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

Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#151

Post by cpher »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #148
cpher wrote: post #146

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car. I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think w…

Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

What are you talking about? I've lived on the southside for 10 years. It's called "understanding how to avoid gangbangers." How about when I go into a burger joint and the two teenage kids in front of me whip out a huge roll of cash to pay for it? Their saggy-ass jeans tell me they didn't get that from a high-paying software consulting job. I think you need a reality check.

Ninja edit: Screw you for criticizing me on my "judgement" of Uber drivers. Fuck you.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#152

Post by YuriNiyazov »

cpher wrote: post #151
YuriNiyazov wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

What are you talking about? I've lived on the southside for 10 years. It's called "understanding how to avoid gangbangers." How about when I go into a burger joint and the two teenage kids in front of me whip out a huge roll of cash to pay for it? Their saggy-ass jeans tell me they didn't get that from a high-paying software consulting job. I think you need a reality check. Ninja edit: Screw you for criticizing me on…

dang should be coming by to tell you that you are out of line any minute now.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#153

Post by cpher »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #148
cpher wrote: post #146

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car. I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think w…

Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

I feel safer when my wife can text me the name of the taxi company and car number in case anything happens. It's following a chain of custody...dick.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#154

Post by mst »

tptacek wrote: post #147
Lazare wrote: post #2

I feel like I'm missing something. Reasonable people can disagree about what jobs should/should not require a background check, but it doesn't seem entirely outrageous that the drivers of buses, taxis, and similar transportation services should have them. > Unfortunately, the rules passed by the City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate. Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It…

Maybe it's the fee. One of the three fee options, "the cost of one cab permit per drive", would put them out of business in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. It would be survivable in Austin, but it would set a very bad precedent.

(tyop: should be 'permit per driver')

Unless I misread http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-... a 'yes' vote would've meant the fee must be 1% of annual revenue, whereas the 'no' vote means they can still pay that amount, or have two alternative options if they prefer.

So at that point I'm not sure why that would upset them, except perhaps the fear that the 1% option would then be separately phased out later? (which is possibly a very real risk; I'm seeking synthesis, not antithesis, here)

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#155

Post by cpher »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #148
cpher wrote: post #146

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car. I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think w…

Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

Are you really that naive to think gangbangers and drug dealers don't use ride-sharing programs and exploit it to their advantage? Every system will be exploited. If you dare live in the environment, you might experience it.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#156

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #149
tptacek wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the "no black people" limit is abusive, in large part intended to be abusive, and has no good-faith public policy purpose, and the other limits can't be described that way. You can describe them as erroneous or ineffective --- the way you could describe virtually any regulation --- but you can't make that argument about them. Since this distinction seems pretty obvious, I have to wonder why you'd pretend not…

Many regulations of this sort - particularly within the taxi space - are merely economic protectionism favoring one group over another. Suppose the "no black people" limit were merely designed for economic protectionism with no malicious intent. Would that make it acceptable? You can add to it various pretexts as erroneous and ineffective justification, e.g. "black people are more likely to be dangerous criminals tha…

I'm not going to dignify an argument that suggests that because some regulations might be erroneous, have unintended consequences, or even be crafted specifically to favor some particular group, that most regulations are therefore equivalent to institutionalized racism. To me, that's really just a veiled swipe at the idea that institutionalized racism is a uniquely toxic problem.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#157

Post by courtneypowell »

koolba wrote: post #123
courtneypowell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue for Uber and Lyft may be the fact that fingerprinting puts them closer to needing to classify drivers as employees instead of contractors. They could surely solve any friction around fingerprinting, but requiring drivers to be classified as employees would put them out of business. Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees. IMO, they spent $8M on this local v…

> Fingerprinting through a government clearinghouse is typically reserved for employees. Source? Financial services corporations fingerprint both their employees and contractors. I've never seen a distinction in the process for either.

Here's an example of contractors requiring fingerprinting in a highly regulated environment pushing them to 'covered employee' status.

The requirement of fingerprinting does not in and of itself make some an 'employee' or vice versa, but there are precedents in Texas, like this example, that could inch Uber even closer to this line.

http://www.newcaneyisd.org/cms/lib5/TX01918142/Centricity/Do...

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#158

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #156
yummyfajitas wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many regulations of this sort - particularly within the taxi space - are merely economic protectionism favoring one group over another. Suppose the "no black people" limit were merely designed for economic protectionism with no malicious intent. Would that make it acceptable? You can add to it various pretexts as erroneous and ineffective justification, e.g. "black people are more likely to be dangerous criminals tha…

I'm not going to dignify an argument that suggests that because some regulations might be erroneous, have unintended consequences, or even be crafted specifically to favor some particular group, that most regulations are therefore equivalent to institutionalized racism. To me, that's really just a veiled swipe at the idea that institutionalized racism is a uniquely toxic problem.

It's not a "veiled swipe" at all. I'm pretty explicitly stating that I consider racism to be extrinsically bad - I only care when it causes intrinsically bad actions like protectionism, and that protectionist acts which are non-racist are also bad.

I get the impression you have a different moral conclusion, but I have no idea how you reach it in a logically consistent manner. I take it you refuse to state your principles?

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#159

Post by cpher »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #148
cpher wrote: post #146

I would even go one step further. Certainly less than felons. For some reason in Chicago, I at least feel "safer" in a taxi because of the screaming decals and colors of the car. I had an Uber from the southside to Midway, and I felt like just getting into his car I was being set up in a sting operation. I (white guy) shrunk down in the back seat the entire time. The dude was nice, but holy shit what does CPD think w…

Congratulations on your blatant racism. You go to southside, and you object that the person that is working in that neighborhood fits "the stereotype".

Give me your honest opinion: to what degree am I racist if : 1) the Uber pulling up is an obvious gangbanger 2) If I refuse the driver for whatever reasons Uber lists when drivers pull up.

I'm going to assume your objection is to #1. If so, do you have any fucking idea how institutionalized racism is in Chicago, especially with CPD? Even sane white folks know this. There are mostly good apples, but some bad ones, and we don't need to be a part of any dragnet.

Re: Lyft and Uber to Halt Operations in Austin After Voters Reject Proposal

#160

Post by shock-value »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #152
cpher wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? I've lived on the southside for 10 years. It's called "understanding how to avoid gangbangers." How about when I go into a burger joint and the two teenage kids in front of me whip out a huge roll of cash to pay for it? Their saggy-ass jeans tell me they didn't get that from a high-paying software consulting job. I think you need a reality check. Ninja edit: Screw you for criticizing me on…

dang should be coming by to tell you that you are out of line any minute now.

Sorry, but this comment makes you sound like a whiney child yelling at a sibling -- "you might not listen to me but I'll get Mommy to tell you to stop!". The comment may or may not be racially insensitive but it's very frustrating how some commenters here will appeal to mods to censor anything they don't like or agree with.
Post reply on HN