41–50 of 93 posts
It's weird to spend so many words arguing against a word used as branding. There was never a sharing economy, because it is people paying money for things. What was created was a piecework economy, which was obviously going to be successful if it could figure out a way to skirt the laws that made piecework jobs illegal. Investors could see that, and added so much cash in anticipation of a monopoly (and with the under…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or: "This is just an unmarked taxi." "Except hailing/billing isn't stuck in the past so you don't have to get lucky to find an empty one on the street or call a surly dispatcher and wait 45 minutes. You also get the bill up front so you know how much it will cost before you even say yes. You can always pay by credit card too, you'll never arrive at the destination and then only be informed that the credit card reader…
It's definitely better, no arguments here. My point is that Silicon Valley has branded everything it does as 'tech' when in reality, it's just a better taxi company, a better hotel company, etc. unencumbered by the old ways. Like, the reality would have been good enough, 'We're a taxi (or insert whatever industry you want) company doing things way better than before." Instead, it's 'We're using algorithms and this sh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones. > Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. There…
Have to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...
anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats and their opinions of foreign military adventures. It's an unnecessary war when a Republican is in office, but it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office.
No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely better, no arguments here. My point is that Silicon Valley has branded everything it does as 'tech' when in reality, it's just a better taxi company, a better hotel company, etc. unencumbered by the old ways. Like, the reality would have been good enough, 'We're a taxi (or insert whatever industry you want) company doing things way better than before." Instead, it's 'We're using algorithms and this sh…
There is something about traditional engineering culture that sees marketing as big lie, but one of the reasons these companies have been so successful at transitioning public opinion is because they treat the whole business as iterative. Instead of thinking "boring finance dept" and "slimey marketing guys", they think "financial and social engineering".
That sounds even worse to me. "Turning lying and scamming people into an engineering discipline".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason these were illegal was cronyism. And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.
Eh, the only people who like unregulated mini-hotels (airbnb) in residential areas are the ones making money.
(And, to be clear, "the ones making money" includes local businesses benefiting from increased tourism, and their employees.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and b…
[flagged]
"Other than the POTUS" seems to brazenly ignore the significance. For example, it would be absurd to ask, 'When Trump took office, what changed from Obama other than the POTUS'?
When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the start and promised to withdraw, which he did (though the withdrawal was also required by the agreement Bush made with Iraq). Obama also wanted out of Afghanistan and, after a policy review, set a timeline for it (a criticized decision that was later changed).
> both sides are wrong
This is true "political correctness" (a term that I think is almost always misused). The odds of both sides begin equivalent seem slim; it's not at all unlikely that of two parties, one would be significantly worse than the other. It's sort of like looking at two software programs and saying 'both have bugs'; sure, but that's meaningless - it's not at all surprising when one is much superior to the other.
But people like to be even-handed, out of some misguided (IMHO) view of fairness or not wanting to offend. But the stakes are too high; you wouldn't say that if you were choosing between airplane autopilot programs. In this case, if you make the worse choice then it can result in catastrophic climate change, nuclear proliferation, war, mass oppression, the undermining of democracy and liberty, and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats and their opinions of foreign military adventures. It's an unnecessary war when a Republican is in office, but it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office.
No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and b…
Every democrat except one voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. To be fair, just because 99.5% of them voted in favor of something doesn't mean they championed it, although Obama did use the AUMF to justify the US's continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. As well as expanding military activities in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Turkey, Libya, Djibouti, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, the only people who like unregulated mini-hotels (airbnb) in residential areas are the ones making money.
And, to be fair, the ones paying money to stay in those mini-hotels. (And, to be clear, "the ones making money" includes local businesses benefiting from increased tourism, and their employees.)
But restaurants dislike tourists because most tourists tip less than Americans, so a high concentration of these "mini-hotels" is detrimental to restaurants and their staff.
I don't understand how people can be tricked by the branding of the 'sharing economy.' The average seven year old is capable of understanding the difference between actual sharing (A friend giving you a lift), and 'sharing' (An unmarked taxi.) They could also probably grasp the difference between CouchSurfing[1], and AirBnB. [1] Couchsurfing was the actual sharing economy, but as it turns out, you can't make billions…
The set rates are the real breaker of sharingin my opinion - a tip and rating system would be truer sharing but would certainly exist on a smaller scale. It would be an interesting sociological experiment but it would probably end in disaster.