451–460 of 573 posts
Note that arguing right or wrong of the action or reaction is not relevant - this is a description of the present mood of your market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber broke the strike by breaking the strike. This absurd focus on whether surge pricing was a multiplier or disincentive is a complete distraction. The taxi drivers reached out and asked Uber for solidarity. They dispatched drivers to break the strike. They made their bed in the court of public opinion, now they can lie in it.
Uber is a company, it is not organized in a union. I would never expect them to participate in a strike and effectively order their drivers to stop working. Just like a taxicab company doesn't participate in the strike, but the drivers do. This is like if Coca Cola workers went on strike, and problem blamed Pespi Co of breaking strike by not sending their workers home??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This wasn't a strike, it was a political protest. What's the difference??
I think we could all agree by calling it a work-stoppage. To me they're basically all the same but a strike is generally a work stoppage intended to force management to in some way improve the employment environment whereas a political protest can and usually is directed outwards and occurs for any number of reasons.
This is also a political protest. Just because it's not against the U.S. government doesn't make it less so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No company can be expected to behave morally? Is that what you are arguing?
Is it immoral not to participate in a strike organized by people you have no connection to, who work for different people, and who never consulted me? If I was going to work and some strangers told me not to because they were on strike, I'd tell them to get lost.
Uber took steps to help their affected drivers, and stated intent to raise the issue at meetings with Trump. They decided not to engage in the strike along with the taxi drivers. Somehow, what looks to me like a tactical disagreement got recast as proof that Uber doesn't care about immigrants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a company, sure. But the citizens vote with their wallets, and are clearly making a choice for the type of company they prefer. Maybe that means most people in New York prefer a company which cooperates with their local unions.
Did Lyft cooperate with their local unions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Policies of hate" The destruction of 10s of millions of american jobs was an actual policy of hate and arrogance. A policy stopping immigration from countries with very established terrorist groups isn't "hate". Is a firewall hate against the internet gestalt of human cognition and computer computation?
Except they left out the countries with the most known terrorist activities in the us, that happened to be countries with major trump investments, that would be Saudia Arabia and Egypt.
Dan Primack summarised this well; Uber failed on messaging: "Uber has done a lot of questionable things over the years, but its actions this past weekend vis-a-vis Trump's immigration ban weren't among them. An actual timeline from Saturday, which may differ from what you saw on social media: • 4:20pm ET: CEO Travis Kalanick sent email to employees. It stopped short of explicitly opposing the ban, but did say: (1) Th…
Lyft sent me a political message in an email so I deleted Lyft and now don't have either one. I used them, because I thought they were nicer to the drivers and allowed me tip. And I support the refugees and think this is a stupid and dangerous ban. Oh and I was a bit in the same boat as some of them and on a few occasions was not allowed board the plane with a ticket in hand, and was not able to get home to US. But L…
> This is getting ridiculous. We and our allies have bombed the crap out of those countries. Destabilized, them turned them into failed states. (Iran is probably the only sane one who arguably has a functioning government). We bombed hospitals, civilians, funded ISIS. Obama alone, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient just last year managed to drop over 26k bombs but but there is a stupid travel ban and the apps on my phon…
That shade!
Kalanick and Musk are basically the only two remaining adults in SV. Musk basically said on twitter, "I'll go and talk to the guy". Everyone else is more concerned with political correctness and virtue signaling. Hundred thousand bombs dropped into five countries on that list -- not a goddamn peep from anybody. 2150 people killed by drones -- same. Iraqi refugees banned for half a year -- no one has even heard of it.…
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/americas/cuba-obama...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, no they cannot. It has been proven time and time again that most companies will behave only in ways that benefit its stakeholders. Sometimes, that happens to align with public or moral good. However, our only expectation should be that companies make decisions and take actions within the parameters prescribed by regulators. Anything they do beyond that is either a violation, and should be punished, or a sec…
I would agree that this seems to be the case almost always, but should it have to be that way? Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often? To some extent this is already the case, you don't see Dow Chemical grinding up children and selling them as couch stuffing, although sometimes they're not very far from that mark.
I saw a headline on HN that said "why always outlasts how" and I believe this to be intrinsic. If we should encourage companies to behave in ways more closely aligned with the public interest, fine. Now, how do we do that? So far, it has been done through varying degrees of regulation and the court of public opinion, but those often fail.
To answer your question - "Why can't public interest be aligned with the profit motive more often?" - because we lack a better how for the time being.