardware going to come from now? I wonder if this is an instance where the personalities involved with Uber are having a detrimental effect on these sorts of long-term needs. Or is there something yet to be announced?

Didn't Uber buy the Carnegie Mellon robotics division? Is it too much to think they might try for their own hardware platform? It might be, but why else do so?

Building a car is 5-10 years out. It's a long, slow process. And you need to clear dozens and dozens of safety protocols.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#207

Post by intopieces » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #184

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #140

It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…

And what about trucking? According to this[0] there are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States. I hate to go down the route of "machines are going to replace everything", but doesn't autonomous automobiles and AI based routing mean these people effectively get eliminated? http://www.alltrucking.com/faq/truck-drivers-in-the-usa/

>doesn't autonomous automobiles and AI based routing mean these people effectively get eliminated?

Most assuredly and it can't happen soon enough. We need to run headlong into automation, eliminating as many jobs as we can. The sooner we eliminate industries, the sooner we enter the post-labor era.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#208

Post by ultimatefan1 » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

swax wrote: post #176

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #140

It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…

Aren't Uber and Lyft middle-men? Why wouldn't car companies themselves offer a subscription service for access to their cars? You don't pay more to own a BMW, but you do pay more for a BMW subscription over a Honda one. Uber would probably be a cheaper subscription service for 'used' autonomous cars.

I see it as GM (or whoever) makes the car. Lyft (or uber, google, whoever) makes the software to call up the car, which includes a huge amount of data analysis for routing, so they are more than just a middle man. Also, GM just became a major investor and board member in Lyft, so both parties are clearly interested in partnering: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lyft-gm-...

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#209

Post by ghaff » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

anthonybsd wrote: post #150

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #140

It is predicted that autonomous cars will reduce America's fleet of vehicles by something like 10-fold [1]. I think it will unfold something like this: FIRST, instead three cars for mom, dad and kid, the average family has one car that drops mom off to work, then dad, and then the teen off to school. SECOND, aforementioned car makes use of its down time to drive strangers around via Uber, Lyft, et cetera. The car's o…

>(Note: people already do this in cities like New York, where car ownership is relatively scarce.) Car ownership is 45% in NYC. Not sure why this is considered "scarce" :)

It's probably also worth noting that a lot of the time when people say "NYC," they really mean Manhattan--and, more specifically, they're really thinking Manhattan below 110th Street or so. I imagine the number is significantly lower if you remove the other boroughs.

Re: G.M. Invests $500M in Lyft

#210

Post by Retra » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

deepGem wrote: post #190

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is already a possibility (carpooling is an established idea), and the critical reasons why it isn't more popular don't significantly change with automated cars. People don't want to spend their commute with random people who just happen to be going the same direction. Perhaps more important is that it creates a strict commitment to be prepared to leave on time and a reliance on others leaving on time.

Carpooling in private cars is very different from carpooling in self-driven cars. While you own the private cars, it's very reasonable to expect you not to share the ride with strangers or to occupy another's car. However, if it's a self-driven car which no one owns - it's just like public transit, but way more efficient. Instead of buying a monthly train or bus pass you just pay your self-driven car rental/lease, to…

As long as cars aren't prohibitively expensive and remain symbols of personal freedom and identity, then people will pay for the luxury of not riding in public transportation.