|
Quote: Uber broke laws, duped police and secretly lobbied governments, leak reveals
Politicians create protectionist laws that limit taxi service, so Uber tries to disrupt these cartels. The Guardian, which understands nothing of economic freedom, finds this disturbing. But it's hardly surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Uber simply out competed the crony capitalists of the Taxi industry.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, you can classify this like that, but sending your own drivers into potentially violent situations, with attitude of "if it kicks off, it will help our cause" is beyond despicable.
"In one exchange, Kalanick dismissed concerns from other executives that sending Uber drivers to a protest in France put them at risk of violence from angry opponents in the taxi industry. “I think it’s worth it,” he shot back. “Violence guarantee[s] success.”"
They're undercutting taxis by avoiding all the rules that cover taxis, putting passengers at more risk. It's disruptive, but in all the wrong ways.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
You're picking one callous quote. That said, taxi driving a dangerous profession, Uber or not.
The rules are made to restrict competition. Of course, the story is that it's for everyone's good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That rag has a paywall. But SCOTUS has ruled that police don't even have to show up, and that they have qualified immunity that excuses egregious behavior in many situations. People who think politics is a solution get what they deserve, but the problem is that everyone else also has to suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A typical knee-jerk reaction. If I don't believe in political solutions, this must be what I want. I also want people to starve and children to go uneducated. Buffoon.
|
|
|
|
|
And now you sound like a Republican Christo-Fascist, who wants to overthrow the government. If you had explained how you want to fix the problem, rather than jump to name calling, you could have evaded that image. Unless you are a Christo-Fascist Republican? And if you want fix the issues you are whining about without laws, you come across as ignorant of history. So please explain yourself. From what you've said, you want to make the world better by eliminating laws.
|
|
|
|
|
You are quite wrong as to my political beliefs. Other than that, I'm done with you.
|
|
|
|
|
I never said what your political beliefs are, since I don't know them, so I can't be wrong. I only asked (if you re-read the thread closely). I did say you believe in letting people die in fires, because you are seemingly against laws and politics, and it took laws to get capitalists to obey fire codes. But this has devolved enough so I will be done as well.
Have a great day in spite of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: They're undercutting taxis by avoiding all the rules that cover taxis, putting passengers at more risk. It's disruptive, but in all the wrong ways.
This is a very common claim but in the market with which I am familiar (London, England) it is wholly untrue.
In London, Uber is required to adhere to the same standards as any other private hire taxi firm, and has been since it started operating in London. It is just a taxi firm like any other. The rules apply to all taxi firms and drivers; it, and its drivers, cannot avoid any rules.
(I should add that minicabs in London are required to adhere to essentially the same standards as black cabs nowadays and both are regulated by the same organisation).
If it appears that Uber is "avoiding all the rules" in other markets then it might be helpful to look at the rules as set out by local legislature. What exactly are the rules? Is Uber really breaking the law in your jurisdiction, somehow? And if you feel that the local laws are not tight enough then perhaps campaign for change in the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes to earlier. Regardless of what it may or may not say in an article from Vox, Uber really has been covered by the same regulations as any other minicab firm since it set up in London.
Uber has not been banned from London.
It was always an odd claim by TFL that Uber was not "fit and proper" because TFL were fully responsible for regulating it at every stage. Perhaps it was TFL that was not "fit and proper" since they approved its mode of operation (i.e. much like any other minicab firm).
The specific claims against Uber were in many cases disingenuous.
For example, the claim that Uber was not doing background checks properly was, for example, bizarre since it was and is TFL that was responsible for them, not Uber.
Take away lesson: Don't take articles in the media literally. Whoever provided them to the media outlet you are reading may well have had their own, biased, agenda. In this case, the bias against Uber and other new market entrants has been strong (at least in London).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rather thought that I was pointing out that it's not as cut and dried as you made it out to be. 
Of course, complex issues like this one never are as cut and dried as some people on the various sides might like to make us think.
That is the nature of competition, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: but in the market with which I am familiar (London, England) it is wholly untrue.
Cut and dried... 
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, quoting taken out of context. 
The passage of mine you quote here can be (and is) entirely correct within the context of the very specific claim to which I was explicitly responding (within the jurisdictional context to which I explicitly referred) but, in saying this and later comments, I was also aiming to point out that it can be (and is) also the case that the wider claims in the media, both anti-competition/anti-Uber and pro-Uber/pro-new market entrant, are not necessarily either clear cut or necessarily to be taken as gospel.
|
|
|
|
|
At this point you are just being a troll. Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Politicians create protectionist laws
In addition to what Rob said, if you read the article it shows how the politicians themselves often helped Uber. It exposes corruption on all levels. Pretty disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course they did. They're for sale. Maybe Uber offered a better deal. Your straw man is a Utopia, but the problem is that it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no straw man in there.
|
|
|
|
|
Uber
Uber Eats
Uber Leaks
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Most developers today spend more time writing API calls and finding open-source projects – and maintaining those applications once they’re created – than they do writing code for innovative new features. It's also about swearing, begging, and searching
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: t looks nothing like “your father’s app dev,” which involved a code editor, compiler, and few other tools. In today’s world, we see developers struggling under the weight of an ever-expanding toolbox
Ah yeah, because 2000s dev, where write in one application, then another app (or command prompt) to source control if lucky. than open command prompt again to compile, and then zip the lot to remote to server and attempt to deploy it without completely borking the system
Yes, visual studio and other IDE (I assume iv only seen vs and vs code in last 10 years) - are daunting with many bells and whistles, but end to end application life, and deploy can be 90% done in one ide, that is amazon. Many menus ignored, but when need to do that 1 thing, its there and works (not always intuitively but works), and failing that a packing download second away from a vast community to add that support feature, or bug fix.
As to increasing maintenance over new features, well yeah depends on perspective. Work 5 years on 1 project with 2 years of that intensive testing and fixing before final no touch no more release, or 2 months POC, then into "maintenance " aka extending functionality.
PERSPECTIVE
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
