So there is no way to increase their revenue/profit by denying claims.
Yes, there is.
Let's say that the sweet spot for funding this insurance requires a premium of $100 a month, but that your market research indicates that if you sell premiums for $70 a month, that you'll get 10 times as many customers. This will incentivize you to deny claims.
Also, another thing you could do is to simply overinflate any claims made by your family or your friends. So your incentive would be to deny claims, so that there would be money left over for your friends/family's overinflated/fake claims.
Even on my large desktop computer, those boxes can be annoying as hell.
If you want to keep them on iOS, be my guest. I certainly don't want them on anything that I watch. Just having a toggle to turn them off permanently would be a big win. In any case, I am glad that they chose to make them go away entirely (on new videos).
I'm just worried that the replacement feature of using cards doesn't get as abused, or as annoying, as this one.
Now Google just needs to require manufacturers to add the following feature to Android phones.
Every time the video recorder is turned on and not turned horizontal within 5 seconds, the person holding the phone should receive a small electrical shock. Not a big shock mind you, a small shock that is strong enough to modify the behavior, but small enough that it doesn't drain the battery too much.
I would even be willing to concede that this feature should be disabled when the phone is in power-saving mode.
All because some little shit stain and their parents decided that it was a good idea to have their kid out in public while infectious.
Is this speculation on your part, or do you know this for a fact?
Because chickenpox can be contagious before you show any symptom.
1. Chickenpox can sneak in without any symptoms. You may be contagious even before you know you have chickenpox. But, the time you are most contagious is probably the first few days after the "pox" appear.
Nowadays, some people install up to seven instant messengers to be able to keep up with various circles of people.
Having different buckets for different circles of people is a feature, not a bug.
From the perspective of an advertiser (or governments), having all my coworkers, bosses, family members, sexual pursuits, friends, hobby-related friends, fake farmville friends, share the same platform would be a huge boon, but to me, as an individual user, it wouldn't be.
Plus, there is also the fact that on Android at least, I can access the same base of messages and contacts through different clients if desired, thus avoiding unnecessary duplication. So sometimes, it's just a question of turning on the right UI for the job.
It's not genius, but you can't argue with results.
Yes, you can.
Results can certainly be the results of other factors. A CEO shouldn't be judged in a bubble devoid of context.
The existing economy, the success of competitors, prior conditions, prior success of the company, etc. There could be a thousand different reasons not related to the CEO's performance that could affect the results of his/her company under his/her watch.
And if you want to give Marissa Mayer the benefit of the doubt, give it to her because the company she inherited wasn't doing that well in the first place (except for its Alibaba and Yahoo Japan stock).
Of course some will label my opinion as "women in technology bashing."
Marissa Mayer is the real anti-feminist. She banned working from home. At the same time, she got a special nursery built for her office at the expense of the company for her own four-months-old. And there was certainly never any talk of building nurseries for the other Yahoo workers that needed them.
The lesson here is that if you're going to require employees to sacrifice a previous benefit they've had, you better suck it up yourself, use your overinflated personal income to hire a couple of nannies, and at least pretend on the surface that you're sacrificing at the same level that they are.
Not doing so just created an environment where your own employees just became apathetic worker bees, which would partially explain the 2014 Yahoo data breach (after Mayer instituted that policy change in 2013).
I think the parent was going for "funny" karma, but that plan backfired and he got an "insightful" instead.
Both 15% share of Alibaba and 35% of Yahoo Japan are now worth a total of 41 billion dollars, and Marissa Mayer had nothing to do with either of those decisions (which both predate her).
Yes, but on a desktop computer both GoToMeeting and WebEx required you to open full sized windows before you would be able to access the associated chat room. In other words, the chat room was only secondary to the actual video/audio conferencing, and the chat room history would get reset each time there was a new meeting.
And last but not least, GoToMeeting and WebEx didn't have a super cool sounding one syllable brand name associated with that feature. Speaking of which, a cool name for that product on GoToMeeting would be Goo. And a cool name for that same product on WebEx would be Wee.
GoToMeeting and WebEx, I just saved you millions on consulting fees for finding those new product names for you. You're very welcome !
Also to make it more feasible, I think Airbus should come up with a one-seater version with a lower profile (in addition to the two-seater design it already has), plus a storage area that is only part of the lower driving module.
It should make the bottom part self-driving without the main module on top so that it can drive itself safely away from other cars/people before the main module gets flown in on top of it. For that, it should have little flags on wires just like those flat bikes have so that they are visible to other cars/trucks when driving without the main module on. And the additional storage area on the lower module would allow the lower part to go on driving errands to pick up things for its master, or simply accept package deliveries while the main module is away.
The main module should have some temporary buoyancy, but also an escape hatch, should it get accidentally dropped in water. Due to its battery limitation, I envision the flying part of the vehicle to be used for super short range flights at very low altitudes (good enough to show off to the plebs that you're rich and that you're super cool, but not enough for any serious long flight). So I imagine that rich people will primarily use them to cross bodies of water to reach their secluded homes/yachts.
To be street legal, the design should incorporate some kind of airbag system or protective frame for the passenger(s). Ideally, that airbag system should be part of the driving module and most of it should be left behind when the main module is picked up and flown away (because I assume that the kind of crashes of a flying vehicle are going to be vastly different than the crashes of a driving vehicle and of course weight becomes a very important constraint when flying).
The 1980s was 37 years ago. Your patent would have expired by now.
In any case, the article talks of a "demonstration vehicle", but really there is nothing more than a CGI movie. Is that what they're demoing at the Geneva Motor Show? A giant screen with a CGI concept on it? If so, it's highly disappointing.
I would have at least hoped for a semi-working prototype, even if it's only a one-off.
Notice I did not include public transit. Public transit is only good for people who already live sufficiently close or do not need the flexibility of traveling by car.
On a side-note, public transit should not be treated as a binary thing.
I can't speak for the Los Angeles area, but in San Francisco, the bay bridge / golden gate bridge can be significant bottlenecks during commute hours. One could try driving/ubering through all that gridlock, but the fastest way sometimes is to take the Bart/Ferry to cross the bay, and then pick up your car, or call an Uber/Lyft, to finish the last leg of your trip.
Then you have a ridiculously expensive public transportation system.
In Oakland, the ACTransit bus fare for a single ride is $2.10 for an adult. Transfers are no longer sold (this is a recent thing). But they recently added an adult day pass for $5. However, this $5 day pass won't work on Bart, nor on the SF muni, nor on the ACTransit Transbay buses.
On the other hand, a short UberX ride can cost as low as $5 and carry 4 passengers. And a short UberPool ride (in which the rider shares the car with other people he doesn't know) can cost as low as $2.40.
Think of all those innocent childrens' lives you're sparing by preventing them being run over by a drunk driver at 2am!
Maybe not children, but potentially homeless people, highway workers, other drunk people, nurses/caregivers, bartenders, security guards, taxi drivers, and other people going out at night.
And then, there is the life of the drunk driver himself or herself and/or any of passenger friends. Also, Emergency Rooms and Trauma Centers are not cheap, and so is prison too (if the drunk driver ends up killing someone). Not to mention the damage of both public and private property.
This is actually one reason I don't want to remain an Uber driver for long. I know Uber is good for consumers, and that it is good for someone who needs to find a job very quickly, but it's not really a good long-term investment for its drivers. That, I completely agree with.
I also think of Lyft the same way. Ultimately, both companies are trying to commoditize the industry. This is the same strategy Amazon itself has taken. If you can commoditize the industry and develop the economies of scale to do it, then the thinking is that no other competitor can come in and touch you.
I didn't say that Uber was necessarily going to win (especially worldwide). Right now, Lyft is actually profitable (unlike Uber), although it's much less aggressive. Plus, Lyft has China backing them, so because of that, I think it is still in the game.
Whoever is going to win will need deep pockets backing them. For instance, in my area customers have come to expect rides to show up in less 5 minutes. To get that kind of response time, a competitor would need to completely saturate an area with cars. Also, there is a lot of intelligence and analytics going into allocating different incentives and making sure that your fleet is dispersed enough so that it doesn't clump too much in certain areas depending on demand.
Also, Uber drivers are operating on razor thin margins. If an automaker gets into the fray, it will need to have the most reliable and the most fuel-efficient cars for city driving. Just to give you an example, my first month I put 5,000 miles on my car. Right now, that automaker front-runner is Toyota. And also, Uber and Lyft are burning through cars like crazy and in a way, they already have a symbiotic relationship with car manufacturers. For instance, Toyota owns a chunk of Uber already.
Did this every day from the airport -> office -> hotel -> office -> hotel..... -> airport.
I am very glad to hear that their system has been upgraded. I must admit it's been a very long time since I've taken an actual taxi. But just like me, the locals in SF have been conditioned not to depend on taxis during those hours. Plus, the fact that some taxis are now more reliable could be credited to Uber and Lyft relieving the pressure on taxi companies during those same hours.
Traditionally, the best way to get a cab before Uber/Lyft during rush hour in SF was to walk to a nice hotel with a doorman. Customers from nice hotels were more likely to tip and take longer trips. Also, the doorman would expect some cash back from the taxi driver, but at the same time, the doorman served the function of quality control, because he could blacklist taxis that he personally called on the phone, but who actually didn't show up because they picked up someone else before getting to the hotel.
With the exception of their $2,000 insurance deductible (which is the double of Uber's), I agree completely. Lyft is much less scummier company. No doubt about that. Thought, they've also be caught in undercover stings and it wouldn't surprise me if they did the same thing as Uber in this particular case as well.
These subsidies create false perceptions about transportation costs such as the one you voiced. People think Uber is doing it right and the traditional taxi companies have been doing it wrong the whole time.
This is very true, but in my opinion, even when that money runs out, I still think that Uber and Lyft will be running far more efficiently than Taxis.
Automated and reliable dispatching, LyftLine/UberPool (passengers sharing cars on the fly when they don't even know each other), crude but effective driver rating and customer reviewing system, destination filters for drivers when they want to go home (but not without passengers so they don't waste gas), elastic workforce for an elastic market,
Those are a few of the reasons I think Uber/Lyft are more efficient than taxis. Plus, there are a couple more reasons, but I would need to write a much long essay to explain (which I am not inclined to do right now).
If Uber achieves their goals, and actually invalidates existing licensing systems, then anyone else who can afford to deploy the same sort of service as Uber can simply waltz in and do that.
I used to think the same thing about Amazon when it was bleeding money in order to become the number one online bookstore. Essentially, I thought that since it was on the web, any other online bookstore could easily replace it, but I was completely wrong about that.
Customers have come to trust Amazon (even its own employees/temps/affiliates have learned to distrust it). Customer reviews, usually low prices, quick refunds, a familiar interface. Those are some of the reasons many customers still use Amazon, when they could simply be shopping on other websites.
Disclaimer: I'm currently an Uber driver and I do love driving for Uber (despite my pay being ridiculously low and which seems of getting cut every single week these past four weeks). But we're so cheap, ubiquitous, and we're run a thousand times more efficiently than taxis, that I am also quite certain that we're saving thousands of lives every day from drunk driving incidents.
I personally think there are several reasons for the bad press.
Reason #1: Our Uber CEO, Travis, is slightly autistic, immature, and has zero emotional intelligence (yes, I know, I know, I'm not a doctor, but that's my uneducated opinion at least). Plus, I can't really say that he's my CEO since I'm technically not even an employee, I'm a contractor, but that's how I feel anyhow. That's why I'll keep on calling him my CEO.
Reason #2: Travis allied himself with Trump, which explains some of the organized backlash from the left. But unlike Trump, Travis can't lie, which is also a big problem. Trump and Travis are two different extremes. Ideally, a CEO needs to be able to lie sometimes, or spin things a certain way, but Travis is incapable of doing that. His worst offense is when he gave a speech at a dinner with hundreds of journalists present.
Reason #3: Uber does employ many immigrants (although in my opinion, they all speak better English than US taxi drivers, since Uber is absolutely ruthless the way they deactivate drivers that are not up to par). And this is also why, not only Uber already has the left trying to take down Uber because of reason #2, but the right, the Trump supporters, and/or the UK Brexit voters, are also against Uber.
I am an Uber driver in the San Francisco bay area.
And I can't speak for other cities, but Uber is so cheap and ubiquitous in my area, Uber is cheaper than public transportation in many cases, it works even during rush hour when most people can't get a taxi, plus it works when Bart is shut down after midnight, that I am quite certain that we're keeping tens of thousands of drunk drivers from driving on the roads each year.
But that's the thing, Uber already has a pretty good system for weeding out non-English speakers. And if only the taxi system in the US actually copied the Uber rating system, the US taxi system would quickly get rid of its non-English speakers.
Disclaimer: I am an Uber driver in the US and I would actually financially benefit if the US copied the UK, but honestly, I believe this is a solved problem for Uber and this complaint is just a pretext. The real issue is that many people hate Uber (many Uber drivers included) and this supposed test is just a way to stick it to Uber in the UK and reduce its workforce.
Uber will have a reduced workforce. It won't be able to cover as much ground. It will take longer to get an Uber when a passenger requests one. The system will become much less reliable (like it did in France. Uber is almost useless in France right now). Many of the non-English speakers/former drivers will get themselves on the dole instead. Many drunk drivers will also return on the road. Then Northern Ireland and Wales will also demand to get in on the action by demanding that a similar test in Gaelic and in Welsh be used in their area for at least a certain percentage of Uber drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
So there is no way to increase their revenue/profit by denying claims.
Yes, there is.
Let's say that the sweet spot for funding this insurance requires a premium of $100 a month, but that your market research indicates that if you sell premiums for $70 a month, that you'll get 10 times as many customers. This will incentivize you to deny claims.
Also, another thing you could do is to simply overinflate any claims made by your family or your friends. So your incentive would be to deny claims, so that there would be money left over for your friends/family's overinflated/fake claims.
Even on my large desktop computer, those boxes can be annoying as hell.
If you want to keep them on iOS, be my guest. I certainly don't want them on anything that I watch. Just having a toggle to turn them off permanently would be a big win. In any case, I am glad that they chose to make them go away entirely (on new videos).
I'm just worried that the replacement feature of using cards doesn't get as abused, or as annoying, as this one.
Now Google just needs to require manufacturers to add the following feature to Android phones.
Every time the video recorder is turned on and not turned horizontal within 5 seconds, the person holding the phone should receive a small electrical shock. Not a big shock mind you, a small shock that is strong enough to modify the behavior, but small enough that it doesn't drain the battery too much.
I would even be willing to concede that this feature should be disabled when the phone is in power-saving mode.
It wasn't just on mobile.
Even if you had a big screen, some Youtubers would abuse them by taking way too much space with them.
All because some little shit stain and their parents decided that it was a good idea to have their kid out in public while infectious.
Is this speculation on your part, or do you know this for a fact?
Because chickenpox can be contagious before you show any symptom.
1. Chickenpox can sneak in without any symptoms. You may be contagious even before you know you have chickenpox. But, the time you are most contagious is probably the first few days after the "pox" appear.
Nowadays, some people install up to seven instant messengers to be able to keep up with various circles of people.
Having different buckets for different circles of people is a feature, not a bug.
From the perspective of an advertiser (or governments), having all my coworkers, bosses, family members, sexual pursuits, friends, hobby-related friends, fake farmville friends, share the same platform would be a huge boon, but to me, as an individual user, it wouldn't be.
Plus, there is also the fact that on Android at least, I can access the same base of messages and contacts through different clients if desired, thus avoiding unnecessary duplication. So sometimes, it's just a question of turning on the right UI for the job.
It's not genius, but you can't argue with results.
Yes, you can.
Results can certainly be the results of other factors. A CEO shouldn't be judged in a bubble devoid of context.
The existing economy, the success of competitors, prior conditions, prior success of the company, etc. There could be a thousand different reasons not related to the CEO's performance that could affect the results of his/her company under his/her watch.
And if you want to give Marissa Mayer the benefit of the doubt, give it to her because the company she inherited wasn't doing that well in the first place (except for its Alibaba and Yahoo Japan stock).
Of course some will label my opinion as "women in technology bashing."
Marissa Mayer is the real anti-feminist. She banned working from home. At the same time, she got a special nursery built for her office at the expense of the company for her own four-months-old. And there was certainly never any talk of building nurseries for the other Yahoo workers that needed them.
The lesson here is that if you're going to require employees to sacrifice a previous benefit they've had, you better suck it up yourself, use your overinflated personal income to hire a couple of nannies, and at least pretend on the surface that you're sacrificing at the same level that they are.
Not doing so just created an environment where your own employees just became apathetic worker bees, which would partially explain the 2014 Yahoo data breach (after Mayer instituted that policy change in 2013).
I think the parent was going for "funny" karma, but that plan backfired and he got an "insightful" instead.
Both 15% share of Alibaba and 35% of Yahoo Japan are now worth a total of 41 billion dollars, and Marissa Mayer had nothing to do with either of those decisions (which both predate her).
Yes, but on a desktop computer both GoToMeeting and WebEx required you to open full sized windows before you would be able to access the associated chat room. In other words, the chat room was only secondary to the actual video/audio conferencing, and the chat room history would get reset each time there was a new meeting.
And last but not least, GoToMeeting and WebEx didn't have a super cool sounding one syllable brand name associated with that feature. Speaking of which, a cool name for that product on GoToMeeting would be Goo. And a cool name for that same product on WebEx would be Wee.
GoToMeeting and WebEx, I just saved you millions on consulting fees for finding those new product names for you. You're very welcome !
Also to make it more feasible, I think Airbus should come up with a one-seater version with a lower profile (in addition to the two-seater design it already has), plus a storage area that is only part of the lower driving module.
It should make the bottom part self-driving without the main module on top so that it can drive itself safely away from other cars/people before the main module gets flown in on top of it. For that, it should have little flags on wires just like those flat bikes have so that they are visible to other cars/trucks when driving without the main module on. And the additional storage area on the lower module would allow the lower part to go on driving errands to pick up things for its master, or simply accept package deliveries while the main module is away.
The main module should have some temporary buoyancy, but also an escape hatch, should it get accidentally dropped in water. Due to its battery limitation, I envision the flying part of the vehicle to be used for super short range flights at very low altitudes (good enough to show off to the plebs that you're rich and that you're super cool, but not enough for any serious long flight). So I imagine that rich people will primarily use them to cross bodies of water to reach their secluded homes/yachts.
To be street legal, the design should incorporate some kind of airbag system or protective frame for the passenger(s). Ideally, that airbag system should be part of the driving module and most of it should be left behind when the main module is picked up and flown away (because I assume that the kind of crashes of a flying vehicle are going to be vastly different than the crashes of a driving vehicle and of course weight becomes a very important constraint when flying).
The 1980s was 37 years ago. Your patent would have expired by now.
In any case, the article talks of a "demonstration vehicle", but really there is nothing more than a CGI movie. Is that what they're demoing at the Geneva Motor Show? A giant screen with a CGI concept on it? If so, it's highly disappointing.
I would have at least hoped for a semi-working prototype, even if it's only a one-off.
Notice I did not include public transit. Public transit is only good for people who already live sufficiently close or do not need the flexibility of traveling by car.
On a side-note, public transit should not be treated as a binary thing.
I can't speak for the Los Angeles area, but in San Francisco, the bay bridge / golden gate bridge can be significant bottlenecks during commute hours. One could try driving/ubering through all that gridlock, but the fastest way sometimes is to take the Bart/Ferry to cross the bay, and then pick up your car, or call an Uber/Lyft, to finish the last leg of your trip.
Then you have a ridiculously expensive public transportation system.
In Oakland, the ACTransit bus fare for a single ride is $2.10 for an adult. Transfers are no longer sold (this is a recent thing). But they recently added an adult day pass for $5. However, this $5 day pass won't work on Bart, nor on the SF muni, nor on the ACTransit Transbay buses.
On the other hand, a short UberX ride can cost as low as $5 and carry 4 passengers. And a short UberPool ride (in which the rider shares the car with other people he doesn't know) can cost as low as $2.40.
Think of all those innocent childrens' lives you're sparing by preventing them being run over by a drunk driver at 2am!
Maybe not children, but potentially homeless people, highway workers, other drunk people, nurses/caregivers, bartenders, security guards, taxi drivers, and other people going out at night.
And then, there is the life of the drunk driver himself or herself and/or any of passenger friends. Also, Emergency Rooms and Trauma Centers are not cheap, and so is prison too (if the drunk driver ends up killing someone). Not to mention the damage of both public and private property.
Does anyone seriously think Netflix could ever operate without DRM? No DRM, no Netflix or services like it.
Does anyone seriously think DVDs could ever operate without DRM? No DRM, no DVDs or other medias like it.
Yes, those are good points as well.
This is actually one reason I don't want to remain an Uber driver for long. I know Uber is good for consumers, and that it is good for someone who needs to find a job very quickly, but it's not really a good long-term investment for its drivers. That, I completely agree with.
I also think of Lyft the same way. Ultimately, both companies are trying to commoditize the industry. This is the same strategy Amazon itself has taken. If you can commoditize the industry and develop the economies of scale to do it, then the thinking is that no other competitor can come in and touch you.
I didn't say that Uber was necessarily going to win (especially worldwide). Right now, Lyft is actually profitable (unlike Uber), although it's much less aggressive. Plus, Lyft has China backing them, so because of that, I think it is still in the game.
Whoever is going to win will need deep pockets backing them. For instance, in my area customers have come to expect rides to show up in less 5 minutes. To get that kind of response time, a competitor would need to completely saturate an area with cars. Also, there is a lot of intelligence and analytics going into allocating different incentives and making sure that your fleet is dispersed enough so that it doesn't clump too much in certain areas depending on demand.
Also, Uber drivers are operating on razor thin margins. If an automaker gets into the fray, it will need to have the most reliable and the most fuel-efficient cars for city driving. Just to give you an example, my first month I put 5,000 miles on my car. Right now, that automaker front-runner is Toyota. And also, Uber and Lyft are burning through cars like crazy and in a way, they already have a symbiotic relationship with car manufacturers. For instance, Toyota owns a chunk of Uber already.
Did this every day from the airport -> office -> hotel -> office -> hotel ..... -> airport.
I am very glad to hear that their system has been upgraded. I must admit it's been a very long time since I've taken an actual taxi. But just like me, the locals in SF have been conditioned not to depend on taxis during those hours. Plus, the fact that some taxis are now more reliable could be credited to Uber and Lyft relieving the pressure on taxi companies during those same hours.
Traditionally, the best way to get a cab before Uber/Lyft during rush hour in SF was to walk to a nice hotel with a doorman. Customers from nice hotels were more likely to tip and take longer trips. Also, the doorman would expect some cash back from the taxi driver, but at the same time, the doorman served the function of quality control, because he could blacklist taxis that he personally called on the phone, but who actually didn't show up because they picked up someone else before getting to the hotel.
With the exception of their $2,000 insurance deductible (which is the double of Uber's), I agree completely. Lyft is much less scummier company. No doubt about that. Thought, they've also be caught in undercover stings and it wouldn't surprise me if they did the same thing as Uber in this particular case as well.
Correction: I should have said "(even if its own employees/temps/affiliates have learned to distrust it)."
These subsidies create false perceptions about transportation costs such as the one you voiced. People think Uber is doing it right and the traditional taxi companies have been doing it wrong the whole time.
This is very true, but in my opinion, even when that money runs out, I still think that Uber and Lyft will be running far more efficiently than Taxis.
Automated and reliable dispatching, LyftLine/UberPool (passengers sharing cars on the fly when they don't even know each other), crude but effective driver rating and customer reviewing system, destination filters for drivers when they want to go home (but not without passengers so they don't waste gas), elastic workforce for an elastic market,
Those are a few of the reasons I think Uber/Lyft are more efficient than taxis. Plus, there are a couple more reasons, but I would need to write a much long essay to explain (which I am not inclined to do right now).
If Uber achieves their goals, and actually invalidates existing licensing systems, then anyone else who can afford to deploy the same sort of service as Uber can simply waltz in and do that.
I used to think the same thing about Amazon when it was bleeding money in order to become the number one online bookstore. Essentially, I thought that since it was on the web, any other online bookstore could easily replace it, but I was completely wrong about that.
Customers have come to trust Amazon (even its own employees/temps/affiliates have learned to distrust it). Customer reviews, usually low prices, quick refunds, a familiar interface. Those are some of the reasons many customers still use Amazon, when they could simply be shopping on other websites.
Perhaps, I can answer that question.
Disclaimer: I'm currently an Uber driver and I do love driving for Uber (despite my pay being ridiculously low and which seems of getting cut every single week these past four weeks). But we're so cheap, ubiquitous, and we're run a thousand times more efficiently than taxis, that I am also quite certain that we're saving thousands of lives every day from drunk driving incidents.
I personally think there are several reasons for the bad press.
Reason #1: Our Uber CEO, Travis, is slightly autistic, immature, and has zero emotional intelligence (yes, I know, I know, I'm not a doctor, but that's my uneducated opinion at least). Plus, I can't really say that he's my CEO since I'm technically not even an employee, I'm a contractor, but that's how I feel anyhow. That's why I'll keep on calling him my CEO.
Reason #2: Travis allied himself with Trump, which explains some of the organized backlash from the left. But unlike Trump, Travis can't lie, which is also a big problem. Trump and Travis are two different extremes. Ideally, a CEO needs to be able to lie sometimes, or spin things a certain way, but Travis is incapable of doing that. His worst offense is when he gave a speech at a dinner with hundreds of journalists present.
Reason #3: Uber does employ many immigrants (although in my opinion, they all speak better English than US taxi drivers, since Uber is absolutely ruthless the way they deactivate drivers that are not up to par). And this is also why, not only Uber already has the left trying to take down Uber because of reason #2, but the right, the Trump supporters, and/or the UK Brexit voters, are also against Uber.
I am an Uber driver in the San Francisco bay area.
And I can't speak for other cities, but Uber is so cheap and ubiquitous in my area, Uber is cheaper than public transportation in many cases, it works even during rush hour when most people can't get a taxi, plus it works when Bart is shut down after midnight, that I am quite certain that we're keeping tens of thousands of drunk drivers from driving on the roads each year.
But that's the thing, Uber already has a pretty good system for weeding out non-English speakers. And if only the taxi system in the US actually copied the Uber rating system, the US taxi system would quickly get rid of its non-English speakers.
Disclaimer: I am an Uber driver in the US and I would actually financially benefit if the US copied the UK, but honestly, I believe this is a solved problem for Uber and this complaint is just a pretext. The real issue is that many people hate Uber (many Uber drivers included) and this supposed test is just a way to stick it to Uber in the UK and reduce its workforce.
Uber will have a reduced workforce. It won't be able to cover as much ground. It will take longer to get an Uber when a passenger requests one. The system will become much less reliable (like it did in France. Uber is almost useless in France right now). Many of the non-English speakers/former drivers will get themselves on the dole instead. Many drunk drivers will also return on the road. Then Northern Ireland and Wales will also demand to get in on the action by demanding that a similar test in Gaelic and in Welsh be used in their area for at least a certain percentage of Uber drivers.