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

Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 527 posts

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#431

Post by accountface »

mtw wrote: post #377
foxfired wrote: post #127

Here is how I see it. I rely on those rides to go to work every single day and here what it (would) costs me. Uber: $250 a month.(Majority) Lyft: $500 a month (Whenever Uber is too expensive) Bus : $100 a month (1h:15 for 6 miles and 3 buses... No) Politics and all internal conflicts aside, there is a need for these services whether we like it or not. When I need to make a decision in the morning I take whatever is t…

The solution is reliable public transport. The way i see it, Uber is half price because it is sustained by VC money and ever-decreasing pay for drivers. Taxis or Ubers are in theory your own private vehicle or limo. It should be special occasions. Because you're late to the meeting. Or have to go the airport. Or because you had a drink too much. Having a private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury and it shoul…

Uber's pricing is definitely too low. I paid $3.75 for a 20 minute ride at one point and decided to stop using it entirely because that just seems like exploitation. I'm completely willing to pay more to give workers better wages. Lyft (and other competitors) not only charge more, but drivers keep more of it.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#432

Post by asah »

foxfired wrote: post #127

Here is how I see it. I rely on those rides to go to work every single day and here what it (would) costs me. Uber: $250 a month.(Majority) Lyft: $500 a month (Whenever Uber is too expensive) Bus : $100 a month (1h:15 for 6 miles and 3 buses... No) Politics and all internal conflicts aside, there is a need for these services whether we like it or not. When I need to make a decision in the morning I take whatever is t…

Chariot: $150/mon

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#433

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

wcummings wrote: post #315
op00to wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, but poor people use public transportation to come from bad neighborhoods to good neighborhoods to rob us! We must ban all expansion of public transportation!" This exact sentiment is echoed by many in the US as a reason to not expand public transit. When asked about criminals driving cars to commit crimes, they were not open to bulldozing the roads over. It's gross.

>"Yes, but poor people use public transportation to come from bad neighborhoods to good neighborhoods to rob us! We must ban all expansion of public transportation!" This is why the (Boston) red line doesn't extend to Arlington.

...and why most of Chicago's south and southwest sides are barely accessibly by the CTA Rail.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#434

Post by paulddraper »

humanrebar wrote: post #316
paulddraper wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that it's not an effective Muslim ban is a different question. It is precisely the question. What the ban is is much more important that what it purports to be. For example, if it purported to be a ban on terrorists but actually was as ban on Muslims (and I mean, a bonafide ban on all Muslims), would that not matter?

But the ACA mandate was supposed to be a mandate or a penalty, not a tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it looked like a tax and quacked like a tax, so it's legal as a tax. Why can't the same principals be applied here? That the pitch and language of a rule aren't important, just the implementation.

100% agree. It doesn't matter whether Obama intended it to be a tax, or a mandate, or a duck. It was a tax because it was.

It doesn't matter what Trump thinks about the order. It's legality is the same no matter who signed it.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#435

Post by Karunamon »

tzakrajs wrote: post #417
Karunamon wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but that official's statement does not even kinda imply race. Like it or not, bus stops and train stations accessible by everyone are hotbeds of panhandling, pickpockets, and sometimes worse. An area where people just pass through on their way to somewhere else far away, distracted and in a hurry, is a great place for criminal behavior.

It's a dog whistle for racists. Please don't apologize for racists.

Your proof that the statement is some kind of coded language is what, exactly? Parent's assertion?

Please don't assume racism where none has been proven to exist.

I absolutely refuse to cease challenging unsubstantiated statements because of this conceptual boogeyman, and so should you.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#436

Post by simplehuman »

teach wrote: post #114
simplehuman wrote: post #31

Let's say I have to take a cab everyday to work. If Uber gives me a ride for 15 bucks and Lyft gives me the same ride for 18 bucks, I know which one I will choose. Do you?

It's easy for me to say, but I won't ride in an Uber vehicle. I've disagreed with their practices for quite some time, and these more recent events have only solidified my resolve. I'm sure I'm the tiny minority, but $3 a day is a pittance vs knowing I'm supporting such a toxic culture. Plus, if you can't afford an "extra" $3 a day to get to work, then use neither Uber nor Lyft and get on a bus.

My understanding is that Uber was never popular in cities with good public transport...

As for 3$ a day, this is the choice people make everyday with using free Google stuff and promoting ads and surveillance culture. It's really not that simple as money as you make it sound.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#437

Post by logfromblammo »

andruby wrote: post #325
op00to wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, but poor people use public transportation to come from bad neighborhoods to good neighborhoods to rob us! We must ban all expansion of public transportation!" This exact sentiment is echoed by many in the US as a reason to not expand public transit. When asked about criminals driving cars to commit crimes, they were not open to bulldozing the roads over. It's gross.

Is that quote a real statement or an exaggeration? I can't phantom how people could blame mass transportation for increasing robberies.

You can't fathom it.

A fathom is the distance between fingertips. "To fathom" in a literal sense is either wrap your arms around an object to measure its size, or to drop a weighted rope to the seafloor, and haul it up, counting one fathom for each double-arm-length of rope hauled in. "To fathom" in a figurative sense is to acquire more than superficial knowledge of a topic--to attain a full depth of understanding. To be unable to fathom something is literally being unable to wrap your arms around it, and figuratively unable to wrap your mind around it.

A phantom is an intangible apparition like a ghost or specter. It is not usually used as a verb, but if it were, the meaning would probably be similar to "to ghost", which is either to work invisibly or to vanish suddenly, without warning or explanation. As an adjective, it means that the modified word does not truly exist.

People in the US are still very class-aware, even if they are not obviously racist. Anecdotally, at a pool party in her suburban McMansion subdivision, I overheard a black grandmother express dismay at the possibility that someone might build a high-density apartment building in the neighboring cattle pasture, because they attract (literal quote) "that kind of people." Nobody wants poor people in their neighborhood, because it is presumed that even if they don't steal anything they can pick up, they will crash all the property values in the surrounding area.

As someone not particularly fond of driving a car, I would love to be able to get around on public transportation, like I did in Chicago. But that requires density to be cost-effective, and for too many people, density equates to too many poor people living near their stuff. So it's more of a two-part process. The mass transit and the housing density go hand in hand, and the NIMBYs are afraid of both.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#438

Post by notJim »

foxfired wrote: post #127

Here is how I see it. I rely on those rides to go to work every single day and here what it (would) costs me. Uber: $250 a month.(Majority) Lyft: $500 a month (Whenever Uber is too expensive) Bus : $100 a month (1h:15 for 6 miles and 3 buses... No) Politics and all internal conflicts aside, there is a need for these services whether we like it or not. When I need to make a decision in the morning I take whatever is t…

I think this is largely a San Francisco problem. In most US cities, you have a car (which is probably cheaper than $850/mo? Certainly can be if you want it to be.) In NYC, and a few other American cities, there's a subway system. For example, I take the subway to and from work every day for ~$150/mo or something. It takes about 30 minutes.

It's kind of shocking to me how bad the public transit is in San Francisco when I go there. I think from a consumer perspective, your best bet is to get involved in politics.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#439

Post by Retric »

cmdrfred wrote: post #429
naravara wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I agree but the issue becomes any sweeping legislation or tax increase to fund such a program will negatively many millions of people without any benefit to them. Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not fede…

> Except, you know. Less drunk driving, less traffic, less pollution, fewer road fatalities, and less tax money spent on road maintenance. Those little things. How do people who are not served by public transit feel any of these effects? > And what "many millions of people?" Public transit is mostly paid for by municipal taxes, not federal. My point exactly, this is how it should be but municipalities are rather cash…

If only local roads existed: Trains would have continued to serve most locations cheaply. The federal highway system did great damage to the far more efferent but far less subsidized train network. Trans take less land, less capital, fewer workers, less fuel, and cause fewer deaths.

Re: Lyft Is Said to Seek New Funding as Its Rival Uber Stumbles

#440

Post by sokoloff »

afarrell wrote: post #186
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you're thinking about area or population, but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US, and has a much better public transport system.

It also helps significantly that London's busses are double-decker and come more often so you don't have to wait as long for a bus you can board. (I lived in Cambridge, MA for many years and this wasn't rare with the #1 bus)

The most aggravating thing that I saw about the #1 was it was on a nominally ~10 minute schedule at peak times. Pretty regularly, I'd wait 20+ minutes only to see three #1 buses, nose-to-tail, arriving.
Post reply on HN