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

The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

danielcompton.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 542 posts

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#511

Post by pm90 »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #476
darpa_escapee wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No sympathy from me. No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee? I had a friend who had no sympathy for another friend who was diagnosed with throat cancer, because he smoked cigarettes. Didn't matter that the person had cancer, what mattered is that they smoked cigarettes and knew the risks. It was forgivable on the first friend's part because he was also heavily medicated for a psyc…

No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee? Well, yes, sympathy from me as in "sucks to be them". But they were adults and made a voluntary decision to forego paying for fire protection. They made a bet and they lost. As for cancer, when I was in high school some 40 years ago, I knew a US Army Major (i.e. Gung-ho military) who smoked. Even then, smoking was starting to be frowned upon.…

I respect your different point of view on this matter. But if I may act as the devil's advocate: what if it was your brother (or father) that said that to you? Would you not volunteer help to them if they said those things and are now suffering from cancer?

Personally, I don't think we should reward people for making bad decisions; you are implicitly punishing the people who made the good ones, which are often hard. However, rewarding is one thing; saving from death/destitution is quite another.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#512

Post by daemin »

salimmadjd wrote: post #46

I actually think this might be a blessing in disguise for Uber. I always argued self-driving cars would destroy Uber should Apple or Google want to enter this space. Why? Because self-driving cars are basically a fleet service driven by a software. Once you remove the driver (where Uber spent so much acquiring) The only differentiator is the consumer facing experience. Neither Uber or Lyft will have as much power as…

I always considered the people that drive for Uber to be more of a means to an end for Uber. To me Uber wants people getting used to ordering a car service with an app and then being driven to their destination. So really having people as drivers is a stop gap measure until they get autonomous vehicles working and the equivalent of "the knowledge" of black cab drivers in London for everywhere else in the world. This is why they track you with the Uber app after you finish your ride, so that they can get the local knowledge stored.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#513

Post by darpa_escapee »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #476
darpa_escapee wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No sympathy from me. No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee? I had a friend who had no sympathy for another friend who was diagnosed with throat cancer, because he smoked cigarettes. Didn't matter that the person had cancer, what mattered is that they smoked cigarettes and knew the risks. It was forgivable on the first friend's part because he was also heavily medicated for a psyc…

No sympathy for people who lost their home and possessions over a $75 fee? Well, yes, sympathy from me as in "sucks to be them". But they were adults and made a voluntary decision to forego paying for fire protection. They made a bet and they lost. As for cancer, when I was in high school some 40 years ago, I knew a US Army Major (i.e. Gung-ho military) who smoked. Even then, smoking was starting to be frowned upon.…

Can you, for certain, tell if someone who is diagnosed with cancer 100% directly caused that cancer?

At the point that someone is diagnosed with cancer, what is gained by saying "I told you so"?

Would you go as far as to say that to someone who got stomach cancer? That they should accept the consequences of eating cured meats while they and their family suffer?

What about prostate cancer? Did you know that the risk of prostate cancer is decreased by 20% - 30% for each of the following: 1) regular prostate massages 2) increased number of orgasms 3) drinking coffee 4) ingesting more lycopene 5) exercising (41% decrease in risk of developing prostate cancer!) 5) consuming more omega-3 fatty acids.

Would you hold the same "I told you so" attitude towards someone diagnosed with prostate cancer because they didn't have enough kinky sex, drink enough coffee, exercise and eat the right foods?

I'm having a hard time differentiating between "didn't pay $75" and "didn't exercise or rub their prostate hard / often enough".

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#514

Post by Ajedi32 »

astrodust wrote: post #218
Ajedi32 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Uber's transportation-as-a-service model is likely to be far more cost effective when applied to self driving cars than car ownership is. Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive, making outright buying one cost-prohibitive. By the time costs come down transportation-as-a-service will have taken over the industry, and few people will have any particular desire to own their own car anymore. Not…

> Self driving cars will initially be quite expensive... Not relevant to my assertion. I said when they become the norm, as in, when they're no more expensive as other cars. > ... transportation-as-a-service would also be a lot more convenient than car ownership. This means I can share a car with several friends, neighbors, or room-mates with little fuss. The problem with sharing a car today is licensing, insurance,…

> I said when they become the norm, as in, when they're no more expensive as other cars.

My point is that self-driving cars will become the norm long before they're "no more expensive as other cars" precisely because of transportation-as-a-service companies like Uber. By the time we start getting anywhere near the point where self-driving cars are "no more expensive as other cars", car ownership will already have been largely supplanted by transportation-as-a-service.

> If I could buy a 1/6th share in a car for $100/mo. and be able to use it in short stints with little contention that's going to be cheaper than Uber if I use it more than a handful of times.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're describing transportation-as-a-service, but with the additional restriction of you only being able to use one particular car that you "own" 1/6th of instead of any car that happens to be nearby at the time when you request it.

That sounds like a needless restriction, and negates many of the advantages of transportation-as-a-service (no need to refuel, repair, or otherwise maintain your vehicle, the flexibility to obtain as many cars as you want at any particular moment, the ability to use a pickup truck one day and a minivan the next, etc).

Also, why would that be cheaper than Uber? I think a service like Uber is likely to be far more efficient with the usage of their self-driving fleet than you could ever be with any one, individual car, even if that car _is_ shared between multiple people.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#515

Post by uptownfunk »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #500
uptownfunk wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what, I may get downvoted for this, but my take is you just can't stop these guys. They'll do whatever it takes to win. I probably spend around $2,000 USD on uber trips per month. And frankly, as much disturbing stuff I hear about these guys, Uber beats the heck out of renting a car in a snowy area (especially after having taken a red-eye to a client site). It also beats the crap out of taking a cab in most…

I'm curious how one would spend $2000 on uber per month? For what group of people would that be typical?

Consulting

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#516

Post by WorldMaker »

kbenson wrote: post #270
pm90 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads. e.g. I would not, from experience, trust fasten to get me back home at 2.30am on a weekend night (even if I'm willing to pay their "boosted" fares). Its not an unsolvable problem though. I bet if they could hire more/better engineers and invest in infra for reliability they could be a lot better. And it might actually happen if Uber…

> To be fair, the new apps do suffer with reliability issues in periods of high loads This is where someone should come in and offer business software that is easily branded to handle the technical aspect of the business, and just sell it to the new entrants. This is a great market for shovels.

Plus, the software has easy existing customer bases in pre-existing cab companies looking to modernize ancient dispatch systems. Uber/Lyft argue that market disintermediation and union breaking are a feature, but in most metropolitans it certainly seems like a bug.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#517

Post by Retric »

bigiain wrote: post #421
Retric wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only played slots for a few hours, but my lifetime average is up ~3x and a few hundred dollars vs. what I put into the machines. So, I think they are set fairly close to break even as that's from a few dozen minor wins vs a single jackpot. Honestly, if every single time someone played for 3+ hours they where always down then fewer people would come back. That said, they probably set machines in very high traff…

You seem to misunderstand human nature. (How many people do you suppose play lotteries week in week out never winning back a fraction of what they out in, but dreaming about and planning what they're gonna spend the $10,000,000 jackpot on?)

These machines have a fairly low max payout. Winning 500$ is nice, but hardly a life changing event. Further, the cost is higher, where a lotto might cost 2$ for some hope these machines can burn 20$ fairly quickly.

As to odds. If you have a 1% chance to win 99$ and play 90 times you are likely to be up 9$ and have a lower odds of being down 90$ And even lower odds of being up 108$. Over long enough time frames you still lose money, but it feels very different from losing 0.01 cents per pull.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#518

Post by LordHumungous »

uptownfunk wrote: post #477
harryh wrote: post #29

Uber passengers only pay 41% of the cost of trips, with investor capital making up the difference FWIW this assertion (which isn't really core to the central thesis of the post, but still) is wrong. That number comes from https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic... but the author of that story misread the data. Uber only counts their cut as revenue not the full cost of the ride. Despite this repet…

You know what, I may get downvoted for this, but my take is you just can't stop these guys. They'll do whatever it takes to win. I probably spend around $2,000 USD on uber trips per month. And frankly, as much disturbing stuff I hear about these guys, Uber beats the heck out of renting a car in a snowy area (especially after having taken a red-eye to a client site). It also beats the crap out of taking a cab in most…

"They could double the price, and as long as my company reimbursed it, I'd still take it"

Mmmkay

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#519

Post by bogomipz »

throwaway729 wrote: post #449
bogomipz wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this person(Lewandowski) is fantastically wealthy then? Why was he still at Google then? I'm guessing he was on an earn out schedule? Why would he need to steal if he had that kind of money already?

Greed

Sure. If this individual did actually steal these, it really demonstrates the poisonous nature of greed. I'm not sure how else to explain the failure to quantify the the risk of getting caught which seems to be sufficiently high.

Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop

#520

Post by st3v3r »

sauronlord wrote: post #293
st3v3r wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, given the history of Uber's CEO, I think he's no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. The onus would be on him to prove to the board that these accusations are not true.

What crimes or violations was he convicted of? Enough accusations and then you are guilty until proven innocent? Wtf

Yes, exactly. Enough accusations, and you become a distraction to the company. Were I on the board, he would be trying to justify why he should remain as head of this company.
Post reply on HN