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

The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

danielcompton.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 542 posts

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#521

Post by mdpopescu »

jethro_tell wrote: post #420
clubm8 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing no one seems to talk about: a large chunk of the Uber drivers I've encountered are also Lyft drivers. If large chunks of people ditch Uber, Lyft could stand to grab the lion's share of the market.

This is really crazy to me. I feel like they missed an opportunity to build a moat by treating drivers as employees. Complete with health and non compete.

On the other hand, I believe that non-exclusivity is partially responsible for their fast growth. (As a number of drivers, I mean.)

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#522

Post by jimmywanger »

im3w1l wrote: post #470
jimmywanger wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that slots can be stateful between plays - there are extremely stringent regulations for slot machines and odds. For instance, if you advertise a 99.95% slot giveback, they will test that. Also, for video poker and card games, the wins and losses are distributed as if it were a real deck of cards shuffled between hands. There are strict regulations there too, and payout percentages based on the rules of…

Well I know that at least progressive jackpots are allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_jackpot There of course, the state is not hidden.

Yes. I should have amended the statement in that slot machines, the odds of each outcome are stateless, and the payouts for each outcome must be clearly stated.

For progressive Jackpots, the chances of you hitting the Jackpot on two successive pulls are the same as you hitting the jackpot on two pulls far apart. The payouts are different, but as you said, that is not hidden information.

Slot machines are able to use psychological tricks, I believe, such as showing "almost hits" with a higher probability than them actually occurring. "Oh, if that one symbol had just changed, I'd be a millionaire right now!"

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#523

Post by NathanKP »

ambicapter wrote: post #316
NathanKP wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I can understand that. Honestly, the non profit / coop thing is just a big part of Austin culture. Not only are food coops a pretty big deal in Austin, but when I lived in Austin even the electricity company that I got my power from was a coop ( https://www.pec.coop/ ) and if the coop made too much money it redistributed the profits back out as credits to member accounts. I generally ended up with one out of twe…

> if the coop made too much money it redistributed the profits back out as credits to member accounts. This is great and all, but wouldn't that money be more effectively utilized maintaining or upgrading the grid or investing in renewable energy? Seems like the co-op model never really invests in progress.

I don't think coops are necessarily anti maintenance or investment. Obviously they have to maintain their core business just like any other business. The difference is a for profit company distributes extra profit that they have on top of their basic needs out as dividends to big investors and as salary for a CEO. On the other hand a coop distributes that same money out to all the customers.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#524

Post by erikpukinskis »

rtkwe wrote: post #207
erikpukinskis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivers will get removed from the "bring me from X to Y and leave me alone" equation, but drivers who can do slightly more complex things while driving around (pick up flowers here, then get my son from Judo practice, and practice his French with him in the car) will be a huge market, bigger than the current rideshare market, and a better moneymaker for drivers. Uber just needs to think of themselves as a mobile…

> pick up flowers here, then get my son from Judo practice, and practice his French with him in the car This would basically turn them into a private driver service and finding qualified staff would be a pain for anyone wanting a french tutor for the drive. Ignoring that as an off the wall example though they'll still hit a pretty hard wall with trust. Even if the fear is unfounded trying to get a huge number of peop…

> finding qualified staff would be a pain for anyone wanting a french tutor for the drive

Why? Just filter on the "Speaks French" tag.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#525

Post by Balgair »

LordHumungous wrote: post #518
uptownfunk wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what, I may get downvoted for this, but my take is you just can't stop these guys. They'll do whatever it takes to win. I probably spend around $2,000 USD on uber trips per month. And frankly, as much disturbing stuff I hear about these guys, Uber beats the heck out of renting a car in a snowy area (especially after having taken a red-eye to a client site). It also beats the crap out of taking a cab in most…

"They could double the price, and as long as my company reimbursed it , I'd still take it" Mmmkay

Right?

"As long as I don't have to pay, I don't care what the cost is! Wait, why is everyone looking at me all funny?"

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#526

Post by sctb »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #473
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird being the guy who has lobbied for discretion and waiting for the other side in these cases on Hacker News before, and then being told I don't understand the words I am typing. The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop. I'm sorry, and I know it offends you, but I'm acknowledging that fact. He is pretty much red-handed, and the evidence basically amounts to "we found the defendant standing over…

Your understanding of English must be very poor, because you said above that "I didn't say he was guilty." and now you're saying "The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop." So yes, you are absolutely saying he's guilty after hearing one side of the story. Which only very stupid people do. So, at least acknowledge that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you think he's guilty, that's well wit…

This kind of personal attack is not acceptable on HN and we ban accounts that continue to behave like this.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#527

Post by sctb »

chaser7016 wrote: post #322

Burn Uber and leave only ashes in KalaDick's hands to teach him humility! Lyft and others will rightfully take its place. No one more deserves and needs this type of lesson then that sociopath!

Please stop rage-posting against Uber. We're here for civil and substantive discussion, including on controversial topics.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#528

Post by chaser7016 »

chaser7016 wrote: post #324
chaser7016 wrote: post #322

Burn Uber and leave only ashes in KalaDick's hands to teach him humility! Lyft and others will rightfully take its place. No one more deserves and needs this type of lesson then that sociopath!

So he doesn't deserve this or You don't like the nickname he inspires?

Oh you guys want to stay on his and his current friend's good side.

I could care less Silicon Valley already chewed me up and spit me out because I'm a nice guy with ethics and morality who invents cool shit, yet not a bro.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#529

Post by prostoalex »

dx034 wrote: post #490
BurningFrog wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, that number must be Uber's total loss distributed per ride, rather than the profitability of each ride? I can't imagine that Uber loses money on each additional trip. If that was true, the boycotts are helping Uber!

That's probably not how it works. Most of the rides itself will make some profit for Uber. However, Uber has huge fixed costs via free rides, ads, salaries, etc. These will create the loss. So if you have a coupon and use it, it's quite likely that Uber makes a loss. But for most other rides, the driver will usually get a bit less than what you pay. It's just not enough to cover the company costs.

> However, Uber has huge fixed costs via free rides, ads, salaries, etc. These will create the loss.

Would those be essential at this point? Seems like everyone who wants a ride-sharing app has one, so their marketing expense should be substantially down by now.

Startups typically keep the salary expenses controllable by compensating via equity (which does not have to be reported as expense unless one is doing GAAP), so it seems that it should be under control as well.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#530

Post by PhantomGremlin »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #513
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee? Well, yes, sympathy from me as in "sucks to be them". But they were adults and made a voluntary decision to forego paying for fire protection. They made a bet and they lost. As for cancer, when I was in high school some 40 years ago, I knew a US Army Major (i.e. Gung-ho military) who smoked. Even then, smoking was starting to be frowned upon.…

Can you, for certain, tell if someone who is diagnosed with cancer 100% directly caused that cancer? At the point that someone is diagnosed with cancer, what is gained by saying "I told you so"? Would you go as far as to say that to someone who got stomach cancer? That they should accept the consequences of eating cured meats while they and their family suffer? What about prostate cancer? Did you know that the risk o…

what is gained by saying "I told you so"?

There's a big difference between having "no sympathy" (which is what I said) and "I told you so".

"No sympathy" means indifference. The problems of people who didn't pay for fire service should be a cautionary tale, a warning to society at large. As the article said: by now, everyone should know about the city's fire policy. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time"

"I told you so" is much different. It's "rubbing it in" at a personal level. I would never say "I told you so" to friends or to random people. I would, however, say it to my children in the appropriate situation. Pointing out consequences of bad choices helps children learn to make better choices.

I'm having a hard time differentiating

In "didn't pay $75", the people who don't pay but still expect to be covered are making a deliberate choice to freeload off the goodwill of their neighbors who are paying. How does a fire department exist if paying for it is optional? There is no 'fire department tooth fairy' that periodically delivers money to pay for salaries and equipment.

Cancer is much different. As you note, there isn't 100% certainly what causes a cancer. Lung cancer is one that can be closely linked to smoking, but even there it's not absolute. A quick search turns up a CDC web page that links 80% to 90% of the cases to smoking.[1]

In the case of cancer, interestingly enough it's once again an issue of insurance. Even when I was 20 years old and working a shitty no-benefit low paying job I still paid for my own health insurance. I was only being paid $4 per hour but I prioritized insurance highly enough to pay $100 per month for it. (Granted, that was 40 years ago, it's much harder to afford individual insurance today without some sort of subsidy or group policy).

In your hypothetical situations, did the stomach cancer or prostate cancer patient have insurance? If not, how is it once again not a freeloader problem? There's certainly no reason to say "I told you so". That appears to be a strawman you invented to avoid discussing the real issue which IMO is freeloading.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

Post reply on HN