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

Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 168 posts

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#141

Post by dmitrygr »

speedplane wrote: post #135
mdorazio wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I must have had different Investments professors. If you invest in a stock and it decreases in value, you lost money. You might get that money back if it goes up, but it is absolutely referred to as losing money. People just like to play mental games and say things like "it's only a paper loss" or use the "unrealized loss" term which is for accounting purposes, but it's a loss regardless. If you don't believe…

If Uber wanted to be profitable, they could be tomorrow. Their growth would slow down, and they wouldn't be able to invest in next generation technology, but they could be a very profitable business.

Given the insanely high price elasticity of demand on rideshare, i severely doubt this. Show me anyone who does not have both uber and lyft apps, and does not immediately go to Lyft when uber prices seem a tad high (or vice-versa).

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#142

Post by michaelt »

jacques_chester wrote: post #97
michaelt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. But does anyone think print journalists haven't noticed their industry is fucked and loads of people are getting laid off? No need to break the firewall between editorial and ad sales to know that Gannett cut 400 jobs in January, McClatchy cut 450 jobs in February, BuzzFeed cut 200 jobs in January, and so on.

> True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. Reporting on shitty behaviour by tech companies isn't an anti-tech stance. It's reporting. If what you want is PR puff pieces and sloppy butt-kissing, Wired has the pro-tech angle well covered. I mean do you actually think it's an interview question at the Times ? "Tell me how much you hate Google, in words of three syllables or less".…

I'm confused how you quoted my post saying you don't need to hire journalists with an anti-tech stance; and that lead you to ask if I think hating Google is an interview question at the Times?

I merely find it plausible that a critical view on the tech giants is more popular among people whose jobs are threatened by tech than among the likes of us, whose jobs are created by tech. No conspiracy required for what I'm saying.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#143

Post by sokoloff »

dmitrygr wrote: post #141
speedplane wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber wanted to be profitable, they could be tomorrow. Their growth would slow down, and they wouldn't be able to invest in next generation technology, but they could be a very profitable business.

Given the insanely high price elasticity of demand on rideshare, i severely doubt this. Show me anyone who does not have both uber and lyft apps, and does not immediately go to Lyft when uber prices seem a tad high (or vice-versa).

I’m in that situation. I know Lyft exists, of course, and will switch if Uber gets too aggressive on pricing, so your point has merit, but I literally don’t have the app nor account there yet.

OTOH, I believe Uber is already quite profitable in my city (Boston metro), so I don’t think a future of Uber as profitable overall is unachievable.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#144

Post by DrScump »

mr_toad wrote: post #100
csallen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media has a lot to lose in a tech-dominated world. They used to have a monopoly on reach. Readers came to directly to them. Today that role belongs largely to tech companies. Media companies are heavily dependent on the algorithms and whims of the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. And it's not just distribution: it's their business models, too. Apple taking a cut of NYC subscription revenue,…

> The media has a lot to lose in a tech-dominated world. True, but the NYT was actually one of the first to try and move past their print origins and try a new business model. https://mashable.com/2014/05/16/full-new-york-times-innovati... They also employed Mike Bostocks (author of d3.js) for a while, and they had a highly regarded interactive section. https://bost.ocks.org/mike/ Tech has been a public boogeyman for…

"the NYT was actually one of the first to try and move past their print origins and try a new business model..."

One of the first?

Actually, the San Jose Mercury News had its Mercury Center up and running in 1992[0]. For a time, only the Mercury and WSJ were serious players.

[0] https://archives.cjr.org/feature/the_newspaper_that_almost_s...

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#145

Post by Faark »

michaelt wrote: post #142
jacques_chester wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. Reporting on shitty behaviour by tech companies isn't an anti-tech stance. It's reporting. If what you want is PR puff pieces and sloppy butt-kissing, Wired has the pro-tech angle well covered. I mean do you actually think it's an interview question at the Times ? "Tell me how much you hate Google, in words of three syllables or less".…

I'm confused how you quoted my post saying you don't need to hire journalists with an anti-tech stance; and that lead you to ask if I think hating Google is an interview question at the Times? I merely find it plausible that a critical view on the tech giants is more popular among people whose jobs are threatened by tech than among the likes of us, whose jobs are created by tech. No conspiracy required for what I'm s…

So you think their business being endangered because of changes caused by tech makes them incapable of reporting about it. And that makes it totally fine to sweep their critical reporting about tech under the rug and ignore it, because there cannot be a strong bias of those criticized to live in a reality where they're not in the wrong?

Yeah, I see a much stronger/more direct incentive for the second one. And this makes blanket statements in the spirit of "media cannot be unbiased about tech" on this site kinda worthless.

Media does screw up and can be bias. Criticizing that on an individual case by case basis is fine. Spinning a general they-vs-us narrative less so.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#146

Post by sokoloff »

mdorazio wrote: post #130
uwuhn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who uses Uber and Lyft on a daily basis, and has done so for the past three years, their existence has measurably made my life better. Taxis were never an option due to a combination of cost, time, and inconvenience.

While I agree, it's important to note that the reason for all three of those improvements is billions in subsidies + exploited drivers. If Uber rides were not subsidized, they actually followed employment and licensing laws, and drivers actually accounted for their total expenses properly, the cost we be pretty close to what taxis charge, number of available drivers would decrease, and wait times would increase. The…

I talk to most of my Uber drivers and almost always ask about the economics. Most of them seem to have a good grasp on the fundamentals and fall into one of two categories: subsidizing the car they already have and supplementing income or driving full-time in a car dedicated to ride-sharing. In the first case, they’re pretty obviously easily covering the marginal costs. In the second case, I can’t know, but they should able to evaluate it on their own pretty easily, just like the local snowplow operator.

I don’t buy the narrative that the company is built on the backs of a bunch of exploited drivers (assuming you believe taxi drivers are not exploited; if you believe they are as well, that’s probably a different argument than the one I’m refuting).

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#147

Post by awongh »

csallen wrote: post #59
georgewfraser wrote: post #35

> The start-up world projects a meritocratic image, but in reality, it is a small, tightknit club where success typically hinges on whom you know. This is...so not true. My co-founder and I had hardly any network in SV. We applied to YC through the website, raised seed money after demo day. We ran on seed + revenue up to about 60 employees and we recently did a series A. If you don’t have a network, don’t be dissuade…

People like to traffic in hyperbole, because nuance burns calories and doesn't attract as many eyeballs. Some describe tech as a perfect meritocracy, which of course it is not. The overreaction to that is to claim startup success merely comes down to who you know. Of course that's not true either. As far as industries go -- especially industries capable of producing millionaires, billionaires, and world-changing phen…

> tech is absurdly high on the meritocratic scale.

Actually I would make the distinction that tech is ridiculously far ahead of most other industries- but still very low on the scale. (if by scale we mean zero to perfect meritocracy)

Networks matter a huge amount and are dominated by a certain class and racial demographic.

At least we've begun the conversation and I believe truly meritocratic success is very possible, but those on the inside are definitely more likely to be successful that those outside. (really specifically raising a certain kind of seed or early venture funding, where some normal business metrics may be missing- (investing in the founders) )

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#148

Post by SamReidHughes »

Scoundreller wrote: post #99
BurningFrog wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech is - inadvertently, as a side effect, but still - murdering the traditional media world that NYT rules/ruled. When your whole world is being destroyed around you, it's not that strange if you develop a hostile attitude to the people doing the destroying, even if your job description is to be an "objective journalist".

But, corporately, NYT wants the journalism world around it destroyed. They're the best situated to benefit from it. Their stock price shows that there's no concern for their future.

While the NYT might, their employees don’t.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#149

Post by jondubois »

yaacov wrote: post #58
georgewfraser wrote: post #35

> The start-up world projects a meritocratic image, but in reality, it is a small, tightknit club where success typically hinges on whom you know. This is...so not true. My co-founder and I had hardly any network in SV. We applied to YC through the website, raised seed money after demo day. We ran on seed + revenue up to about 60 employees and we recently did a series A. If you don’t have a network, don’t be dissuade…

New York Times has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years. I don’t know the reason for it, but I find it very annoying

It's anti-centralization and pro-meritocracy. If anything, it's pro-tech. There are a lot of people right now who have built great tech and real innovation which is being ignored completely because some financially successful firms with massive network effects are attracting all the talent and focusing it towards their lesser technical goals, slow processes and inferior tech.

For example, AirBnB has thousands of employees and yet barely anything changed in their service in the past few years. The engineers who work there are not productive. Their main skill is in creating highly complex solutions whilst taking minimal risks; that's not what engineering is about. The same goes for almost all major software companies. Each engineer does very little work and contributes very little towards real innovation. These big network effects are holding tech back. They are draining cash away from pure tech and focusing it on social networks.

Re: Uber and Airbnb Alumni Fuel Tech’s Next Wave

#150

Post by michaelt »

Faark wrote: post #145
michaelt wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused how you quoted my post saying you don't need to hire journalists with an anti-tech stance; and that lead you to ask if I think hating Google is an interview question at the Times? I merely find it plausible that a critical view on the tech giants is more popular among people whose jobs are threatened by tech than among the likes of us, whose jobs are created by tech. No conspiracy required for what I'm s…

So you think their business being endangered because of changes caused by tech makes them incapable of reporting about it. And that makes it totally fine to sweep their critical reporting about tech under the rug and ignore it, because there cannot be a strong bias of those criticized to live in a reality where they're not in the wrong? Yeah, I see a much stronger/more direct incentive for the second one. And this ma…

  So you think their business being endangered because of
  changes caused by tech makes them incapable of reporting
  about it.
No, I didn't say that.

I think we actually agree more than you think: I believe that both the press and HN posters have biases; and that opinion on HN will pay relatively less attention to criticisms of tech, while the press will be relatively more critical.

For example, HN popular opinion would broadly say "self-service/user-generated content can be automatically filtered, but some things will inevitably get through because there's just so much stuff, dealing with that stuff after it's been posted is the only option" whereas the press would broadly say "we can't ignore this problem, and if a working solution means self-service/user-generated content isn't scalable, that's just too bad"

I see this division on deceptive ads, and satirical news being repeated as true, and I suspect we'll see it on self-radicalisation and livestreamed shootings too.

Post reply on HN