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

Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 147 posts

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

#81

Post by matthewmacleod »

DanBC wrote: post #54
matthewmacleod wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's chan…

"The London Taxi racket"[1] were not just arguing about meters. They were also arguing about wheelchair and guide-dog accessibility. [1] is language like that useful?

Sure, that was just one of the examples. These are all valid points for argument – one of the benefits of regulation is ensuring that taxi services are accessible.

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

#82

Post by anon1385 »

donatj wrote: post #47
matthewmacleod wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand li…

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 stake in Uber! You are arguing for adding uninsured drivers to the roads that you use, just to make other people rich. It's not even in your own self interest. Talk about irrational.

[1] e.g. because they have regular non-commercial insurance that isn't valid when operating a taxi, and Uber fails to check that their drivers are insured or educate them about what insurance they need. This has been a common complaint against Uber in various jurisdictions.

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

#83

Post by matthewmacleod »

twoodfin wrote: post #68
matthewmacleod wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand li…

Stop this Randian nonsense. This is the kind of unnecessarily provocative embellishment that HN guidelines specifically call out: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

You're correct, of course. That said, it can be difficult to maintain composure in the face of purposeful ignorance.

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

#84

Post by 67726e »

adventured wrote: post #78
67726e wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they unionize and demand higher wages. Higher costs for human drivers will increase the incentive for driver-less cars, right?

No, if all the services are unionized, those same unions will then use every means possible to get new laws passed that say you can't have a driver-less taxi. They won't just go quietly, as they watch robots take over, just like taxi drivers aren't now when confronted with uber.

Not every union is a political powerhouse capable of doing such. Eventually you'll reach a point where it becomes economically feasible for a company to wholesale fire it's drivers and roll out it's fleet of driverless cars. It's certainly possible that a union could push for a law against such, but that sounds a bit more like fear-mongering and an anti-union bias than anything else.

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

#85

Post by TheHypnotist »

67726e wrote: post #53
Hytosys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us…

I hope they unionize and demand higher wages. Higher costs for human drivers will increase the incentive for driver-less cars, right?

As a resident of New Jersey, please, no more unions.

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

#86

Post by DanielBMarkham »

marvin wrote: post #69
rtpg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

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 learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life.

2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or

3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make)

I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.

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

#87

Post by TheHypnotist »

rtpg wrote: post #51
Hytosys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates. As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us…

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

Yeah but in this case no one who works for Uber is forced to actually do any work. This is an ad hoc, "I feel like making a few extra bones" type deal where they provide an affordable and convenient service to the populace. To say they are being exploited is wildly dramatic.

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

#88

Post by TheHypnotist »

adventured wrote: post #78
67726e wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they unionize and demand higher wages. Higher costs for human drivers will increase the incentive for driver-less cars, right?

No, if all the services are unionized, those same unions will then use every means possible to get new laws passed that say you can't have a driver-less taxi. They won't just go quietly, as they watch robots take over, just like taxi drivers aren't now when confronted with uber.

Not only that but they will drive the whole efficient and affordability premise into the ground just for the betterment of their drivers. In this case, with the competition being what it is, it would be more for the detriment.

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

#89

Post by anon1385 »

donatj wrote: post #67
noelwelsh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you, I always have a charged battery, a data connection, and the time to conduct research. I also have a PhD in chemistry, and I find this knowledge invaluable for assessing the potential for harm of all food additivies and environmental pollutants. I find this nicely complements my medical training, which of course helps me make the best decisions regarding my health, and my PhD in CS which keeps my data safe o…

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, and another has? In the Uber world, how does the customer even get hold of that information?

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to compare failing breaks with contaminated food. Both have the potential to be highly dangerous.

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

#90

Post by valarauca1 »

humanrebar wrote: post #71
valarauca1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc. Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). I…

No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it. We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating…

I failed to correctly express my opinion. You are correct to jump on that. And you are correct in your argument.

I've editted the post to more correctly express my opinion (namely the last sentence).

Post reply on HN