|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 10 2018 22:25 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 21:28 farvacola wrote:
The reasoning behind taxi-specific regulation works alongside the "free market public transportation" problem pretty well; public transportation is one of those goods/services that does not work well in a "free market" due, at least in part, to the fact that its accompanying consumption choice is heavily burdened by factors outside the purview of basic rational actor theory (just look at every metropolitan area with highly rated public transport and you'll heavy government involvement, if not outright domination). As a society, we have an interest in guaranteeing certain minimal qualities in public transport, chiefly access, safety, and reliability. Because those factors are not provided for via an unregulated supply/demand market, regulation must be used. This rule works well for taxis and a lot of the problems Uber faces tell the tale relative to the fact that we really don't want to discount the cost of the service enough that we can no longer guarantee that the driver of your Uber won't pull off to the side of the road and rape you. The shittiness of Amtrak tells another tale of how attempting to semi-privatize public transport only leads to inconsistency and safety problems. Mass transit is not the same as the taxi/uber market. I don't see what factors would not provided via an unregulated supply/demand market in the taxi/uber market. The "not pull off to the side of the road and rape you" argument might justify simple requirements that drivers have clean criminal records, but not that much further regulation since the incentive of companies to ensure that its drivers aren't criminals already exists.
The public and government by extension, is not interested in free market solutions to prevent criminals from abusing services like taxis, visiting nursing services or other private industries help provide services. That failure based model only leads to service gaps and puts the burden of correcting bad behavior on the public. The public already solved that problem by demanding their elected officials mandate background checks and regulation.
|
On January 10 2018 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Apparently Trump's voter fraud commission is destroying all the data they gathered. The tinfoil hat in me says this is because they didn't like what they found, but the realist in me thinks it's more likely because they actually didn't process or analyze anything and don't want that fact to be ensconced in silicon forever.
Was that a publicly funded investigation? Can they just destroy their data?! Someone needs to hit them with a FOIA or something.
As someone paid by public funds I have to ensure my data will be available at least 5 years after I stop working with it. It doesn't have to be public, but it has to be accessible for public inquiry if the demand arises.
|
On January 10 2018 22:56 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Apparently Trump's voter fraud commission is destroying all the data they gathered. The tinfoil hat in me says this is because they didn't like what they found, but the realist in me thinks it's more likely because they actually didn't process or analyze anything and don't want that fact to be ensconced in silicon forever. I don't think there's much tinfoil hat going to be required here. We know Trump believes there's voter fraud and that's why he lost the popular vote. We know the fact he lost the popular vote bothers him. We know he doesn't like to hear bad news. We can safely guess that whoever he's against in 2020 is going to bring this up at some point. We can safely assume voter fraud is going to be one of Trump's talking points again, in order to deflect criticism/his alleged unpopularity (alleged as I don't think he's ever admitted to it). Add facts plus high likelihood speculation, you get a solid case for why they would.
Kris Kobach's entire political career has focused on voter suppression based on false claims of voter fraud. There is no need to speculate why this commission existed. It was to take model of voter suppression on the national stage and got dumped on by other states. The other thing about Kris Kobach is that he is really bad at his job and mostly got by in politics by railing against immigration.
|
On January 10 2018 22:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Apparently Trump's voter fraud commission is destroying all the data they gathered. The tinfoil hat in me says this is because they didn't like what they found, but the realist in me thinks it's more likely because they actually didn't process or analyze anything and don't want that fact to be ensconced in silicon forever. Was that a publicly funded investigation? Can they just destroy their data?! Someone needs to hit them with a FOIA or something. As someone plays by public funds I have to ensure my data will be available at least 5 years after I stop working with it. It doesn't have to be public, but it has to be accessible for public inquiry if the demand arises.
The results of their investigation (they claim there weren't any) could be FOIA'd, but you couldn't FOIA the data directly. Since it was supposed to all be publicly available originally, it's not super problematic to have it destroyed, it's just a pain in the ass.
They didn't follow any of the regulations for this kind of thing anyway, not sure they even had a data analyst/data steward.
|
On January 10 2018 23:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 22:58 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2018 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Apparently Trump's voter fraud commission is destroying all the data they gathered. The tinfoil hat in me says this is because they didn't like what they found, but the realist in me thinks it's more likely because they actually didn't process or analyze anything and don't want that fact to be ensconced in silicon forever. Was that a publicly funded investigation? Can they just destroy their data?! Someone needs to hit them with a FOIA or something. As someone plays by public funds I have to ensure my data will be available at least 5 years after I stop working with it. It doesn't have to be public, but it has to be accessible for public inquiry if the demand arises. The results of their investigation (they claim there weren't any) could be FOIA'd, but you couldn't FOIA the data directly. Since it was supposed to all be publicly available originally, it's not super problematic to have it destroyed, it's just a pain in the ass. They didn't follow any of the regulations for this kind of thing anyway, not sure they even had a data analyst/data steward.
Something tells me "let's go collect some data" means something very unique to the Trump administration.
|
On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that.
8 bucks for a half hour+ trip to the airport for me. I've paid under a dollar a couple times for a 5 minute ride.
I can take our metro system to the airport too - it's 2.50. however it's less comfortable and takes longer than an uber (unless traffic is really shitty).
i'm pretty sure that uber loses money on me. oh well.
|
On January 10 2018 23:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that. 8 bucks for a half hour+ trip to the airport for me. I've paid under a dollar a couple times for a 5 minute ride. I can take our metro system to the airport too - it's 2.50. however it's less comfortable and takes longer than an uber (unless traffic is really shitty). i'm pretty sure that uber loses money on me. oh well.
Pretty sure Uber is just losing money hoping to drive taxi's out of business by simply being able to hemorrhage more money than anyone else can.
There's a fair amount of overlap in ownership between Lyft and Uber too.
|
|
|
On January 11 2018 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2018 23:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that. 8 bucks for a half hour+ trip to the airport for me. I've paid under a dollar a couple times for a 5 minute ride. I can take our metro system to the airport too - it's 2.50. however it's less comfortable and takes longer than an uber (unless traffic is really shitty). i'm pretty sure that uber loses money on me. oh well. Pretty sure Uber is just losing money hoping to drive taxi's out of business by simply being able to hemorrhage more money than anyone else can. There's a fair amount of overlap in ownership between Lyft and Uber too.
Taxis continue to mostly be a garbage business, so I feel little sympathy for their plight. Uber has its problems, but the service has been very good for me (except for the one weird Uber where the driver was telling me her previous client was probably a pimp or sex trafficker).
I don't mind. I think of it as rich people subsidizing my transportation.
|
This seems like a fake tweet, he didn't even put any random quotes around "possibly" or "illegal." I don't know why he insists she's said there's no collusion though, is that just a delusion thing on his part or more gaslighting?
|
On January 11 2018 00:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:This seems like a fake tweet, he didn't even put any random quotes around "possibly" or "illegal." I don't know why he insists she's said there's no collusion though, is that just a delusion thing on his part or more gaslighting?
Yes, think he did the same with Comey.
|
Well Jews are certainly sneaky.
|
I like how he says possibly illegal, as if he has even a clue.
|
On January 11 2018 00:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2018 23:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that. 8 bucks for a half hour+ trip to the airport for me. I've paid under a dollar a couple times for a 5 minute ride. I can take our metro system to the airport too - it's 2.50. however it's less comfortable and takes longer than an uber (unless traffic is really shitty). i'm pretty sure that uber loses money on me. oh well. Pretty sure Uber is just losing money hoping to drive taxi's out of business by simply being able to hemorrhage more money than anyone else can. There's a fair amount of overlap in ownership between Lyft and Uber too. Taxis continue to mostly be a garbage business, so I feel little sympathy for their plight. Uber has its problems, but the service has been very good for me (except for the one weird Uber where the driver was telling me her previous client was probably a pimp or sex trafficker). I don't mind. I think of it as rich people subsidizing my transportation.
Fair enough, so long as you're not going to defend the (eventually) automated cars over the people destroying them, sounds okay to me.
|
On January 11 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 00:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 11 2018 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2018 23:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that. 8 bucks for a half hour+ trip to the airport for me. I've paid under a dollar a couple times for a 5 minute ride. I can take our metro system to the airport too - it's 2.50. however it's less comfortable and takes longer than an uber (unless traffic is really shitty). i'm pretty sure that uber loses money on me. oh well. Pretty sure Uber is just losing money hoping to drive taxi's out of business by simply being able to hemorrhage more money than anyone else can. There's a fair amount of overlap in ownership between Lyft and Uber too. Taxis continue to mostly be a garbage business, so I feel little sympathy for their plight. Uber has its problems, but the service has been very good for me (except for the one weird Uber where the driver was telling me her previous client was probably a pimp or sex trafficker). I don't mind. I think of it as rich people subsidizing my transportation. Fair enough, so long as you're not going to defend the (eventually) automated cars over the people destroying them, sounds okay to me.
Someone is destroying automated cars? I have read this post 100 times and I know it is really early, but I don't think I get what you mean.
|
|
|
On January 11 2018 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2018 00:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 11 2018 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2018 23:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 10 2018 20:49 Sadist wrote:On January 10 2018 18:51 micronesia wrote:
I just paid over 11 dollars for a 1.75 mile Uber x ride to the airport. Is that even cheaper than hailing a cab? The reason why I used uber was that I ordered a driver to my front door in five minutes flat, with no prior planning. Cabs don’t provide that service typically. In the detroit area most cabs (all that ive looked into in the past) have like $15 minimum for trips like that. 8 bucks for a half hour+ trip to the airport for me. I've paid under a dollar a couple times for a 5 minute ride. I can take our metro system to the airport too - it's 2.50. however it's less comfortable and takes longer than an uber (unless traffic is really shitty). i'm pretty sure that uber loses money on me. oh well. Pretty sure Uber is just losing money hoping to drive taxi's out of business by simply being able to hemorrhage more money than anyone else can. There's a fair amount of overlap in ownership between Lyft and Uber too. Taxis continue to mostly be a garbage business, so I feel little sympathy for their plight. Uber has its problems, but the service has been very good for me (except for the one weird Uber where the driver was telling me her previous client was probably a pimp or sex trafficker). I don't mind. I think of it as rich people subsidizing my transportation. Fair enough, so long as you're not going to defend the (eventually) automated cars over the people destroying them, sounds okay to me. Someone is destroying automated cars? I have read this post 100 times and I know it is really early, but I don't think I get what you mean.
I'm equally or at least similarly confused. I would love an automated car, personally.
|
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef.
|
On January 11 2018 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So an overwhelming number of the less than needed jobs that have been created have been with things similar to uber. Where at the moment, there's not a cost effective alternative to employing humans.
Automating those jobs mean those people will be wholly dependent on a shrinking safety net. As more and more people are left further and further behind in the US economy they'll turn to attacking the people (or objects in this case) that took their livelihoods.
So middlings like the successful people here will have to make a choice. Are they going to side with the people protecting the cars or the people destroying them?
So long as you're not anticipating protecting cars from the people left behind sure, take the subsidized ride. But if they are going to convince you it's better those people die than your ride, we got beef.
Ah, you're saying a Luddite-like movement is inevitable.
|
The scope of how automated cars will impact our lives is yet to be seen. But I really doubt we are going to get to minority report levels of automated travel. My kitchen floor is not a very complex system, but we still don’t have automated cleaners that don’t require human oversight to make sure they are not throwing dog poo all over the house. My commute to work is way more complicated and involves children running across the road to school. These automated cars are going to have stark limitations because human cities are not a reliable system.
Edit: Also, mass producing things is very hard. Making a production line of automated cars that can service entire cities will be a real feat. Because not only do they need to run, but they will need to be tested to make sure they can drive themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
