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

521–527 of 527 posts

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

#521

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

Incorrect. Now, in most cases, hitting someone while driving will be at least criminally negligent and thus be some crime, but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for any applicable crime.

> Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional).

"Negligence" is itself a mental state. That an act is illegal (though of different magnitude) when it is done through negligence as well as intentionally does not demonstrate that mental state is relevant only to degree of punishment, not legality. (There are strict liability offenses for which mental state is not relevant to legality, only possibly severity, but strict liability is exceptional in the law, particularly criminal law.)

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

#522

Post by devy »

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.

Not true. I've been to Tokyo and stayed in an airline operated hotel 10 miles from NRT. The cloest rail station is like 4 miles away and you can't get to downtown Tokyo without hailing for a Uber/Lyft or taxi to transfer to the rail station. (Hotel shuttle doesn't runs to rail station unfortunately. And forget about taxi-ing directly to downtown Tokyo due to the traffic congestion and exorbitant taxi fare.)

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

#523

Post by Gibbon1 »

kingnothing wrote: post #486
Gibbon1 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw one economist trying to figure out what the appropriate fare for BART should be. Ans: Free. One place I worked in the early 2000's gave us checks were could redeem for transit. https://commuterbenefits.511.org/docs/faq.pdf One thought might be to have a subsidized ride share system where employers/transit authority pays people to ride share. Impression that based on transit authorities reaction to causal car po…

You can already pay for Uber rides with commuter benefit cards. https://newsroom.uber.com/poolcommutes/

My thought might be interesting if car poolers could tap into the commuter benefit cards. AKA pick up someone on the way to work and they can transfer 25-50 cents a mile into your account.

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

#524

Post by jrjf940 »

accountface wrote: post #431
mtw wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes it's too low but if it were higher pretty much no one would use it. that's why it's unsustainable.

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

#525

Post by kurthr »

devy wrote: post #522
patrickyan wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true. I've been to Tokyo and stayed in an airline operated hotel 10 miles from NRT. The cloest rail station is like 4 miles away and you can't get to downtown Tokyo without hailing for a Uber/Lyft or taxi to transfer to the rail station. (Hotel shuttle doesn't runs to rail station unfortunately. And forget about taxi-ing directly to downtown Tokyo due to the traffic congestion and exorbitant taxi fare.)

Narita isn't anywhere near Tokyo (it's an hour away by express train). It's like complaining about the NY subway in Newark.

The Airport is the Train Station so you catch the airport shuttle to there!

Also, Uber is a just a taxi hailing app in Tokyo... so what are you trying to say? They are $4/min, which is an outrageous $300 to Tokyo...

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

#526

Post by seanmcdirmid »

manigandham wrote: post #502
mtw wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> private vehicle for everyday transport is a luxury This is called a car and the vast majority have one. Ride-sharing is actually less luxurious than your own car. It's still shared transit, designed to lower costs and increase affordability by pooling resources and increasing total utilization. It is not meant for only the wealthy.

> This is called a car and the vast majority have one.

Not if the vast majority don't live in the USA.

I got by with taxis for the last 9 years before moving back to the states.

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

#527

Post by ekiru »

dragonwriter wrote: post #521
paulddraper wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Incorrect. Now, in most cases, hitting someone while driving will be at least criminally negligent and thus be some crime, but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for…

> but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for any applicable crime.

Out of curiosity, under what conditions would this be the case?

Post reply on HN