Interesting to note that this came about due to a lawsuit. Meaning, somebody noticed, brought it to Uber's attention, got brushed and was forced to resort to hiring lawyers.
Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers
231–234 of 234 posts
Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers
#232Uber's management team seems to stumble from one mistake/mess/self-inflicted-injury to another. I can't help but wonder why Uber VCs have kept them in place.
It's not unlike the Enron model. Uber is supported entirely by the collective opinion that they're a SV unicorn and the most ruthlessly profitable thing around. If a vote of no confidence is issued by the Uber management team being fired, the valuation would collapse because it would be an admission that ultimate ruthlessness/evil/whatever you want to call it, does not automatically become ultimate profitability and…
> valuation can only go up or burst
I think you're right. The VCs are now hostage to their own greed.
Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure that information could be...acquired. After that it's just social engineering.
I was in an uber to one of Microsoft's collegiate CTF's, and when my Uber driver realized that means I knew (the very basics of) computer security he begged me to hack Uber and get all the Seattle driver's emails so he could ask them to strike. He also tried to sell me on his cult. And told me to defend my servers all I needed was a fractal firewall that used the number Pi somewhere because if you use a number with (…
Wow. I often wonder how much creativity in our society goes untapped for lack accessible channels to filter and distill it. Thanks for seeing the potential value in his inchoate ideas rather than dismissing them for not being fully thought out.
One a side note, quite a few leaderless cults are well worth joining - not the social kind but the ideational/experiential kind.
Re: Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shortchanging NYC Drivers
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could, and I often do. But the laws you should break in the interests of humanity are ones that permit things like slavery or other mistreatment of people. If you're engaged in commerce, don't conflate your commercial interests with those of humanity at large. It's possible that you're serving both at once, but not probable, and when you are in it for the money your objective assessment of such things is severely…
Commerce is economic production and coordination at scale. It enables humanity to have a far higher standard of living than would otherwise be possible. In my opinion, it is a moral imperative to remove all restrictions on voluntary economic actions and interactions, both for utilitarian reasons, and for the sake of the individual's right to control their own body and actions.
I largely agree, but I no longer consider myself a utilitarian because few situations are so straightforward that cognitive, systemic, and other biases don't come into play, not to mention the practical limits of foresight. I'm also very concerned with informational asymmetries and the economic costs thereof. You're not wrong, but I encourage you to consider that there is more to the picture.