Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#181

Post by cpher »

dang wrote: post #170
cpher wrote: post #146

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car. I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think w…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11655027 and marked it off-topic. Your comment wasn't off-topic per se but it threw the thread that way. The personal attacks were bad but you already know that. The racial comments are a problem because whether you mean them that way or not, people are certain to read them as slurs. It's hard to conceive of a comment like yours not throwing an HN t…

thank you, well explained.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#182

Post by cpher »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #162
shock-value wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but this comment makes you sound like a whiney child yelling at a sibling -- "you might not listen to me but I'll get Mommy to tell you to stop!". The comment may or may not be racially insensitive but it's very frustrating how some commenters here will appeal to mods to censor anything they don't like or agree with.

I am objecting to the "Fuck you" part, not his (perceived by me) racial insensitivity, which I think we can continue discussing without appealing to mods.

Yes, I was out of line in this context to drop the f-bomb on you. I apologize. Also, it was not done re: racial insensitivity. It's more of a local thing, and it won't translate to this forum. I'm sorry.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#183

Post by makomk »

vonklaus wrote: post #18
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author makes the false dilemma that you can either have fingerprint background checks OR less DUI accidents through ridesharing services. You can have both; you'll just need to fill the gap with ridesharing services who will comply with the new regulation. This section is especially egregious: > What happens if Prop 1 passes? > Austin sends a message to the world, “Innovation is welcome here. Things are stable no…

You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding…

By that argument, Uber and Lyft can demand any change to the law they like and if they care enough about it to pull out of areas as a negotiating tactic, any government that doesn't immediately give in is causing drunk driving deaths.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#184

Post by darawk »

codingdave wrote: post #110
darawk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it even remotely reasonable that taxi drivers should have background checks? Are we really that worried about rogue taxi drivers? What is the worst case scenario here? What exactly does a background check for taxi drivers prevent? The idea that the state should have anything to say about driving a car in exchange for money is absurd on its face and nothing more than the worst, silliest kind of security theater…

The state already has things to say about driving. At all, for any reason. They already have different classes of licensing for driving your own car vs. commercial vehicles. And for most vehicles other than cars, you already need extra licensing to commercially transport passengers. If you are taking a philosophical stand, you had better also start campaigning against commercial pilot licenses and boat captains.

Commercial trucks and planes represent different levels of risk to the public. Taxi driving does not represent a greater level of public threat than any given person driving any other as a passenger.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#185

Post by mistersquid »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #171
mistersquid wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving? In the United States, this question is answered by Federal Laws which define Protected Classes [0]. Non-medallion owners are not a protected class (yet) according to US Federal Law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class EDIT: provide link

Totally true, and not what is being discussed. To quote myself a couple of lines up: "We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?" I.e. the question is "aught", you are merely reiterating what "is" (which no one disagrees with).

The idea that a protected class as defined by US Federal Law can be determined by a "consistent limit [to] be applied in general" is a categorical misunderstanding of the term protected class. Furthermore, the designation of a protected class is hardly the outcome of "(mostly) arbitrary limits".

A quick visit to the link I provided in my earlier comment shows a diverse range of peoples grouped together as protected classes

• Race

• Color

• Religion

• Nationality

• Age

• Sex

• Pregnancy

• Citizenship

• Familial status

• Veteran status

• Genetic information

These groups are not identified by any "consistent limit" but by a wide range of legislation and case law. Protected classes are defined by the judicious and careful application of expert legal opinion among practitioners of jurisprudence and writers of US Federal legislation, practitioners who include but are not limited to Senators, members of Congress, scholars, historians, judges, attorneys, and expert witnesses.

In other words, there is no way to apply a rigid set of parameters ("consistent limit") to find what group of people should constitute a protected class.

Additionally, there are many considerations in establishing a protected class, some of those being whether membership in such a class is voluntary as well as whether members of a proposed protected class have historically, culturally, and socioeconomically been subject to unjust discrimination.

Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class.

EDIT: grammar, formatting, augmentation of series

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#186

Post by kyrra »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21
vonklaus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a good point, however it is possible drunk driving could go up in between now (when the 2 biggest ridesharing services leave) and someone creates a competing Austin only startup, prototypes the technology, builds and deploys it, and in parrallel Austin builds the infrastructure to fingerprint all of the new drivers, then the services launches and all of the new people have a small bit of friction in finding…

You're right! Google could also, in the mean time, start providing ridesharing services with their self driving vehicles (note 1: they test them in Austin, in addition to Mountain View; note 2: Google Ventures invested in Uber, not Google proper, Google and Uber are competitors in the self-driving vehicle space). But we're just speculating at this point. Anything could happen! > However, it isn't particularly "fair"…

Or Waze carpooling could come to the US.

http://9to5google.com/2016/02/09/waze-rider-app/

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#187

Post by lern_too_spel »

snitko wrote: post #59
lern_too_spel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of them could take all of the other's business in Austin by integrating with a background check service, but they were both either too stubborn or too slow to implement integration with such a service in case their proposition failed. Now they're both losing business on top of the money already lost campaigning.

In case you didn't notice, it's not about fingerprints. It's about the principle. It's a fight between business and government. Government wants money and control, businesses show they can't be blackmailed like that and pull out. There is literally nothing Uber or Lyft did wrong. They have all the right in the world to take their business elsewhere. If I believed in democracy, I'd say people should be voting better n…

> They have all the right in the world to take their business elsewhere.

Nobody is claiming otherwise, just that they're stupid for leaving the profits to the taxi companies, who do comply with the background check laws. Either one of them could have become the dominant transportation player in Austin, but they were both too incompetent to make contingency plans.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#188

Post by pbreit »

adiabatty wrote: post #172
pbreit wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive a few hours/month whenever & wherever I want including not at all. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to classify me as an employee.

On the other hand, this also describes the work patterns of substitute teachers in the local school district and they're classified as employees.

Not always. And the employer has quite a bit more say in what is to be performed.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#189

Post by jdbernard »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #176
jdbernard wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because being black is an inherent trait outside of someone's control. Choosing to be an Uber driver is a person's active choice, and everyone has a fingerprint. So you're not forced to do something you don't want to do, and you're not being discriminated against because of something you cannot control.

This is an interesting principle, and it applies in this case. But it has other interesting conclusions. For instance, your principle seems to allow discrimination against Jews/Muslims/people who engage in homosexual acts/promiscuous women/etc. And it seems to bar discrimination against, e.g., the short and ugly (at least if being ugly is not caused by being fat). Do you endorse these conclusions? If not, then this c…

The position I stated in my post above I do hold and do endorse as a good philosophy for life. However, the conclusions you have drawn do not follow logically from what I stated. All I said was that one should not discriminate based on innate attributes. I said nothing about other forms of discrimination. You have made the assumption that the inverse of my statement is true: that because I denounce discrimination based on attributes outside of people's control that I must support discrimination based on attributes within their control. This is not a logical conclusion of my statement and is not true.

Generally speaking, I reject discrimination against people based on any attributes, within or without their control, except those attributes which directly pertain to the subject in question. So, for example, in a job situation, ideally, the only attributes we should be using to discriminate between candidates are their experience, knowledge, and ability to fulfill the duties of the position. If the job requires lifting heavy weights, discriminating upon your ability to lift heavy weights is fine. Discriminating based on sex (maybe justified because statistically most women are not strong enough to perform the duties) is not fine, because it is an indirect attribute. If this women meets the requirements it is irrelevant what other women can or cannot do.

In this case with Uber and Lyft the city/state has the right (one could argue duty) to take steps to ensure the trustworthiness/safety of drivers operating commercial transportation services within its jurisdiction. Race does not say anything about the trustworthiness or criminal nature of a specific person. Even if, hypothetically, you assume that statistically one race is more prone to violence than another that does not speak directly about this candidate. It is an indirect measure like the example of sex above. An accurate background check, however, can shed light on facts in a person's past that are directly relevant to that question.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#190

Post by yummyfajitas »

jdbernard wrote: post #189
yummyfajitas wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting principle, and it applies in this case. But it has other interesting conclusions. For instance, your principle seems to allow discrimination against Jews/Muslims/people who engage in homosexual acts/promiscuous women/etc. And it seems to bar discrimination against, e.g., the short and ugly (at least if being ugly is not caused by being fat). Do you endorse these conclusions? If not, then this c…

The position I stated in my post above I do hold and do endorse as a good philosophy for life. However, the conclusions you have drawn do not follow logically from what I stated. All I said was that one should not discriminate based on innate attributes. I said nothing about other forms of discrimination. You have made the assumption that the inverse of my statement is true: that because I denounce discrimination bas…

You have made the assumption that the inverse of my statement is true: that because I denounce discrimination based on attributes outside of people's control that I must support discrimination...

I made no such assumption. I merely pointed out that your principle doesn't prohibit such things.

In this case with Uber and Lyft the city/state has the right (one could argue duty) to take steps to ensure the trustworthiness/safety of drivers...Even if, hypothetically, you assume that statistically one race is more prone to violence than another that does not speak directly about this candidate.

Neither does past criminal history. Some criminals are reformed and will not commit crimes. Both past criminal history and race are statistical predictors of future criminal behavior. So are various things under one's control like the neighborhood they live in, their friends, etc.

It's a fact, and one I haven't fully come to grips with philosophically, that base rates matter. I.e., you'll do a better job predicting violence if you take race into account [1]. Actually using it makes me uncomfortable, but not using it is also burying our heads in the sand. From a moral philosophy perspective I'm simply confused.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Post reply on HN