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

Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#81

Post by zoomzippity »

kunaalarya wrote: post #69
mathattack wrote: post #31

The board can't force him out if he doesn't want to go, can it? (Due to his special shares) Can the company thrive with someone else running it? And will it be obvious enough for Travis to see this? (How do you fight all the local taxi commissions without a combative streak?) I wonder if this will eventually cause companies to think twice about this type of governance.

They prob cant fire him but they can say that hes a big punching bag right now and bringing extra negative attention and he needs a break.

Zuckerberg didn't need a break and Facebook turned out fine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165566/Mark-Zuckerb...

All the company needs is some pressure to shore up some long overdue culture debt. This is the fastest growing company in history after all. Not every aspect of the company was going to come out of the over perfectly baked when you grow that quickly. Uber isn't the first successful startup with this issue and it won't be the last.

Replacing the leader would be a terrible mistake. I'm not a religious person, but I do wish more people were familiar with the lesson taught in the parables of the Lost Son, Lost Sheep or Lost Coin. Redemption is always possible. Society as a whole would be much better off if we gave more people a chance to redeem themselves. Not considering people capable of redemption and considering people deserving of punishment without mercy is the reason we (the United States) have the disaster that is the largest incarcerated population in the World.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#82

Post by furioussloth »

moxious wrote: post #67
davidpelayo wrote: post #21

Who cares if the company it's rotting inside if they keep generating traction and interest? What a shame!

That's excessively cynical. They have a lot of problems but keep in mind the reason this article exists is that they're doing an internal investigation and there's a potential for a big shakeup to address some of these problems. There's plenty of time to be cynical later if it turns out this is just kabuki theater. I'm suspending judgment until we see what will actually change.

I agree that even if they try to do the right thing. Nothing pleases these highly moral, gate-keepers of ethics on this forum. I love their service. I feel they have done a lot of good in this society. Saved many drunk-driving accidents. Yes every company has bad seeds. We know about Uber's problems because reporters love reporting it for click-baits. Being a woman who has worked in software industry i can tell you that issue exist in pretty much every company. I am glad to see Uber trying to fix theirs.

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#83

Post by zoomzippity »

watwut wrote: post #28
dismantlethesun wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does all this begin with the premise that law-breaking is by necessity immoral?

No, I don't think that all law-breaking is by necessity immoral. People who broke the law and printed illegal literature in soviet block are heroes. Or people who helped runaway slaves. Eduard Snowden broke the law and I find it perfectly fine. If you don't stop at stop sign on bicycle, I don't find it particularly immoral. However, law-breaking in order to get ahead of business competition is far away from the above…

Even if they are breaking corrupt laws passed by the lobbyists working for the incumbents? Regulatory capture is a thing that harms society and Uber has done more to undo that harm than in this industry than anyone else.

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#84

Post by shostack »

twblalock wrote: post #46
kolbe wrote: post #41

Sorry to be crass, but fuck this. I hate Travis's attitude as much as anyone, but no man who has achieved something as great as Uber deserves to go out like this--at the hands of some board members who rode his coat tail to riches. Reminds me of Apple marginalizing Steve Jobs. Fuck that. I want to see Travis face up to his immoral bullshit as much as anyone, but by Lyft pummeling Uber into the ground, not some coward…

The board didn't ride his coattails -- the board's money is the reason the company still exists. Your argument about "coattails," and your Steve Jobs example, make it seem like you believe that a company exists for the benefit of its founders. That's true if the entire company is the founders in a garage making things, but it all changes once the company takes outside investment -- after that, the company exists for…

Going further, doesn't the board have a legal obligation to do what is best for the company and shareholders?

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#85

Post by zoomzippity »

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #30
thanksgiving wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say no because nobody, not even Sergei and Larry, not even the devil incarnate at the database company, not anyone in silicon valley has done what Travis and his team have done. I was never a fan of ubers because like Dropbox I thought it was too simplistic and too easily replaceable. I've become more wary of the anti uber propaganda lately. I'm more suspicious of the press than ever. When I read some news all I…

For what it's worth anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't have rung true for me nearly as well had a friend not driven for Uber and reported back how little he got payed. I know my story is an anecdote but I can't help but feel that it's not an uncommon experience for drivers to feel taken advantage of or that the anti-Uber propaganda wouldn't be nearly as effective if their most visible public faces didn't feel used by the…

anti-Uber for this reason is just a specific case of Luddism. Just replace "Uber" in "anti-Uber" with whatever company would have instead driven down salaries in this industry and eventually put drivers out of work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Elevator Operators: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b235dc58a1cfb3bef06fdd...

Switchboard operators: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/23/bc/a4/23bc...

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#86

Post by zzalpha »

smnrchrds wrote: post #48
dacox wrote: post #40

This may not be the place for it, but: what's the deal with Uber not rolling out in Western Canada? I know the government hates them, but didn't they launch illegally like...everywhere else?

They operate in Calgary and Edmonton.

Heck, Alberta is providing a model for how to regulate and insure Uber drivers. The only reason the rollout was paused last year was because the insurance issue couldn't be resolved in time. That has since been resolved and Uber is absolutely operating in the province.

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#87

Post by zoomzippity »

CydeWeys wrote: post #63
tawawern wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to see Travis face up to his immoral bullshit as much as anyone, but by Lyft pummeling Uber into the ground Why? What immoral bullshit? Lyft is basically free-riding off Uber. Uber does the heavy lifting taking on the entrenched taxi companies who have insulated themselves from competition via local politics and regulation and Lyft swoops in once the hard work is done, trying to convince customers who have b…

If not Lyft it'd be someone else though. There just aren't that many barriers to entry in this space.

> There just aren't that many barriers to entry in this space after Uber does all the hard work of dismantling those barriers.

FTFY.

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#88

Post by pducks32 »

kolbe wrote: post #47
eropple wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this isn't snark: explain to me what Uber's done that's "great"? They burn VC money in a trash bin in pursuit of a business model that looks totally nonviable unless one achieves a monopolistic position or pays below-minimum-wage rates (as that seems to be what the race to the bottom is for drivers). I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those board members were rich before Uber and will be rich after Uber dis…

You can say it's a great waste if you'd like. But it is huge. Ubiquitous. World-changing. Uber will be in history books, whether or not it pans out as a valuable company: we'll see. But it has already earned its greatness, even if said greatness was just burning billions of dollars to transform our world.

Yea I think this is really really really stretching things.

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#89

Post by chillacy »

heurist wrote: post #73
kolbe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that we can now relaibly summon them to our location? That we can share rides via similar routes? We can cut out the medallion scam, where capital owners can rent seek off of driver's labor? Optimize routes to more efficienly move people and save energy?

... in markets where they can and do operate. Uber might be widely used in large cities but elsewhere it has little impact. Uber exists because American public transportation infrastructure is awful, nonexistent, or otherwise inefficiently designed. If they get to the point of running self-driving car networks then there will be much more to talk about. Until then they've only created a solution for a very small port…

I'm no fan of uber's ethical track record, but I've had the opportunity to use uber in both Indonesia and Poland, which was extremely convenient. In Poland in particular, I took a taxi from the airport before learning that uber could take me back. I learned while I was there that the taxi driver exploited me because I was a tourist who didn't know the local prices and he could charge 5x normal rates.

Re: Uber Board to Discuss CEO Absence, Policy Changes: Source

#90

Post by rdiddly »

dboreham wrote: post #2

Something wrong about this: someone in power being held accoutable for their incompetence and bad behavior. Or did he just loose some rich people too much money?

It's LOSE, not loose. Sorry, this is apparently the one occurrence that sent me over the edge.

Lose rhymes with news. Loose rhymes with Bruce. If you can say "Bruce is in the news," you're halfway there.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bruce+news&kp=-2&ia=news

You can lose a fight, lose money, lose your wallet. You can fight a losing battle, you can be a loser baby. Rikki shouldn't lose that number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zqf35Rm1Fg&t=00m23s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfZWp-hGCdA

You can be born to lose like Ray Price or Ray Charles. Or you can be born to lose like Lemmy. Or like Johnny Thunders you can be born to lose, but then everybody always wonders if it's really "Born Too Loose." Don't pay attention to that shit yet, that's far too advanced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4fMEJUDhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOmizjm0Xw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWB5JZRGl0U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLowvi4bP18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQoDCEKZyQw

Loose is mainly an adjective as in loose booty, loose women, loose screws. You can hold on loosely, you can bust loose; you have the choice of givin it up or turnin it loose, you can be on the loose, or you can be let loose from the noose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIIErMKNnY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwHi10qX8u8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=921kqkHOHDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7XbV82JfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA&t=00m31s

You can't really loose too many things (as a verb), unless you want to sound somewhat archaic... but if you did, it would essentially mean "turn loose" or "make loose." Like "Loose the hounds" or "Loose the shackles," or "Loose the fury of Hell itself upon those who mix up 'loose' and 'lose.'"

Post reply on HN