101–110 of 146 posts
I'm personally very excited to get access and love that it's free, but cannot understand it from a business perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a pretty gross rephrasing of wpietri's point.
I understand that my comparison is inspiring negative emotions. But that doesn't make it wrong. Do you have an intellectual (rather than emotional) argument why my rephrasing is somehow invalid?
I do have an intellectual argument, but you're pretty clearly trolling, so there's no real point in presenting it. You're not stupid and you know what you're doing, so why prolong the pretense?
Very interesting. I worry about a selection bias, though. Uber riders are wealthier than average, so the trips won't necessarily reflect all the commutes of those in the city. I hope this doesn't lead to just an improvement in bus routes, road construction, traffic, etc. between nicer sections of the city.
You would think that with the amount of cash they burn through on a daily basis, they'd use data to make some money with it. I guess you could get a decent amount of money by cities by licensing it. I'm personally very excited to get access and love that it's free, but cannot understand it from a business perspective.
This seems like a good move from the PR perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first step in helping human welfare is determining what things are actually good for human welfare. If you can't construct a valid argument for X, that's a hint that X might not be good for human welfare.
If everyone tells you that you are wrong but doesn't care to explain in detail why, it's a hint that you might be wrong. You are not owed a valid argument just because you demand one.
I miss the old days, when we discussed ideas even if they sounded stratnge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first step in helping human welfare is determining what things are actually good for human welfare. If you can't construct a valid argument for X, that's a hint that X might not be good for human welfare.
If everyone tells you that you are wrong but doesn't care to explain in detail why, it's a hint that you might be wrong. You are not owed a valid argument just because you demand one.
Racism has been around for a long time and has been institutionalized and perpetuated by our own state (US, for example). One can hardly say it is "obvious" how people should feel towards racism and how it relates to other topics. There is thinking to be done and there are arguments to be made.
It's really disappointing to see someone smart say something so dismissive and dangerous. You would really gang up and bully someone like this, while promoting groupthink? Pathetic. You are being asked to make rational arguments and you respond only with emotion. The burden is on you. If you are not capable of making arguments to back up your statements, then leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that my comparison is inspiring negative emotions. But that doesn't make it wrong. Do you have an intellectual (rather than emotional) argument why my rephrasing is somehow invalid?
You are correct that it's not the inspiring of negative emotions that makes your comparison wrong. I do have an intellectual argument, but you're pretty clearly trolling, so there's no real point in presenting it. You're not stupid and you know what you're doing, so why prolong the pretense?
I stand by what I said. I think that the distinction between our celebrated historical civil disobedience and the modern kind is not so clear. One happened 50 years ago and is part of our modern mythology, the other is a contemporary conflict and as such it obviously doesn't come with "applause-lights" [1].
[1] "Applause-lights" explained: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A win win for everyone but the drivers. Sure they can quit but doesn't excuse Uber from using its negotiating power against exploiting them wherever possible.
Don't worry. Having drivers is not the long term plan anyways.
I do not believe Uber invests nearly as much in autonomous cars as it invests in challenging the law and making PR about their lobbying being a civic fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try talking to some ex-Uber drivers. I don't think I've spoke with one that felt adequately informed by Uber. There may be adequate information now, but only because enough people bought in to Uber's marketing had poor experiences, and have talked about them. I also don't think "enough readily available information" is a good standard to judge commerce by. There's enough readily available information out there for su…
A ponzi scheme is completely different to Uber so comparing the two isn't helpful. Uber is comparable to working as an freelance/indy contractor, in fact it's almost exactly the same. Uber has always been clear about how it works for the drivers, and not reading/understanding terms and conditions isn't an excuse for not taking responsibility for yourself. Their early marketing quite literally spelled out that this is…
Also one would think that subsidizing drivers in their early days was not really the best way to make a honest impression on how rewarding the job would actually become.