Your concerns are valid. However, you probably have no concern for safety, such as a small young female might. I've known a girl who was robbed a gunpoint when she pulled out a $100 bill in a taxi. It was anonymous, there's no record, etc. I personally had a $20 pulled out of my hands when myself, a male, and another male, were arguing about how to split the fare. Fucker just took it and ran. I'm sure there's tens of thousands of more stories you've never heard because taxis are anonymous.
Now, on the other hand, it was international news when an assault on a female happened in India by an Uber driver, where there was a complete record of it, and the driver was arrested.
I can see your argument, but I don't think it practically applies here. If Uber drivers are suffering in respects to their rights as compared to taxi drivers, then why don't they just become taxi drivers?
What do social accomplishments have to do with it? Mind you, I'm actually envious of your social accomplishments, especially in the Scandanavian countries. I think they're a model for the entire world, including the US. But what does Uber have to do with those? If you don't want to use Uber, and the entire society doesn't want to use Uber, then don't use it!
Uber threatening a system which the people like is nothing to welcome.
I don't understand the Europeans who dislike Uber and get bent out of shape by it in comparison to their already existing taxis that they're perfectly happy with. If Europeans don't want to use Uber, then they don't have to use it! It's simple; don't use them, let their business fail, and BAM, they'll be gone. It's not like they're coming along and forcing people to download the app.
They are not competitive, at least no more than someone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer must get professional accreditation to be able to practice.
Drivers have to get the same accreditation to drive as you or I. We both have to have accreditation to drive both ourselves AND to drive other people in our cars. I don't buy the argument that it takes more accreditation, or at least anything more than trivially more accreditation (maybe something about how to deal with handicap people or what not).
> by law a taxi cannot refuse to drive you just because it's close by and he would prefer to wait for a higher fare customer
I've been asked to get out of a taxi because of this, even though it's not legal. With Uber, they're not allowed and it's tracked by a system unlike anonymous taxi drivers.
> If you "disrupt" something that works reasonably well, you are acting destructively.
They didn't actively do anything to anyone. They just started providing a new service. Nobody has to use them. They passed no laws. They didn't talk to any other taxi drivers. In this passive sense, they are only improving something that already worked reasonably well.
> Maybe Uber is cheaper, but it is not as transparent or fair with its various surcharges and basically auction system. I'd rather know I will spend 20â to get to the airport than leave it up to chance and maybe today I'm lucky and pay only 15 - or maybe 30, who knows?
You don't understand how it works. There's no chance involved. The prices are precise by time and distance. It may be "chance" in the sense that if you've never taken a ride in that distance you may not know, but the same thing would happen with a taxi. You know about surge pricing up front. If there is a "x2.3" surge price, you actually have to type the numbers "23" into your phone before a request goes through. And you're not admitting the hard truth which all people who use taxis have to deal with (god forbid you had to use one on New Year's Eve!). If there really is a surge in demand, don't bet on a taxi arriving after calling dispatch. I've dealt with this about 20 times. I literally drove once while pretty drunk just because I couldn't get the taxi. NEVER would happen if the taxi companies provided the service Uber does. On a final side note, Uber provides a fixed-price from airports in many cities as well.
First of all, your comment doesn't make sense in the discussion about Android; the server implementation is not what Android does.
Second of all, Java is a very fast language, right underneath C,C++,D family languages. For one example, see https://attractivechaos.github.... It is generally 2-4x faster than C#. You can google "language speed benchmarks" for many more examples if you want.
One example: C 1.0 D 1.1 Java 1.7 C# 3.8 Python 4.4 Ruby 71.1 R 999.9
Languages are good or bad based on how easy it is create good quality source code (semantically clear, maintainable, concise, etc).
Well said. This is why many intelligent people dislike C++.
There can be countless almost religious arguments about the merits of a language. Most of it is anecdotal experience they've had with bad projects they've worked on. I've seen terrible Java and C++, and I've seen great ones as well.
The conversation is about Uber and how it's a magnitude better than taxi services. It is, hands down. That's why people are taking them instead of taxis. Nobody gives a shit about shareholders and American corporations when they're trying to get an affordable ride home quickly.
Lyft is a solid competitor that is beating Uber in many American markets such as Atlanta, GA. There is also Sidecar, which I used for a whole year, but they failed. So, yeah, there is some healthy competitiveness going on in the free market.
Lyft is doing quite well. In many markets, such as Atlanta, GA, USA, it is the preferred service. In San Francisco, almost everyone uses both Lyft and Uber depending on the arrival times and surge pricing.
From the perspective of the 'Murcan, democracy is broken in the EU because there are (usually) more than 2 political parties. The UK being the most non-broken democracy (to 'Murcans).
Blah, blah, blah. 'Murcans don't think that. They're either 1. educated enough to know that's not the case, or 2. not educated enough to know about EU political parties.
I did not use Uber for a long time because a few things happened to me that lost their trust. Luckily there was Lyft and Sidecar. Now Uber has regained my business through many reasons, such as better service, faster times, and cheaper fares. Sidecar has gone out of business. So no, it's not a monopoly.
Taxis, on the other hand, have completely lost my business. I've still used them a few times and the best they've ever done is be as good as some of my experiences with Uber/Lyft.
There is no monopoly, nor should there be. Taxi unions ARE a monopoly.
What exactly is the "shit" you speak of? At least in the US, Uber and Lyft are miles ahead of service and value to transportation than taxis. Do you mean safety standards? It's certainly safer to use an Uber instead of an anonymized taxi, it's cheaper, and the safety record (i.e. crashes, robberies, etc.) is better.
There are clearly no benefit for people in northern Europe of having it - the services it offers are already available, the taxi services usually good enough.
This is such BS. If the taxi services are good enough, then peoplewouldn't user Uber. If Uber comes along and they don't offer as "good enough" services, then it won't stay in business. Or at least people are free to choose between the two. You are far beyond reality if you think that Uber didn't provide an amazing extra value of what standard taxis provide. Now, taxis are desperately trying to catch up, the way Blockbuster tried to catch up with Netflix back when it was renting out DVDs by mail. It was too late for Blockbuster, but the taxi unions have the force of government and corruption behind them to stay in power instead of competing by providing better value.
There are many examples of the "evil" or at least detriment of free trade, but a wholeheartedly and objectively better service (Uber, and the unmentioned Lyft) which is winning in free markets is not an example of evil. It improves the quality of life of the common person who wants transportation. Oh, and I certainly bet it doesn't in some places - but if it doesn't, it's not like Uber is using the power/force of government to interdict its business upon society.
Sorry if this all sounds biting, but it needed to be said. It just irritates me to no end that Uber and Lyft are some evil corporation trying to make a buck by undermining laws. I NEVER use a taxi anymore because the quality of transportation in so many ways are so inferior. Taxis don't give a shit if you call and need them soon. There's no guarantee that they will be there, no map that says where they are, and no verification of their service before or during the transportation. Have you ever heard of someone getting attacked by ab Uber driver? Yes, you have - there was a famous case in India. There was ONE incident which made worldwide headlines. Do you realize how many times people get attacked in Taxis, or their lives are endangered? Do you think my friend who was robbed at gunpoint ever made headlines? No, you didn't. I personally have had a $20 bill stolen out of my hands by a taxi driver. Yeah sure this is all anecdotal evidence, but it really happened. That shit doesn't happen in Uber or Lyft. They provide a service which is cash free, safe(r) due to the electronic monitoring involved, faster, and cheaper.
So yeah, I'm really pissed that people say it's just a taxi service without paying their dues. It's not - it's a revolutionarily better transportation service and has improved so many people's quality of lives.
Sure, it's a stupid fucking waste to pay $55k/year for Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies. You're ignoring the fact that there is a predatory industry in higher education that promises people better lives and suckers them by equating themselves with the other institutions which DO give better lives through higher education, but are in fact a for-profit money-making industry.
The fact that there's actually a $55k/year industry which teaches Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies is the fucking problem, not the hundreds of thousands of people who are trying to better their lives and live the American dream.
No, productivity comes from more value, period. It has nothing to do with cost.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... it's the ratio of input to output, so in this case cost is the input and value is the output. However, I'm no economist.
Productivity comes from paying less for the same amount of work, wage growth means paying more for the same amount of work
Productivity comes from more value from the same amount of pay. One way to achieve productivity is from paying less from the same amount of value, another way is to pay the same for more amount of value.
For that matter, there's nothing Conservative about the GOP.
This is a perfect instance of changing the facts to fit your views. Nobody likes inconvenient truths; that's not a right- or left-wing thing. The facts and evidence say that the GOP is Conservative.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. Uber has invested in driverless-car technology.
Your concerns are valid. However, you probably have no concern for safety, such as a small young female might. I've known a girl who was robbed a gunpoint when she pulled out a $100 bill in a taxi. It was anonymous, there's no record, etc. I personally had a $20 pulled out of my hands when myself, a male, and another male, were arguing about how to split the fare. Fucker just took it and ran. I'm sure there's tens of thousands of more stories you've never heard because taxis are anonymous.
Now, on the other hand, it was international news when an assault on a female happened in India by an Uber driver, where there was a complete record of it, and the driver was arrested.
So, I think the pros outweigh the cons.
I can see your argument, but I don't think it practically applies here. If Uber drivers are suffering in respects to their rights as compared to taxi drivers, then why don't they just become taxi drivers?
What do social accomplishments have to do with it? Mind you, I'm actually envious of your social accomplishments, especially in the Scandanavian countries. I think they're a model for the entire world, including the US. But what does Uber have to do with those? If you don't want to use Uber, and the entire society doesn't want to use Uber, then don't use it!
Uber threatening a system which the people like is nothing to welcome.
I don't understand the Europeans who dislike Uber and get bent out of shape by it in comparison to their already existing taxis that they're perfectly happy with. If Europeans don't want to use Uber, then they don't have to use it! It's simple; don't use them, let their business fail, and BAM, they'll be gone. It's not like they're coming along and forcing people to download the app.
They are not competitive, at least no more than someone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer must get professional accreditation to be able to practice.
Drivers have to get the same accreditation to drive as you or I. We both have to have accreditation to drive both ourselves AND to drive other people in our cars. I don't buy the argument that it takes more accreditation, or at least anything more than trivially more accreditation (maybe something about how to deal with handicap people or what not).
> by law a taxi cannot refuse to drive you just because it's close by and he would prefer to wait for a higher fare customer
I've been asked to get out of a taxi because of this, even though it's not legal. With Uber, they're not allowed and it's tracked by a system unlike anonymous taxi drivers.
> If you "disrupt" something that works reasonably well, you are acting destructively.
They didn't actively do anything to anyone. They just started providing a new service. Nobody has to use them. They passed no laws. They didn't talk to any other taxi drivers. In this passive sense, they are only improving something that already worked reasonably well.
> Maybe Uber is cheaper, but it is not as transparent or fair with its various surcharges and basically auction system. I'd rather know I will spend 20â to get to the airport than leave it up to chance and maybe today I'm lucky and pay only 15 - or maybe 30, who knows?
You don't understand how it works. There's no chance involved. The prices are precise by time and distance. It may be "chance" in the sense that if you've never taken a ride in that distance you may not know, but the same thing would happen with a taxi. You know about surge pricing up front. If there is a "x2.3" surge price, you actually have to type the numbers "23" into your phone before a request goes through. And you're not admitting the hard truth which all people who use taxis have to deal with (god forbid you had to use one on New Year's Eve!). If there really is a surge in demand, don't bet on a taxi arriving after calling dispatch. I've dealt with this about 20 times. I literally drove once while pretty drunk just because I couldn't get the taxi. NEVER would happen if the taxi companies provided the service Uber does. On a final side note, Uber provides a fixed-price from airports in many cities as well.
First of all, your comment doesn't make sense in the discussion about Android; the server implementation is not what Android does.
Second of all, Java is a very fast language, right underneath C,C++,D family languages. For one example, see https://attractivechaos.github.... It is generally 2-4x faster than C#. You can google "language speed benchmarks" for many more examples if you want.
One example:
C 1.0
D 1.1
Java 1.7
C# 3.8
Python 4.4
Ruby 71.1
R 999.9
Languages are good or bad based on how easy it is create good quality source code (semantically clear, maintainable, concise, etc).
Well said. This is why many intelligent people dislike C++.
There can be countless almost religious arguments about the merits of a language. Most of it is anecdotal experience they've had with bad projects they've worked on. I've seen terrible Java and C++, and I've seen great ones as well.
It has puzzled me why reputedly intelligent people at google would handicap their platform by such an obviously slow, inefficient language.
Java is not slow. In fact, it tops the speed benchmarks, only behind the obvious winners like C, C++, and D which compile to bear bones CPU assembly.
That was a lot of vitriol. Calm down!
The conversation is about Uber and how it's a magnitude better than taxi services. It is, hands down. That's why people are taking them instead of taxis. Nobody gives a shit about shareholders and American corporations when they're trying to get an affordable ride home quickly.
Lyft is a solid competitor that is beating Uber in many American markets such as Atlanta, GA. There is also Sidecar, which I used for a whole year, but they failed. So, yeah, there is some healthy competitiveness going on in the free market.
Lyft is doing quite well. In many markets, such as Atlanta, GA, USA, it is the preferred service. In San Francisco, almost everyone uses both Lyft and Uber depending on the arrival times and surge pricing.
From the perspective of the 'Murcan, democracy is broken in the EU because there are (usually) more than 2 political parties. The UK being the most non-broken democracy (to 'Murcans).
Blah, blah, blah. 'Murcans don't think that. They're either 1. educated enough to know that's not the case, or 2. not educated enough to know about EU political parties.
Yet it is a new, even bigger monopolist.
I did not use Uber for a long time because a few things happened to me that lost their trust. Luckily there was Lyft and Sidecar. Now Uber has regained my business through many reasons, such as better service, faster times, and cheaper fares. Sidecar has gone out of business. So no, it's not a monopoly.
Taxis, on the other hand, have completely lost my business. I've still used them a few times and the best they've ever done is be as good as some of my experiences with Uber/Lyft.
There is no monopoly, nor should there be. Taxi unions ARE a monopoly.
What exactly is the "shit" you speak of? At least in the US, Uber and Lyft are miles ahead of service and value to transportation than taxis. Do you mean safety standards? It's certainly safer to use an Uber instead of an anonymized taxi, it's cheaper, and the safety record (i.e. crashes, robberies, etc.) is better.
There are clearly no benefit for people in northern Europe of having it - the services it offers are already available, the taxi services usually good enough.
This is such BS. If the taxi services are good enough, then peoplewouldn't user Uber. If Uber comes along and they don't offer as "good enough" services, then it won't stay in business. Or at least people are free to choose between the two. You are far beyond reality if you think that Uber didn't provide an amazing extra value of what standard taxis provide. Now, taxis are desperately trying to catch up, the way Blockbuster tried to catch up with Netflix back when it was renting out DVDs by mail. It was too late for Blockbuster, but the taxi unions have the force of government and corruption behind them to stay in power instead of competing by providing better value.
There are many examples of the "evil" or at least detriment of free trade, but a wholeheartedly and objectively better service (Uber, and the unmentioned Lyft) which is winning in free markets is not an example of evil. It improves the quality of life of the common person who wants transportation. Oh, and I certainly bet it doesn't in some places - but if it doesn't, it's not like Uber is using the power/force of government to interdict its business upon society.
Sorry if this all sounds biting, but it needed to be said. It just irritates me to no end that Uber and Lyft are some evil corporation trying to make a buck by undermining laws. I NEVER use a taxi anymore because the quality of transportation in so many ways are so inferior. Taxis don't give a shit if you call and need them soon. There's no guarantee that they will be there, no map that says where they are, and no verification of their service before or during the transportation. Have you ever heard of someone getting attacked by ab Uber driver? Yes, you have - there was a famous case in India. There was ONE incident which made worldwide headlines. Do you realize how many times people get attacked in Taxis, or their lives are endangered? Do you think my friend who was robbed at gunpoint ever made headlines? No, you didn't. I personally have had a $20 bill stolen out of my hands by a taxi driver. Yeah sure this is all anecdotal evidence, but it really happened. That shit doesn't happen in Uber or Lyft. They provide a service which is cash free, safe(r) due to the electronic monitoring involved, faster, and cheaper.
So yeah, I'm really pissed that people say it's just a taxi service without paying their dues. It's not - it's a revolutionarily better transportation service and has improved so many people's quality of lives.
Sure, it's a stupid fucking waste to pay $55k/year for Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies. You're ignoring the fact that there is a predatory industry in higher education that promises people better lives and suckers them by equating themselves with the other institutions which DO give better lives through higher education, but are in fact a for-profit money-making industry.
The fact that there's actually a $55k/year industry which teaches Critical Queer Trans Women's Studies is the fucking problem, not the hundreds of thousands of people who are trying to better their lives and live the American dream.
Kotlin is not Scala. Kotlin is Java 3.0.
No, productivity comes from more value, period. It has nothing to do with cost.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... it's the ratio of input to output, so in this case cost is the input and value is the output. However, I'm no economist.
Productivity comes from paying less for the same amount of work, wage growth means paying more for the same amount of work
Productivity comes from more value from the same amount of pay. One way to achieve productivity is from paying less from the same amount of value, another way is to pay the same for more amount of value.
Yet we have a job that pays 220k.
A robot can't answer questions about the drug, evaluate whether or not it's right do the patient beyond what the MD knows
Soon it will...
YOU ARE PRO BOLD.
We're stuck in a two-party system. I don't believe we'll ever get out of it in our lifetime, unless something catastrophic happens.
For that matter, there's nothing Conservative about the GOP.
This is a perfect instance of changing the facts to fit your views. Nobody likes inconvenient truths; that's not a right- or left-wing thing. The facts and evidence say that the GOP is Conservative.