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

My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 493 posts

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#441

Post by barrkel »

scarejunba wrote: post #300
barrkel wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be more social opprobrium to save the pet, and the grief would undoubtedly be greater if the pet died instead. If nobody was looking, I think most would save their pet. Unknown unrelated people simply aren't very important. Wars would be impossible if it were otherwise.

Interesting. Do you ever test your hypotheses? Here is some evidence regarding your "most" claim. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog...

So 40% admit that they would save their own dog over a foreign tourist, when asked.

Now, ask yourself how many would save their own dog if they weren't being asked or observed (and implicitly judged)?

I consider the link fairly strong evidence for my claim.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#442

Post by idontpost »

syshum wrote: post #275
russdill wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is not on the pet owner's side here as far as vet bills. Pets are treated as property, so the max amount due is the cost of replacing the dog.

Citation... My understand of civil liability would be whom ever caused the harm is responsible for the actual damages done, not simply some raw actuarial table, so if I have vet bills, actual hard costs, then whom ever caused those costs would be responsible for them. I have a hard time believing any jurisdiction would simply toss those costs as unreasonable because the dog is only worth X by some subjective analysis…

Your mistake is in assuming vet bills constitute actual damages. In US law, dogs are simple property. If you wreck your car and it costs more to fix the car and replace it, the insurance doesn't pay to fix it -- they pay to replace it. Liability is whichever value is LESS.

Dogs work the same way under the law. If someone injures your dog, they are liable to either pay 1) to fix the dog or 2) replace the dog, whichever is less.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#443

Post by will_brown »

mpeg wrote: post #395
will_brown wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>From my experience, people signing up for these type of work range from generally ok (most Uber drivers) to absolutely desperate for money Come on down to Miami, where it’s not unusual for the actual uber driver to be different than uber drivers profile. You can’t really get more shady than exploiting undocumented immigrants who can’t get a DL, and having them illegally without a DL by driving under someone else’s u…

That's no different than traditional taxi services. Getting a taxi license is time-consuming and expensive in most places (as sometimes you have to buy from an existing license-holder) Taxi drivers will therefore try to maximise their investment, so they have people driving their car 24/7, on shifts.

That is significantly different than having People without drivers licenses driving (a criminal offense in most jurisdictions) the taxis and fraudulently misreprenting the drivers to the public (again typically a criminal offense).

There would be nothing wrong with having two uber drivers with two legitimate uber accounts splitting the car...not allowing an unlicensed person driver for uber under someone else’s account.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#444

Post by michaelmrose »

beaconstudios wrote: post #406
lowercased wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vetting is 'crowd-sourced' with customer reviews, no? If 'Bill' thinks 'Leslie' is a great walker... what more should wag or rover need to do? Vet Bill now too!? That's just crazy talk...

only if the company ensures that "Leslie" is one profile that is attached to one person. Reputation only works if it follows you, if you can create a new account or masquerade as another person (like in this case) then it doesn't work at all. there should also be a certain barrier to entry so that e.g. people more likely to do something criminal or negligent instead won't get on the platform in the first place.

I think you are correct. Make people provide photo ID to work and provide a bond. Have someone else show up as you lose the bond.

It's entirely possible that such an id and rep feature could be easily be implemented in a universal fashion outside of their interaction with a particular service.

Don't want your dog walking service or potential clients to discover that while driving with uber you were a complete asshole no problem don't be an asshole.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#445

Post by michaelmrose »

dustincnj79 wrote: post #412
bestnameever wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that placing a camera on a dog in this situation would be pretty illegal in a lot of states, especially if their dog is being card for in another person's home.

Yes most likely it would be illegal in a private residence however in many situations if the individual was advertising doggy day care then the individuals who's pets attend would have the right to record without the consent of the individual unless there was some specific statement in the terms and conditions stating that would be an inappropriate action on their premises which then should lead an individual to reco…

Sneaking a camera into someones home on your dog would almost certainly be illegal most places. Let the person know that their dog is filming you at all times and you will have no trouble nobody will watch your dog on the condition of your dog filming them.

I'm sure there is a cost at which people would accept that but you probably can't afford it.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#446

Post by syshum »

idontpost wrote: post #442
syshum wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation... My understand of civil liability would be whom ever caused the harm is responsible for the actual damages done, not simply some raw actuarial table, so if I have vet bills, actual hard costs, then whom ever caused those costs would be responsible for them. I have a hard time believing any jurisdiction would simply toss those costs as unreasonable because the dog is only worth X by some subjective analysis…

Your mistake is in assuming vet bills constitute actual damages. In US law, dogs are simple property. If you wreck your car and it costs more to fix the car and replace it, the insurance doesn't pay to fix it -- they pay to replace it. Liability is whichever value is LESS. Dogs work the same way under the law. If someone injures your dog, they are liable to either pay 1) to fix the dog or 2) replace the dog, whicheve…

The key here is INSURANCE which is a contract I have with them that limits the amount they pay out.

However in the case of an auto, if I had a rare car for example, and someone caused damage to it, I could, in fact, sue the person that cause the damage and prove the actual damage even if it was above the replacement cause. Their insurance may not cover the difference but that would not absolve that person of the liability

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#447

Post by eropple »

cjdavis wrote: post #381
eropple wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Both our dogs are shelter dogs and we love 'em, but in the newest dog's case--he's probably around three, we've had him for about six months--there are enough issues that a lot of people wouldn't want to deal with some people just couldn't, while still being very good caretakers of better-adjusted dogs. In ours's case: he's not a barker and he's incredibly gentle, but he's both dumb as a post (not the shelter-do…

> His pathfinding is just not good. He’s optimized for minimum anxiety, not time or distance. Your dog’s pathfinding is _excellent_.

Maybe minimum for him. I'm just waiting for him to try to stand up under a chair and send the whole thing flying.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#448

Post by enjo »

james_s_tayler wrote: post #31
toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is I can’t tell which ones care, and those are the only ones I’d want to do business with.

I can respect that. You want to maximize the likelihood the dog survives. I call this "The Hard Problem of Delineation". You can't delineate between who will and won't kill your dog no matter what system you use. That's the problem. Though I take your point about the cold, uncaring, capitalist dog walker. Hmmm. Edit: now that I think about your point I can see what you mean. The "sharing economy (Uber for X)" has bec…

RE: Your edit

I think that's close as well. One of the interesting things I've noticed is that people who are participating in the gig economy seem to be participating in almost ALL of the gig economy at once.

I've met many people who do all of the following almost every day:

- Drive for Uber/Lyft - Deliver packages for Amazon - Walk dogs for Wag/Rover - Rent a place on AirBnb - Do some stuff on Task Rabbit - Deliver food for GrubHub/DoorDash/etc...

I can't imagine these folks are any particular loyalty to any of it, nor are they developing skills in any of these in a meaningful way.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#449

Post by craftyguy »

gaius wrote: post #270
matte_black wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has been getting a lot of coordinated down votes lately.

You will notice it always coincides with when the techbros on the West Coast wake up.

Or, folks are just tired of all of these "me too" unverifiable anecdotes that honestly add no value to the discussion and just try to appeal to emotion. It seems that the majority of HN comments fit into this category.

Re: My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

#450

Post by beaconstudios »

phonon wrote: post #423
beaconstudios wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah rent-seeking isn't quite the right term, but I'm not sure what is. The companies basically exist as low-touch facilitators that rely on high volumes and low marginal cost. Does that make it clearer? The reason I called them rent-seeking is that (if you remove the vetting aspect, which I believe they have) they don't actually do anything, they just charge a "tax" on top of a service rendered by someone else. If t…

"middlemen"

yeah, I'd go with that. It wasn't coming to me at the time.
Post reply on HN