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

“Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#131

Post by netik »

nhaehnle wrote: post #62
netik wrote: post #41

Yet another reason why working with or talking to RMS is impossible. I think we can apply many of these arguments to Taxi cabs as well. Taxis run "non free" software to process credit cards. Taxi destinations can be subpoenaed by local LEO and the government, along with credit card receipts, just like Uber. Taxis are a regulated market, but the medallion market is largel unregulated and a near-monopoly. Taxi drivers…

RMS has an extreme stance, but it's actually quite refreshing that he just puts it out there in an easily digestable form. Taxis run "non free" software to process credit cards. And I think RMS cares less about that. No doubt he will be unhappy about the taxi driver's/company's choice to run non-free software; however, regular taxi companies are willing to do business with free software users - Uber refuses to do so.…

I worked for Stallman in the 90's. Given the choice, he will walk miles versus using a credit card.

> Taxis can be paid in cash, unlike Uber.

Ah, so soon you forget that Taxis must legally record pick up and drop off points for the police department and their drivers can be questioned by LEO.

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#132

Post by gnaritas »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #81
gnaritas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm personally unconvinced that it will create mass unemployment, but I don't call it crazy. Why? It's quite inevitable that it will, unlike all previous eras, there won't be new jobs for humans because it's human thinking that's going to be automated. Robots destroy jobs, that's a fact; sometimes, that creates new jobs, but it's usually always far less jobs for far more skilled humans and that pattern is and must…

Why are the 'masses' not capable of knowledge jobs?

Have you met the masses? Half the population has an IQ below 100, those are not and won't ever be knowledge workers; those are the people that machines will easily replace. They currently live off of either manual labor or service jobs, both of which are being decimated by machines and that trend will only continue.

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#134

Post by tharga8616 »

baddox wrote: post #71
glesica wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: basic income, or whatever it is that will make sense when there aren't enough jobs to go around, won't be preemptive. Seems like this is really his point, if it isn't going to be preemptive, then (he feels) we should stop the jobs from going away.

And that's the problem. If basic income won't happen until technological advancement causes mass unemployment, and governments ban technological advancement that might lead to mass unemployment, then we will get neither technological advancement nor basic income.

Absolutely right

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#135

Post by glesica »

baddox wrote: post #71
glesica wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: basic income, or whatever it is that will make sense when there aren't enough jobs to go around, won't be preemptive. Seems like this is really his point, if it isn't going to be preemptive, then (he feels) we should stop the jobs from going away.

And that's the problem. If basic income won't happen until technological advancement causes mass unemployment, and governments ban technological advancement that might lead to mass unemployment, then we will get neither technological advancement nor basic income.

Why can't basic income happen first? Or why can't basic income be phased in smoothly? I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that basic income is unlikely to happen until there has been an incredible amount of pain and suffering, but does it have to be that way? Not necessarily. If we, as a society, set compensating policies as a condition for technological progress, then the progress might come more slowly, but it will still come. Of course I'm probably being a crazy person thinking that our government might act rationally. :(

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#136

Post by kazagistar »

deeviant wrote: post #104
cjbprime wrote: post #3

> Uber plans to do away with human cab drivers. > It would be easy for a non-plutocratic government to prohibit this, and that's what every country ought to do, unless/until every person gets an adequate basic income so people don't need to be employed. Okay, so I am extremely liberal and everything, but "let's ban any new technologies that might make somebody lose their job to a robot" is seriously the most ridiculo…

I agree. Also, if Uber doesn't introduce robotic cars, some other company surely will. Uber seems to be the cool company to hate, but when I talk to Uber drivers that unanimously seemed to think it was a good gig. The talked about the money(how it was much better than what they were doing), they talked about the hours(whenever they would like to work), and they talked about the pleasure of working for themselves. Whe…

The kids working at sweatshops probably think it is a good gig too; it pays more then digging through piles of trash.

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#137

Post by ThomPete »

baddox wrote: post #71
glesica wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: basic income, or whatever it is that will make sense when there aren't enough jobs to go around, won't be preemptive. Seems like this is really his point, if it isn't going to be preemptive, then (he feels) we should stop the jobs from going away.

And that's the problem. If basic income won't happen until technological advancement causes mass unemployment, and governments ban technological advancement that might lead to mass unemployment, then we will get neither technological advancement nor basic income.

It's not just about job loss it's as much about salaries stagnating and thus making people poor. Especially here in the US it's a problem since it in return affect things like ones ability to pay for healthcare.

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#138

Post by xsmasher »

larrys wrote: post #43
agildehaus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nearly in the job description of every software engineer to create things that ease people's workloads or replace their jobs entirely. I bet Stallman's projects, and the free software movement itself, are responsible for the non-existence of numerous jobs. Also: basic income, or whatever it is that will make sense when there aren't enough jobs to go around, won't be preemptive.

" I bet Stallman's projects, and the free software movement itself, are responsible for the non-existence of numerous jobs." No question about that. As someone who back in the day paid thousands for business software that is now almost always free, money went from our company to a company that had employees, sales people, programmers who made a living off the software that was being offered. Not to mention obviously…

That sounds remarkably like the broken window fallacy.

What does your company do with that extra money now? Throw it in a barrel and burn it?

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#139

Post by agildehaus »

pdpi wrote: post #39
agildehaus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nearly in the job description of every software engineer to create things that ease people's workloads or replace their jobs entirely. I bet Stallman's projects, and the free software movement itself, are responsible for the non-existence of numerous jobs. Also: basic income, or whatever it is that will make sense when there aren't enough jobs to go around, won't be preemptive.

"I bet Stallman's projects, and the free software movement itself, are responsible for the non-existence of numerous jobs." Indirectly, perhaps. Application-level software projects do tend to have the "automate people's jobs away" effect, but AFAIK, Stallman has been mostly involved in infrastructure-ish "enable some people to work (on automating away other people's jobs)" projects.

Exactly. He's responsible for many of the tools which make it much easier for everyone else to automate jobs away.

Re: “Why you should not use Uber (the car ride brokering company)”

#140

Post by dllthomas »

xsmasher wrote: post #138
larrys wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" I bet Stallman's projects, and the free software movement itself, are responsible for the non-existence of numerous jobs." No question about that. As someone who back in the day paid thousands for business software that is now almost always free, money went from our company to a company that had employees, sales people, programmers who made a living off the software that was being offered. Not to mention obviously…

That sounds remarkably like the broken window fallacy. What does your company do with that extra money now? Throw it in a barrel and burn it?

What are Uber and passengers going to do with the extra money? In both cases, we see the loss of specific jobs and (at least) short term pain for the people who were relying on them.
Post reply on HN