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

471–480 of 527 posts

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

#471

Post by subpixel »

Karunamon wrote: post #363
subpixel wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "poor" with "black" and you have the reason public transportation has been suppressed in large parts of the US. When I lived in Atlanta a suburban city official explained that "we all know the sort of people who hang around bus stops" while killing plans to expand bus service.

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.

To understand the context, this was a white suburb in a largely segregated city twenty years ago. And in that context, the racial implications were very clear.

If you read up on the history of public transportation in the US, you will be gobsmacked by the racism at play.

To wit: in NYC, the highway to the beach was explicitly designed with overpasses too low to accommodate buses, to keep blacks from the beaches and the white suburbs that surrounded them: http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/politics/216905-the-l...

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

#472

Post by rubicon33 »

bykovich wrote: post #84
rubicon33 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. It's THE reason I use Uber, instead of lift. Tipping has gotten out of control in this country. It's supposed to be reserved for when someone performs an exceptional service, not to subsidize their wage.

This sounds an awful lot like "I'm taking advantage of the assumption of tipping to avoid paying a fair price for the services I receive."

You're making an assumption (and a false one) that I have a problem paying a fair wage. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I would gladly pay 15% more for a service, if I knew that the tip was included.

My problem with tipping is that it's become unclear when to tip, and when not to tip.

You tip you server, ok. You tip the bus boy at the hotel, ok. You tip your hair stylist, ok. You tip your Uber driver? huh, ok... Tip the guy who just made you a smoothie? Tip your starbucks barista? Tip the bus driver?

Nobody can clearly define when to tip, and when not to. It's entirely arbitrary, which is a horrible system to begin with. Never mind the fact that employers should pay fair wages to begin with. The fact that anyone DEPENDS on tips to get by, seems like the employer passing the buck.

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

#473

Post by paulddraper »

baddox wrote: post #470
paulddraper wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

> There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so.

The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state.

Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional). In either case, the action is illegal, and due taxes must be paid.

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

#474

Post by jobigoud »

_jdams wrote: post #327
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…

$100 a month for bus? Hahah Try North Jersey to Port Authority NYC - it will cost you $250+ A typical round trip pass for the day costs $23 ($11.50 each way).

I was going to start my comment the same. $100 a month for bus, this is crazy expensive!

You guys had me double check. Where I live (750K city in Europe), you get an unlimited pass for 27€/month. It's your fares that are just unbelievable.

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

#475

Post by erispoe »

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.

You're summarizing the debate between "originalism" and "pragmatism" theories of judicial interpretation. The former looks at what people supposedly intended and confines the meaning of the text to that. It's the weapon of choice of conservative justices (because of course, the Founding Fathers couldn't intend to give marriage equality). The latter looks at what the text does, in today's context. It's the approach preferred by progressives because it accounts for how the effects of a text can change with time (and society).

In general I would agree with you, you oughta look at what a legislation does in practice. But here, because there is a sense of urgency (sending a gay refugee back to Somalia, for instance, is akin to signing their death warrant) and because the executive order hasn't been around for a while, I think it's ok to refer to what the administration intended the order to do. Because we don't have a lot of field evidence. As we see concrete evidence for the effects of a legislation, I think you're right and the weight of what it was theoretically intended should decrease pretty quickly (and it usually does).

The administration also didn't present to the court any sort of evidence supporting the claim that it would prevent terrorism.

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

#476

Post by bgun »

Nadya wrote: post #425
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…

For all of your mega city visits, have you been to Tokyo? If so what did you find unreliable about it? The one criticism I can see is when transport is slowed/halted due to typhoons. I found that the public transportation in most of Japan was well enough, such that I never thought to myself "If only I had a car/rental right now..." Not to mention how punctual the transportation is. Compared to where I live, where del…

It should be noted that Tokyo's subways do not operate between midnight and 5am. Having 4-5 hours of downtime every night dramatically reduces the complexity of infrastructure upkeep and cleanliness, and taxis pick up the slack for the night shift and bar/club crowd.

There are myriad reasons why Tokyo's metro outpaces (for one example) NYC in reliability and sanitation, but not having a 24/7 schedule is a big one.

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

#477

Post by baddox »

paulddraper wrote: post #473
baddox wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

> There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so. The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state. Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional). In either case, the action is illegal…

I don't follow your argument. This car example seems to qualify under your definition of thought crime.

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

#478

Post by smileysteve »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #350
smileysteve wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key points are - CEO never blackmailed journalists - No major revelations of sexual harassment - ~~No major revelations of political support~~ Related to core business - Surge Limit has prevented complaints about emergency pricing vs Uber. - Lyft takes a lower commission capped at 20%/25% - Lyft has in app digital tipping (drivers keep 100% of tips). Uber's tip policy encourages cash, which is an often cited comp…

Travis Kalanick has never blackmailed journalists. Emil Michael, an Uber executive, brought up the idea as an ethical hypothetical. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-campbell/what-was-said-... Specifically, he asked Ben Smith of Buzzfeed whether it would be ethical for Uber to hire someone to investigate and report to the public true facts about a journalist (as opposed to journalists investigating and reporting t…

Sorry for the incorrect information; I'd edit the comment w/ more ~s, but the window has passed.

My recollection was apparently wrong and from headlines that Ben Smith wrote.

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

#479

Post by [deleted] »

erispoe wrote: post #475
paulddraper wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're summarizing the debate between "originalism" and "pragmatism" theories of judicial interpretation. The former looks at what people supposedly intended and confines the meaning of the text to that. It's the weapon of choice of conservative justices (because of course, the Founding Fathers couldn't intend to give marriage equality). The latter looks at what the text does, in today's context. It's the approach pr…

[deleted]

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

#480

Post by baddox »

erispoe wrote: post #475
paulddraper wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're summarizing the debate between "originalism" and "pragmatism" theories of judicial interpretation. The former looks at what people supposedly intended and confines the meaning of the text to that. It's the weapon of choice of conservative justices (because of course, the Founding Fathers couldn't intend to give marriage equality). The latter looks at what the text does, in today's context. It's the approach pr…

I don't think this is quite the originality vs. pragmatism debate. Determining the legality of an executive order is a bit different than determining the modern interpretation of a law.

In the case of this immigration restriction, the debate isn't how the EO ought to be enforced, but rather whether it is legal (specifically whether it infringes on constitutional rights without having a sufficient national security justification). The intent of the EO is important, since it would be trivial to make a silly EO that technically doesn't infringe when taken literally. As an extreme example, the EO could ban anyone who had entered a Muslim place of worship in the last year. Surely some Muslims haven't done that, and surely some non-Muslims have done that. But it would be very clear that the intention of this EO would be to discriminate against Muslims, and it would be ludicrous to claim otherwise.

Post reply on HN