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

SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#161

Post by catalogia »

Jommi wrote: post #140
Drunk_Engineer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the application, Skip appears to have been screwed over on other categories too. They got a low score on "sustainability" even though they rebuild/repair broken scooters instead of throwing in the trash (like many of the other applicants). And they have actual employees instead of contractors, yet they scored low on the employment metric. The broader issue is why even have an artificial limit for scooters?…

You need to limit scooter players because otherwise it because a game of funding and attrition, multiple companies dumping city full fo scooters in a competition for availability. All other qualities will be overlooked.

Just legalize the scrapping of scooters that have been in one place on public property for more than 24 hours. Let the general public hunt these things down tear them apart and sell them as scrap and spare parts.

The problem would sort itself out real damn quick.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#162

Post by EdwardDiego »

mstade wrote: post #18
argonaut wrote: post #15

Yes, this is just standard bureaucracy and it's Skip's fault, as people are saying. But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. That's why this is so comical. It only feeds fuel to the truth that rules should be bent and there really is no point in "moving slow" for startups. You won't be rewarded for it. Most tech…

> But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. E.g. when I incorporated my company, I had to send in the same application four times, each time paying an additional fee. Reason was I had minor, pointless really, mistakes in the applic…

> This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale

In my country (NZ) you can incorporate a country online in an hour. You will need to scan or fax your consent to be a director/shareholder forms though.

https://companies-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz/help-cent...

Likewise, I can update my income details for family tax credits etc. online with the IRD, our income tax system is very simple (sometimes referred to as pure) so I've never needed to file a tax return.

I apply for hunting permits on government land online, and when I change address, I'm required to notify the Police as a registered firearms holder, which I do online, they then email me asking me to document my secure firearms storage, I email them a brief description and some photos, and then based on that, they decide whether or not to send out a Police Officer to confirm.

I renew my car's registration online when emailed that it's due. On the odd occasion when I've gotten a speeding fine, I pay that online also.

It's really all about complexity of legislation, and administrative desire to minimise red tape. Our government, fortunately, in the more important areas, has made active endeavours to reduce legislative complexity, and red tape.

Funnily enough, I hit a lot more bureaucracy dealing with large companies, than our government.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#163

Post by chipotle_coyote »

Drunk_Engineer wrote: post #133
eddyionescu wrote: post #121

To add more context, Skip wouldn't have been chosen even if its application were formatted perfectly, you can see the scores here: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume... And the completed rubrics of each of the applications here: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume... With other related documents here: https://www.sfmta.com/reports/2019-scooter-application-evalu... Wh…

Looking at the application, Skip appears to have been screwed over on other categories too. They got a low score on "sustainability" even though they rebuild/repair broken scooters instead of throwing in the trash (like many of the other applicants). And they have actual employees instead of contractors, yet they scored low on the employment metric. The broader issue is why even have an artificial limit for scooters?…

Even if Skip made 4.0 in labor, sustainability, and safety -- and the chances are they would not have done that, given that nobody else got higher than 3.5 in the first two of those categories -- they'd have come in just over 70, and still have missed the cut. So the parent poster is absolutely right.

As to the second question, despite being pretty pro-regulation myself, I don't know whether the artificial limit is really worth imposing at this point. A year and a half ago, I would have said maybe it was, based on the way scooters had become a borderline menace in San Jose -- but there don't seem to be nearly as many of them now, I suspect in part because the novelty has worn out and in part because, as someone else noted in this comment section, the prices have substantially jumped compared not just to the $2-for-30-minutes rental bikes (when they're available, granted) but to Uber/Lyft.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#164

Post by jbc1 »

conistonwater wrote: post #160
stordoff wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this. If they can't follow the formatting requirements of the application, then "what else are they overlooking, or likely to overlook once operating?" is a valid concern. They don't seem to indicate that it was an unknown requirement ("If the information does not have the letter A and the number 3 and then the paragraph below it, then it’s not there and you’re disqualified", [the CEO] said). I see so…

Wait, this doesn't sound right. The thing about brown M&Ms was that they'd had too many safety problems, and if numerous small things in the spec were violated that meant there was a safety problem. That's the core problem they were trying to solve. If numerous small things are violated in a form, like the ones mentioned elsewhere in the thread, then that's actually pretty minor.

In this analogy, the violations on the form aren't the equivalent of the safety problem, they're the equivalent of the brown m&ms.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#165

Post by jessaustin »

trophycase wrote: post #7
jessaustin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've lost the ability to evaluate behavior as it is in itself. Before we judge, we have to find out whether it was a "good" or "bad" person who did it. If that doesn't help, we can perhaps find some innuendo to the effect that the actor acted as an "agent" or even "asset" of some known-"bad" "foreign" power. When we fill our brains with garbage, only garbage can come out of them.

In an extremely complex modern society it's nearly impossible to tell the effects that certain actions and policies will have. Popular discourse around politics and economics support this theory, since almost nobody can seem to agree. This leads to one of the best heuristics for evaluating the merits of an action as the intention of the actor or the ethics of the actor.

That strategy seems like a sure way to get taken for a ride. The only way we can infer the intentions or ethics of other people is to observe their actions and the effects of those actions. The marketing usually lies about squishy things like intentions.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#166

Post by artsyca »

There's a story about a bowl of M&M's that made up a famous rock act's rider it was a heuristic to determine the fitness of the venue if they couldn't get a bowl of brown M&M's ready how could they be trusted with the safety of an entire soundstage?

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#167

Post by lenkite »

yebyen wrote: post #40
reaperducer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. It doesn't have to be this way. I incorporated my first company in Chicago, and was stunned with how helpful the bureaucrats were. Yes, it was a little complex, especially in the years before "startups" were a thing, and you could do stuff online. But each department I had to work with had people who would sit me down at their desk an…

Echo this sentiment from another Midwesterner, ex-pat former New York State resident. I moved to Indiana and have not had the experience of incorporating a business entity, but the experience I had at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles has been one to make me question whether bureaucracies are really necessarily horrible all of the time. Starting with the experience of moving to the state, to contrast (Upstate) Wes…

Isn't this simply a population problem ? One state is ~5x more populated than the other.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#168

Post by pelliphant »

mstade wrote: post #18
argonaut wrote: post #15

Yes, this is just standard bureaucracy and it's Skip's fault, as people are saying. But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. That's why this is so comical. It only feeds fuel to the truth that rules should be bent and there really is no point in "moving slow" for startups. You won't be rewarded for it. Most tech…

> But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. E.g. when I incorporated my company, I had to send in the same application four times, each time paying an additional fee. Reason was I had minor, pointless really, mistakes in the applic…

> any bureaucracy, regardless of locale.

So, not only in america then?

The reason why I am asking is because as a EU citizen, my experience is that that bureaucracy in northern europe is very different from bureaucracy in southern europe.

Sure, It's not perfect anywhere, but framing this as a problem that can't be fixed, that it is equally bad everywhere is in my view not just wrong but actually harmful to society.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#169

Post by waterhouse »

lenkite wrote: post #167
yebyen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Echo this sentiment from another Midwesterner, ex-pat former New York State resident. I moved to Indiana and have not had the experience of incorporating a business entity, but the experience I had at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles has been one to make me question whether bureaucracies are really necessarily horrible all of the time. Starting with the experience of moving to the state, to contrast (Upstate) Wes…

Isn't this simply a population problem ? One state is ~5x more populated than the other.

Which means 5x the tax base (more, because NY has ~33% higher per capita income, although that also implies employees are more expensive), which could be used to hire 5x the employees. Surely there isn't some law that says a state's DMV must have exactly N employees regardless of the size of the state?

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#170

Post by waterhouse »

mrighele wrote: post #28
IshKebab wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic victim blaming / blaming the user. The takeaway should be that this bureaucracy is broken, not that applicants shouldn't be able to make trivially fixable mistakes.

Bureaucracy should be treated as a computer program, you have to feed it exactly what it expects. If you give to a JSON parser an object with single quoted strings it is your fault if the parser complains even though it is quite clear what you meant. In the case of software, being clever means that you open yourself to unintended result, vulnerabilities and such, in the case of bureaucracy you open yourself to lawsui…

> Bureaucracy should be treated as a computer program, you have to feed it exactly what it expects.

If what it expects had an exhaustive formal spec and also an automatic validator, that would work better.

Post reply on HN