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

In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 348 posts

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#141

Post by bearcobra »

nickff wrote: post #89
bearcobra wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to the methodology of the study in the article, but it appears that the author of The Psychopath Test found that the rate was 4x the general population[1], so I feel like the argument still stands [1] http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/04/why-a-disproport...

If you're not going to read the entire book, please at least read more of the Wikipedia article. > He considers the book a cautionary tale against diagnosing someone without really knowing them, and about the need to avoid confirmation bias. He thinks that is "part of the reason why there are so many miscarriages of justice in the psychopath-spotting field." He does believe that Hare's construct of psychopathy applie…

I've placed a hold with my local library to check it out. Until I have a chance to read it, that appears to be an argument against attempting to diagnose an individual without significant psychiatric observation, which is a noble goal. But assuming the citation of the book in the article is correct, then there appears to be a link between psychopathy and being a CEO. Is your contention that this finding is incorrect or that we need to be careful in how we interpret the finding?

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#142

Post by mirimir »

8ytecoder wrote: post #125
PeterisP wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the consumers are voting with their wallets that they want more Uber X rides and less Uber Black rides, well, that's what should happen. To bring supply back in line with demand, some drivers who used to drive Uber Black should either leave or downgrade, and if they won't do it willingly, then some drivers going bankrupt is a way how the market forces "driver supply" to go in the direction where it apparently need…

I'm not sure I follow as to why they have to accept Uber X requests. If there is less supply for Black cars, what's wrong with them sitting idle? What if they miss a request for a black car while they are driving their uber x customer around?

Well, it's basically that "Uber Black" no longer exists as a distinct service. That has screwed drivers. But still, that was a risk they took.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#143

Post by lr4444lr »

seertaak wrote: post #46

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to…

Immoral perhaps, but not necessarily illegal. Does anyone know where this took place? I wasn't 100% certain from the article. Many U.S. states have a single-party consent wiretapping law, which permits this kind of surreptitious recording.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#144

Post by wybiral »

dandelany wrote: post #138
wybiral wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News and paparazzi are kind of an unfortunate consequence of being a public figure. You're not in a private place in someone else's car...

I'm not sure you're right, legally speaking. At the very least it's a grey area. I certainly have the "reasonable expectation of privacy" (the legal test) in a hotel room that I don't own - a hired car doesn't seem that different to me. When you see an actor get into a car to avoid the paparazzi - they rarely own the car, and reasonably expect the driver not to film them and upload to TMZ or something. (IANAL, TINLA)

Uber cars aren't technically owned by a business like a hotel is though. If you stay the night at my house, there's a DVR system in some of the rooms. Deal with it.

Edit: Also, you probably are being filmed elsewhere in any major hotel (lobby, halls, etc). And I've seen plenty of that footage end up on TV.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#145

Post by TheseDays888 »

seertaak wrote: post #46

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. I'm no fan of Kalanick, but I thought he comported himself reasonably, taking the time to…

> What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination.

You're peering through time with rose-colored glasses.

American history is littered with instances using the press to smear and undermine the oppositions, whoever it may be.

The Founding Fathers, a number of them with close ties or financial stakes in printing press businesses, used it regularly to peddle an agenda.

Appearance and opinion have long mattered. Because they are really the only things we have on which to judge. Everyone has their own personal view and influencing that is the goal. Not truth. Never in the history of the nation has actual truth-seeking been the goal of the powers that be in politics or media.

Ideas like we're now in a "post-truth" world are bizarre. It's nearly a truism of the species to use a pedestal to smear enemies and endear to us our fans.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#146

Post by AlexandrB »

harryh wrote: post #77
AlexandrB wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we, as a society, decide that there should be minimum standard of living for citizens than we should fund that from taxes paid by all. I agree, this is the other - perhaps bette - solution. But the corporations that reap huge benefits from public education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. (and those who currently disproportionately profit from those corporations) need to start contributing their fair share.

As Mitt Romney famously said: corporations are people my friend. Which is to say, they are made up of people. Anything that is benefiting a corporation is benefiting those people. Those people pay taxes. That is how the fair share gets paid.

Tell that to Apple's 200B+ war chest, or to the profits that are distributed as dividends instead of being paid out as wages. A lot of the wealth created by corporations is not subject to income tax (only capital gains tax) and overwhelmingly benefits only those who can afford to be in the market.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#147

Post by jzl »

shruubi wrote: post #92

Honestly, as much as I don't like Kalanick and would love a reason to dislike him even more, to some degree I have to side with him on this situation. The footage with the girls, while incredibly awkward, is nothing more than a flirtatious conversation. Now, fair enough that the driver realises he has the CEO of Uber in his car and wants to talk about his situation as a driver, and I give props to Kalanick for actual…

> Sure, but keep in mind that in this situation he is a guy in his private life who has been blindsided and accused of ruining this guys life, with, what it seems like from other posts here, lies.

Oh come on, he's the CEO of Uber and he took an Uber. Probably every single Uber driver in the country if not the world knows who he is. If he doesn't have an expectation of being recognized and asked about the business he should hire non-Uber private cars. This isn't someone tracking him down on the street and sticking a mic in his face. It's completely fair game.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#149

Post by wopwopwop »

feelix wrote: post #131
wopwopwop wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I actually thought the driver was exceedingly rude. He clearly took advantage of Kalanick being in the public eye, and thus a "target". Filming him without acknowledging it was totally immoral, it should reduce any fair person's bayesian priors as to the credibility of the driver. Why? If I were a driver, you can be sure I would be filming everyone. Does that mean I w…

> And the gig has gotten harder for longtime drivers. In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute. Black car drivers get paid less and their business faces far more competition from other Uber services. Considering that he did change the price from under the driver, and that…

> The fact that the CEO just screams out "BULLSHIT"

He's a bro. You're clearly not a bro.

Re: In Video, Uber CEO Argues with Driver Over Falling Fares

#150

Post by dandelany »

wybiral wrote: post #144
dandelany wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you're right, legally speaking. At the very least it's a grey area. I certainly have the "reasonable expectation of privacy" (the legal test) in a hotel room that I don't own - a hired car doesn't seem that different to me. When you see an actor get into a car to avoid the paparazzi - they rarely own the car, and reasonably expect the driver not to film them and upload to TMZ or something. (IANAL, TINLA)

Uber cars aren't technically owned by a business like a hotel is though. If you stay the night at my house, there's a DVR system in some of the rooms. Deal with it. Edit: Also, you probably are being filmed elsewhere in any major hotel (lobby, halls, etc). And I've seen plenty of that footage end up on TV.

Again though, you're not applying the proper legal test. The law isn't "who owns the property you're on" or "is the property owned by a business or individual," it's "do you have the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' on that property?" The former may factor into the latter, but it's not as cut-and-dried as your comments would make it seem.

edit: here's some precedent that may suggest you do have expectation of privacy as a passenger in someone else's car, though the scenario is different http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

Post reply on HN