41–50 of 132 posts
Peter Thiel is correct. But, it should be noted, that as an investor in Lyft, Thiel has a big interest in scolding Uber publicly.
Yeah the second he said that he was invested in Uber's biggest competitor, I couldn't take him seriously. Uber has gone over the line sometimes, but he's obviously going to make it sound worse than it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny you bring up Palantir. I learned a bit about it today and still don't quite see what it adds to things.
OP is hinting at the fact that Palantir supposedly does some fairly unscrupulous work for governments. Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known', but it's been widely hinted and spread around the valley. Take it with a grain of salt though, some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now, so if they're doing anything dirty they're hiding it from the engineers pretty well.
There are historic facts for that. Just google "palantir hbgary" and enjoy.
>some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now
ethical people have been through history participating in evil things, especially in engineering roles. It is peculiar ability of human brain to not notice the dirty smell when it would be very inconvenient (to say the least) to notice it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously?
Seriously. He definitely didn't say anything about it in the actual linked video or story, so I'm assuming you're referring to some other event that isn't covered here, and thus asking you what that actually is. Or on the off chance I just missed the flashing example of misogyny at the end of the linked article, curious for a clarification on what exactly that is.
Also apologies.. It was definitely unfair of me to throw a "Seriously?" on this without context, but my commentary on this issue wasn't limited to what I read in this article. I've been following the story today. This guardian editorial covers and links to plenty of other impressions that line up well with my thinking: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/uber-wo...
I'm just short-tempered on being asked for evidence of sexism lately because it's fucking sad how readily available it tends to be.
Is there any hope that Uber could see some serious erosion in its business from all these gaffes? Could Lyft succeed by merely being the anti-Uber? On one hand, it does seem like Uber's ultra-agression has been an important contributor to its success. But could it have pulled all this off without the dirtbag gene? I'll finally be giving Lyft a try but wish they had black cars & SUVs.
Here's the problem for uber: (1) In many places they are breaking the law and/or want the law changed so they can expand without breaking it. (2) This means they need the moral high ground. They need to have people believe they are acting in good faith when operating outside or in the grey areas of existing legislation and policy. (3) Winning at all costs mentality means operating in ethical grey areas. (4) You can e…
The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny you bring up Palantir. I learned a bit about it today and still don't quite see what it adds to things.
OP is hinting at the fact that Palantir supposedly does some fairly unscrupulous work for governments. Whether this is true or not isn't exactly 'known', but it's been widely hinted and spread around the valley. Take it with a grain of salt though, some of my former TA's and people that I'd classify as highly ethical work there now, so if they're doing anything dirty they're hiding it from the engineers pretty well.
I think Thiel is an investor in an Uber competitor. If so, I'm sure this would bias his opinion. If he were an Uber investor, I doubt he would be saying this. Which implies a weird sort of ethical dilemma - where money invested makes the person not say things about ethics. Just as I'm sure Microsoft investors in the 1990's didn't call out Microsoft for its monopolistic tendencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. He definitely didn't say anything about it in the actual linked video or story, so I'm assuming you're referring to some other event that isn't covered here, and thus asking you what that actually is. Or on the off chance I just missed the flashing example of misogyny at the end of the linked article, curious for a clarification on what exactly that is.
First, there was a "flashing example" in the middle of the article: "The company has been criticized for the treatment of its drivers, its combative tactics against competitors, and a sexist promo that offered free twenty-minute rides with attractive women." Also apologies.. It was definitely unfair of me to throw a "Seriously?" on this without context, but my commentary on this issue wasn't limited to what I read in…
Customer-service complaints flooded the phone lines and in-boxes and were often dealt with by simply not answering the phone or doing a mass deletion.
What sort of leader treats customers like that, or looks the other way when minions do it?
There was also the ugly Facebook ownership shuffle when Thiel got involved as an early investor and a lawsuit over Thiel and his hedge fund management company (http://www.law360.com/articles/9340/paypal-cofounder-accused...).
For Thiel to lecture Silicon Valley about ethics is a bit rich.
OK, so it's obviously a little transparent of Thiel to say that Uber [a competitor to Lyft, a company in which he has invested] is "on the cusp" of going too far, but Airbnb [another company in which he has invested] has "a different feel" and is OK. But it's also a little ironic that the champion of "Competition is for losers", who says that monopolies can be a good thing for society [0], is against Uber trying thei…
So, I think you're putting words in his mouth suggesting these comments are anti-monopoly in this sense. I don't think in the abstract he's saying he's against a company like Uber striving for market domination.. he's just saying they crossed a line in that pursuit. As for AirBnB I think the Uber vs AirBnB comparison is a really fair one. AirBnB is a very similar example of a company doing serious disruption and faci…
It's interesting to me (and yes, it seems slightly ironic) that he has now, when discussing a competitor to one of his portfolio companies, discovered a second dimension of what's most important in his worldview. "Two! Two most important things for a startup! Monopoly and ethics!"
(Surely you would agree that he's never previously said "Monopoly is a virtue, BUT ...")