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

A profound apology

newsroom.uber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 406 posts

Re: A profound apology

#361

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

enneff wrote: post #77
Jtsummers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an expression. When I write something like, "My deepest condolences". I'm using a fairly standard expression. Same with, "My most heartfelt apology". Yes, the veracity of those statements will be judged in time, but it's still a common, and idiomatic, way to say things in English.

To this native English speaker it came off as self-aggrandizing.

To this native English speaker I think you guys are splitting hairs to dig in even further to someone you don't like.

Re: A profound apology

#362

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

sotojuan wrote: post #318
Jaruzel wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not linked. It's an unclickable relative URL. Also, if I wanted to read about this on Reddit, I'd be over on Reddit. I'm here because I want to read the comments from HN users.

I don't understand why people say this. Aside from the default subs, the rhetoric of HN is rarely any better than Reddit's.

It's a totally subjective debate, but IMHO, while the highest quality Reddit comments might be just as good as the highest quality HN comments, I think both the floor and median comment quality levels are much lower on Reddit.

Also HN comments are 95% serious in tone. While joking isn't disallowed, and the occasional high concept satirical comment might get mass upvoted, most jokes are ignored or downvoted. Not the case on Reddit.

Re: A profound apology

#363

Post by NegativeK »

rhizome wrote: post #179
NegativeK wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do; grandparent's idiom isn't accurate. But I've found that I don't have the mental fortitude to wait for them and see abuse meted out in the meantime. Deliberate assholery once, I'm going to be suspicious for a long, long time. Asshole twice, we're done.

Even so, what do we get for waiting anyway? Uber is easily supplanted, they're not special as a competitive force.

I was being general. Uber has been a deliberate asshole more than once.

Re: A profound apology

#364

Post by ossie »

Putting Travis to the side, nobody cares about the privacy of the two ladies in the video who have been involuntarily dragged into national news? (i assume nobody asked their consent to publish the video)

Re: A profound apology

#365

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #175
argonaut wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that struck me is: almost half of the country would disagree with you (the more conservative half). A lot of the American public believes what Kalanick said to be very true when it comes to low-ish income people complaining about what wealthier people do to them.

What a useful spell they are all under then, how could the wealthy ever brainwash them to "buy into" such an exploitative system so effectively?

Dunno if you're being /s or not but there are myriad serious answers, most of them pointing back to the elevation of predatory capitalism to an quasi-religious ideology, often intermixed with judaeo-christian symbolism and messaging.

Re: A profound apology

#366

Post by fragmede »

smdz wrote: post #348
tptacek wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You copied this comment from another thread, where I responded: Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not…

Yes, that thread was marked duplicate. At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why. I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver". This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handfu…

The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a ton to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver.

Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was years ago.

It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal.

Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage.

Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole.

In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in no way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit.

Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.

Re: A profound apology

#367

Post by tyingq »

nstj wrote: post #351
tyingq wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the move where Uber Black drivers are forced to take Uber X fares. Refusing pickups has consequences after a certain number. In that case, the driver is certainly being paid less. https://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-par... I think it's a valid complaint. He invested in the car based on a business model that changed underneath him. Uber may not be legally liable for that, and may have…

Oh for sure - I don't doubt the guy is upset, and clearly something caused that, there just seemed to be some kind of consensus that the actual driver receipts per mile/per minute on Uber Black had gone down given the numbers in the Bloomberg article which seemed to be drawing conclusions. If the guy had yelled "You are making me accept Uber X fares which is making me make less money" then it would be easy to see whe…

It appears that the Uber fare cuts do directly affect what drivers are paid.

"Lower fares mean that drivers make less per ride. Uber said lower fares will attract more riders, which should increase the number of trips per hour. 'We care deeply about driver earnings,' Macdonald said. 'We actually find that a lot of drivers understand why we do this. They’ve been through price cuts before.'"[1]

So, they try to explain it away by saying the drivers will get more rides, but pretty clear that Uber concedes it's less money per ride.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-09/uber-drop...

Re: A profound apology

#368

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

argonaut wrote: post #152
smcmurtry wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Kalanick: You know what? >Kamel: What? >Kalanick: Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. I think that is a very insulting and superior thing to say to someone.

Something that struck me is: almost half of the country would disagree with you (the more conservative half). A lot of the American public believes what Kalanick said to be very true when it comes to low-ish income people complaining about what wealthier people do to them.

So many (seemingly) intractable issues in contemporary life regress back to the question of personal responsibility.

It's a difficult thing to push back on, because even those of us most sympathetic a complex-systems based understanding of inequality don't want to completely give up on the value of personal responsibility, as to do so would be to tacitly give up the belief in free will. But if we grant that each individual does have some degree of agency and responsibility, then the libertarian side immediately points to any number of self made/rags to riches individuals and says "So? Stop complaining and do that!". But why can't they admit that it's an issue of degrees?

Sure, you have some agency in improving your situation, but if you're born less advantaged the systemic factors arrayed against you make it significantly harder to leverage your agency to improve your lot. Just because some lucky few do rise from rags to riches doesn't mean that a winner take most, predatory lottery system will create the best outcome for the most.

Is it a failure of human probabilistic intuition? Or is it a more malicious effort to control and frame the debate, pushed by those who benefit from the unequal system? Probably both.

Re: A profound apology

#369

Post by inimino »

argonaut wrote: post #152
smcmurtry wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Kalanick: You know what? >Kamel: What? >Kalanick: Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. I think that is a very insulting and superior thing to say to someone.

Something that struck me is: almost half of the country would disagree with you (the more conservative half). A lot of the American public believes what Kalanick said to be very true when it comes to low-ish income people complaining about what wealthier people do to them.

It's absolutely a true statement, and it is absolutely and completely an inappropriate tone for the CEO of a company to take toward someone that just got fucked over by his company's changing policies, after his company pushed people into taking out loans they can't realistically afford.

It's like Taleb's stuff about skin in the game--Kalanick pushed the risk of his business model onto drivers like this one while keeping the upside for himself. When the driver got screwed by Kalanick's pricing changes, he comes back with technicalities and finally blames the guy for not taking responsibility. Talk about projection!

That's the reason why this is disrespectful to the driver. Kalanick minimizes his loss and refuses to take any responsibility for it himself, despite the fact that the only real mistake the driver made was trusting Uber.

Re: A profound apology

#370

Post by williamle8300 »

Uber is a dumpster fire. Whenever I see a black Prius with the Uber sticker on the car cutting through traffic, tailgating cars, rolling right turns, and general assery... it reminds me that moral bankruptcy pervades the whole company culture.

Stay away from this company.

Post reply on HN