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

461–470 of 527 posts

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

#461

Post by Retric »

cmdrfred wrote: post #454
Retric wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suggest you look into the history of that. Rail lines created massive monopolies that had a stranglehold on American businesses until the creation of highways. Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Are business owners simply dumb?

> Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative?

Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.

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

#462

Post by cmdrfred »

Retric wrote: post #461
cmdrfred wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you look into the history of that. Rail lines created massive monopolies that had a stranglehold on American businesses until the creation of highways. Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Are business owners simply dumb?

> Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.

What roads would public busses use if the ones created by those subsidies didn't exist exactly? Do you propose some sort of all terrain bus? Or shall we build train tracks to everyone's home? Won't that be lovely in the dead of night.

FYI: a great deal of the funds for highways come in the form of tolls or gasoline taxes. A great deal of the cost of public transit on the other hand is subsidized by state and local sales taxes and income taxes. It is public transit that is subsidized in the real world not the other way around.

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

#463

Post by Retric »

cmdrfred wrote: post #462
Retric wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are goods even transported via trucks if rail is such a viable and cheaper alternative? Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies. Markets are only rational when left alone, toss more than $425 billion dollars just to build something and then maintain it with government funds and efficiency takes a back seat.

What roads would public busses use if the ones created by those subsidies didn't exist exactly? Do you propose some sort of all terrain bus? Or shall we build train tracks to everyone's home? Won't that be lovely in the dead of night. FYI: a great deal of the funds for highways come in the form of tolls or gasoline taxes. A great deal of the cost of public transit on the other hand is subsidized by state and local sa…

Current federal funds are only a small part of the overall picture especially when you start including the gas subsidies. The system is designed to be complex to hide overall costs, but toll roads are a great reminder of the actual cost per trip. Further, only 1/4 of miles driven are on the highway system so people have plenty of other ways of getting around.

Anyway, public transit is not what I am talking about, the US rail system continues to exist due to efficiency not subsides. Passenger rail is currently a tiny and largely ignored minority of overall traffic.

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

#464

Post by yladiz »

mc32 wrote: post #153
yladiz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number one reason you don't use Lyft is because of tipping? What do you use instead, Uber, taxi, or do you drive? If it's the first, how do you justify using Uber when its practices are significantly worse than an optional tipping for the users? If it's the second, how do you justify using a taxi when tips (in the US) are almost mandatory?

Uber. It's just mentally easier to deal with. After spending time in other countries, I have come to dislike tipping. Having to decide --do they deserve it, do they not? I don't want to deal with it. Tipping used to be an optional thing in transactions but it has become pervasive. Tipping jars. Just charge me more and pay the barista a wage a highschooler or recent graduate can live on.

Okay, sure, tipping is annoying for multiple reasons but if that's the sole reason you won't use Lyft, that, all things equal (give no tip) would give the driver a better wage, you're being too dogmatic about one specific issue without looking at other issues surrounding both Lyft and Uber. You would rather feel good about yourself and make things easier for you by choosing an app (Uber) that pays drivers less but doesn't have the option to tip than choosing an app (Lyft) that pays drivers better but includes the option to tip (which is not enforced). Your argument especially falls flat when you say "just change me more" since Lyft generally does charge you more so they can pay the driver somewhat better money. I'm not sure if you've used Lyft or if you just assume you have to give a tip because the option is present, but unlike many other cases where tips are present (restaurants, taxis) tipping in Lyft isn't mandatory and it's presented such that they make it clear it's optional.

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

#465

Post by GenWintergreen »

patrickyan wrote: post #448
devy wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally concur with the OP and the solution is NOT public transit. Public transit is designed to maximize the service to cover majority of the population but NOT 100% of the use cases and population due to the limited funding and resources governments are allowed to allocate to public transit. I've been to 20 out of 30 world's mega cities. None that I've seen has a "reliable public transportation" that covers all t…

That's only because America is shitty at implementing public transportation. Tokyo and Seoul are fucking amazing. NYC subway is actually amazingly convenient despite being run down and disgusting. There's no reason to take an Uber in NYC unless you're drunk late at night, want to feel fancy, or are going to the airport.

So not true. Try going east west.

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

#466

Post by cmdrfred »

Retric wrote: post #463
cmdrfred wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What roads would public busses use if the ones created by those subsidies didn't exist exactly? Do you propose some sort of all terrain bus? Or shall we build train tracks to everyone's home? Won't that be lovely in the dead of night. FYI: a great deal of the funds for highways come in the form of tolls or gasoline taxes. A great deal of the cost of public transit on the other hand is subsidized by state and local sa…

Current federal funds are only a small part of the overall picture especially when you start including the gas subsidies. The system is designed to be complex to hide overall costs, but toll roads are a great reminder of the actual cost per trip. Further, only 1/4 of miles driven are on the highway system so people have plenty of other ways of getting around. Anyway, public transit is not what I am talking about, the…

> Passenger rail is currently a tiny and largely ignored minority of overall traffic.

Exactly. Why do you assume it can scale to the point that it can replace all other forms of transportation? Rail is only cheap and efficient because those are the markets they selected to service, it won't scale up.

If it can why not get some investors and prove everyone else wrong?

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

#467

Post by lqdc13 »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #441
lqdc13 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC transportation sucks even within areas where the population is very dense. It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway. Plus there are almost daily service disruptions of all kinds. San Francisco's Bart is hated by almost everyone but it is much faster[1]. In fact, I have never taken a slower subway than NYC subway. [1] https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz

> It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway That's a bizarre example. Of course it takes a long time to go from one corner of the city to the other. No reasonable person would be making that commute regularly.

The point is that the subway is slow and unreliable unless you are commuting within Manhattan for 4 stops.

Lots of people work in Manhattan and commute from Brooklyn. It's a 1.5 hr train ride to Columbus Circle + 0-60 minute random slowdown where you may have to take the train in the opposite direction for a bunch of stops.

Sometimes they actually tell you to get off the train, take a shuttle bus and get back on the train. Other times the train stops 8 subway stops from where you have to be with an inaudible message from the conductor. As a result, you are stuck the middle of nowhere at 8 PM on a Saturday. Only option is to take a local bus (that tends to be much more reliable) or Uber. This kind of treatment is unheard of in any European country including Russia.

It could have been a 45 + 0-5 variation minute ride if trains ran as fast and reliably as they do in almost every other city.

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

#468

Post by accountface »

dmalvarado wrote: post #453
accountface wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't Uber heavily subsidizing fares with capital funding? I thought that was part of their monopoly strategy.

Yeah they've slashed fares and a huge part of their losses are driver subsidies. It's all a farce.

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

#469

Post by Retric »

cmdrfred wrote: post #466
Retric wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current federal funds are only a small part of the overall picture especially when you start including the gas subsidies. The system is designed to be complex to hide overall costs, but toll roads are a great reminder of the actual cost per trip. Further, only 1/4 of miles driven are on the highway system so people have plenty of other ways of getting around. Anyway, public transit is not what I am talking about, the…

> Passenger rail is currently a tiny and largely ignored minority of overall traffic. Exactly. Why do you assume it can scale to the point that it can replace all other forms of transportation? Rail is only cheap and efficient because those are the markets they selected to service, it won't scale up. If it can why not get some investors and prove everyone else wrong?

> Multi billion dollar subsides subsidies.

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

#470

Post by baddox »

paulddraper wrote: post #430
baddox wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the comparison. One is criminalizing citizens having negative thoughts about an oppressive government. The other is prohibiting rulers from promising to discriminate against a religion and then passing a thinly-veiled bill to do so.

If an action that is normally legal becomes illegal if you have wrong thoughts while doing it, you are essentially legislating thoughtcrimes. The immigration suspension ought to be legal or illegal because of what it is, not what its author thinks.

I think there's a clear difference between all thoughts and intentions. Intentions are a subset of thoughts. There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so. I don't consider that thought crime.

To clarify, I don't think it would be illegal for the president to establish immigration restrictions (that are otherwise legal) while thinking something bad about Muslims. The problem is intending the restrictions to target Muslims.

Post reply on HN