Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#131

Post by OvidNaso » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 5:13 PM UTC

jungsoo wrote: post #123

sooheon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.

That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life. Now I'm n…

"I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life."

This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#132

Post by totony » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #86

marvin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable: (1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do (2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or (3) most…

I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to…

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#133

Post by freehunter » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

mylons wrote: post #108

applecore wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers already keep 80% of their fares through Uber.

If you were playing poker at a casino, would you be content if the dealer took 20% of every pot?

If I only lost while gambling 20% of the time, I would be ecstatic. Meanwhile in my job as a consultant, I get paid 30% of what my clients are actually billed. Uber takes 20%. My employer takes 70%. I fail to see the outrage.

What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#134

Post by juliangregorian » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

colinbartlett wrote: post #36

jastr wrote: post #3

"...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..." "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..." So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!

This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine or 6 months in prison." - that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.

Yup, because if you don't have $500 you're probably one of those homeless criminal types and should be locked up anyway.

I've noticed this too, is this a relic from the times when the dollar amount would have been a lot more proportionate to time served?

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#135

Post by readcloserq » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 5:44 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #133

mylons wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were playing poker at a casino, would you be content if the dealer took 20% of every pot?

If I only lost while gambling 20% of the time, I would be ecstatic. Meanwhile in my job as a consultant, I get paid 30% of what my clients are actually billed. Uber takes 20%. My employer takes 70%. I fail to see the outrage. What percentage do the cab companies take from their drivers?

You misinterpreted the poker analogy. When 20% is taken out of every pot, that includes the ones you lose. It doesn't mean you win with an 80% rate. When the rake is 20%, basically half the entire table's money is gone after 3-4 hours. (If you're going to criticize an analogy, you better understand the analogy.)

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#136

Post by sgift » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

totony wrote: post #132

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to…

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?

If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#137

Post by dchest » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #82

donatj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point. More competition is always better. You don't need mother government to control everything and make the whole world "fair". Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If there's room for competition there will be cheaper and "safer" alternatived. Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they c…

If Uber drivers do not have valid insurance[1] then the only "choice" I can make to avoid that is to not use public highways at all (an uninsured Uber driver can crash into me even if I'm not an Uber customer). I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic. I honestly can't understand how an adult in the 21st century can arguing against vehicle insurance. You don't even own a s…

I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.

It's not sociopathic. There are (and were) countries where driver insurance is not compulsory. I lived in one, and it wasn't that bad. If you want to be sure that you get paid for damage, that's what insurance is for — insure yourself.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#138

Post by fennecfoxen » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #50

fennecfoxen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).

Your London example is poor: Uber is free to operate in London. Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge". Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to d…

As if to prove my point, snazzy arguments made without reference to the customer's well-being!

Why must a prospective Uber customer be forced to pay specifically for "the knowledge" (an insane, financially risky, multi-year investment in human capital) to have access to cars running a variable fare business model? How do they benefit from having their choices restricted like this? But with Uber, the case of "unsuspecting user gets ripped off" is a lot harder to make.

I mean sure, when it comes to privileging a set of drivers with the power to take street hails you have a good excuse about protecting random tourists from ostentatious fraud. But requiring that all variable-fare hails have the Knowledge? Seriously? That's incumbent-protection and nothing else.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#139

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 9:46 PM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #89

donatj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing taxi pricing to food safety is crass. Last I checked there weren't degress in taxi fair-ology.

It's not about pricing. In Germany one of the issues for Uber was that they weren't ensuring the vehicles had the more frequent mechanical safety checks that the law requires for commercial vehicles (the logic being that they do far more miles). How is the average customer supposed to be able to decide how much risk is involved in the fact that one vehicle hasn't had its breaks inspected in the last X thousand miles,…

"In the Uber world, how does the customer even get hold of that information?"

Strictly speaking, there's nothing preventing Uber from making that information available when you book a ride. Not that I think that's a great way to deal with this...

If we were going to leave it up to the individual riders, building a profile to automatically filter for appropriate vehicles would make more sense - I reserve judgement as to whether it makes enough sense.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#140

Post by totony » Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 9:57 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #136

totony wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?

If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!

I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people.

Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.