I don't use Uber, and a couple of times, I got 3 physical mail advertisements in a single day, not to mention phone calls.
AFAICT, they really screwed themselves with the lies and distortions in their ad campaign. They had a petition of 65K signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and then only got 39K votes. (At a cost of well over $200 / vote.)
Austin defeated an ordinance that was forced onto the ballot by Uber and Lyft, who said "Pass our ordinance or we'll pick up our toys and go home."
This was never really about Austin. It was about teaching a lesson to other cities who might follow Austin's lead.
Uber and Lyft have backed themselves into a corner. If they leave, they'll leave an opening for other companies to come in and grow (GetMe is already here and probably salivating at the prospect); if they don't leave, they'll show other cities they can be cowed after all. So expect them to leave long enough to show other cities they mean business, but then come back with deep discounts and free rides to kill off any homegrown competition.
FWIW, it's not just about fingerprints. For example, currently, Uber and Lyft are theoretically prohibited from stopping in traffic lanes (because people die when they do that), but the proposed ordinance was going to change that because they can make more money if they inconvenience everybody else.
Your original post said "cause the loss" of. My initial post explained that when I use ad-blockers, it does not, in fact cause the loss of any revenue, because I wouldn't go to the obnoxious websites unless I could do it with an ad-blocker. Your continual disavowal of whether using ad-blockers is good or not is not on point and has nothing to do with that.
Your new assertion about cost as a verb is also not on point, because (1) as I explained, there is absolutely zero loss of revenue here, and (2) even if you view it as "the failure to gain/win something", my posts make clear that it is the inane ads, rather than the ad blocker, causing this failure.
So are you deliberately conflating "cost" with "lost revenue"? I like to know whether I'm dealing with trolls, stupidity, or simply a lack of attention.
Even if I were to stipulate that not receiving revenue might be a cost under some circumstances, under the circumstances where the ads are so obnoxious that the only way I would view the site is with an ad-blocker, then there was no revenue for them to receive anyway. Take away my ad-blocker, and I won't be visiting the site.
Believing otherwise is to think it's a cost to the farmer on the side of the road every time I drive by his truck without stopping to buy vegetables.
We are discussing revenue that they are not currently getting, and that they would still not be getting if ad-blockers didn't work (because I find the ads so annoying I wouldn't be bothered going to the site).
If that's lost revenue, they the publisher is the one who lost it and it is up to them to find it again.
Nope. Not how it works. Not getting revenue from someone who wouldn't have clicked on your link if it were full of adware (for them) is not a "cost." The actual cost is in bandwidth, etc. and is much less than beelions of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAICT, they really screwed themselves with the lies and distortions in their ad campaign. They had a petition of 65K signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and then only got 39K votes. (At a cost of well over $200 / vote.)
Where were the rest of the petitioners?
Austin defeated an ordinance that was forced onto the ballot by Uber and Lyft, who said "Pass our ordinance or we'll pick up our toys and go home."
This was never really about Austin. It was about teaching a lesson to other cities who might follow Austin's lead.
Uber and Lyft have backed themselves into a corner. If they leave, they'll leave an opening for other companies to come in and grow (GetMe is already here and probably salivating at the prospect); if they don't leave, they'll show other cities they can be cowed after all. So expect them to leave long enough to show other cities they mean business, but then come back with deep discounts and free rides to kill off any homegrown competition.
FWIW, it's not just about fingerprints. For example, currently, Uber and Lyft are theoretically prohibited from stopping in traffic lanes (because people die when they do that), but the proposed ordinance was going to change that because they can make more money if they inconvenience everybody else.
But to the extent it was about vetting drivers, don't for a minute think that Uber and Lyft are planning on cheerfully taking responsibility for the actions of their drivers anyway.
needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp.
They can say what the fuck they want, and it has whatever weight the Linux kernel devs want to assign to it.
Watch how quickly those lines get replaced, and how that guy can't get a job afterward.
That's right. Those bitches don't get a say.
IOW, Oracle is just like a woman who is weak and lacks agency and needs an SJW to take up her cause and be offended on her behalf.
Or tortious interference with the contract between you and youtube...
He was certainly famous for claiming to do that. The actual doing, not so much in some cases.
Sociology is hard. Which is why nobody does it correctly. You obviously wouldn't fare any better.
It's the sheep equivalent of mad cow disease.
In particular, an amphetamine known as Captagon might help turn people into killing machines.
Srsly?
You've come to the right website for advice!
Looks like you misspelled your username -- should be "sloooo"
Your new assertion about cost as a verb is also not on point, because (1) as I explained, there is absolutely zero loss of revenue here, and (2) even if you view it as "the failure to gain/win something", my posts make clear that it is the inane ads, rather than the ad blocker, causing this failure.
So are you deliberately conflating "cost" with "lost revenue"? I like to know whether I'm dealing with trolls, stupidity, or simply a lack of attention.
Believing otherwise is to think it's a cost to the farmer on the side of the road every time I drive by his truck without stopping to buy vegetables.
You shouldn't be giving English lessons if you read that badly.
If that's lost revenue, they the publisher is the one who lost it and it is up to them to find it again.
Hint: the solution is not technical.
Nope. Not how it works. Not getting revenue from someone who wouldn't have clicked on your link if it were full of adware (for them) is not a "cost." The actual cost is in bandwidth, etc. and is much less than beelions of dollars.
What part of "silly" do you not understand?
It may be silly of the French, but it is within their rights to tell google to leave the country or abide by the rules.
I guess Obama's miffed he missed out on the early days of cheap bitcoin mining.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Don't feed the samzentroll.