This. Can we please let certain things on a governmental, national scale EMPLOY economies of scale? There's a bridge in my own home town that needs rebuilding. Because it's not in service, I'm driving across two shitty railroad tracks both ways twice a week going to some meetings.
I've already lost one car to the cumulative damage caused by this, and I don't see local businesses setting up some sort of piggy bank to repair the bridge because the ones served by the out-of-service bridge are economically harmed by the changed traffic pattern and they're least able to take action, plus the scale of the rebuild is beyond their abilities even if regulation allowed J. Random Store to build a bridge linking a road to an interstate highway, whether or not they had the least idea how to build bridges.
Not the same issue as the healthcare, but also an infrastructure problem. We need government to do civic projects like this and take on things like national healthcare, or the things will not get done at all. It is wildly more expensive to make a 'market' out of some stuff. Certain people get rich doing it, but generally things just don't get done and we continue to decline towards cold war Soviet-level collapse. I guess communism and capitalism are so very unlike each other that they end up acting exactly the same. Only the names have changed.
You mean Sanders' policies like government intervention in the market, health care, retirement, publishing and education for the purpose of ensuring fairness, ensuring that labor gets compensated fairly, that people don't just get wealthier because they have money, that media don't smear politicians and don't lie about established science?
Those so-called "policies" sound good to you because you fail to understand that they are empty promises, and that they inevitably lead to economic disaster and worse. I'm afraid Sanders is the fascist, and like all fascists, he rises to power on a program of right wing populism.
Why yes, those policies. Most notably, government intervention in the market. At this point, I think it's empirically proven that free markets are a complete disaster in practice and lead to economic disaster and worse. I think Enron is a great poster child for deregulation, and if you don't like that example wait five minutes. As for Sanders being right wing populism, I wonder if you're suffering from wing dyslexia?
People have a tendency to go, NOOOO you can't intervene in the sacred free market, it's so much more complicated, there will be disaster and badness and it's awful and you must instead remove even MORE regulations and controls and trust in the freeness of the freeing! Because it's so very complicated and you don't understand it ACtually and just shut up and let the smart people tell you how the future will be great if you just happen to do things that will profoundly tilt things to the currently rich and powerful!
Nope, Don't trust Enron (or Uber, or Twitter) to tell you what economic disaster is. Promises are only empty when you talk yourself out of doing them. Have a listen to Nick Hanauer sometime, he might save your ass, that's a very rich person who is loudly demanding that people get a clue before society inevitably breaks out the guillotines.
And intervening in the free market is as simple as bringing down a public shooter. Hire people, give them badges and weapons, and make it their job to identify the guy who's killing less-powerful, innocent or unrelated people and remove that guy from that situation. That's civilization. The idea that in a market, which is a human invention, we can't have civilization, is a crazy dumb idea. That's where we need civilization MOST, because it matters how it works.
It's the 'cloud' paradigm, very typical of this stuff. The 'new economy' is stuff that can just GO AWAY, silently in the night. Something happens or somebody buys something or the company's just all execs and PR people, and it becomes like a Google technology millions of people lean heavily on: suddenly, just gone, nobody to talk to about that.
'Disruptive', no?
Twitter could just go away, and a bunch of Slashdotters would snark that nothing of value was lost. Not quite true. The real take-away point is that in the new economy, nothing of value is being made. It's shared fantasy sucking up all the capital that otherwise would have to go find real work.
Ah, very very good point. Cloud/internets things don't HAVE to employ people at all, just machines.
Which speaks to Twitter and cloud-based corporations not nearly as much as it speaks to the stock market in general.
If it's nothing but a brainless stampede to what has the best valuation, it raises the question of 'is the highest valuation of a public corporation reserved for those that destroy all human resources leaving only capital itself and a bunch of cloud computers?'
If humans do not think so, then when computers take over winning in the stock market, will they be more likely or less likely to make fellow computers with no human involvement win in the stock market and wipe out everything else?
Weird kind of 'singularity', using the mechanisms of capitalism as economic warfare against humans themselves. Weirder that humans themselves are starting that tactic. I'm prepared to bet that massive layoffs will still be good for the stock price.
So wait. Not only does Uber choose to commandeer Slashdot at every opportunity to spout off how great it is through increasingly vehement sockpuppet ACs and the pushing of clickbait articles, it ALSO feels the need to pull you aside and fill you in on its paranoid fantasies?
Man, 'corporate personhood' is weird. This is distinctly a personality that's consistent and recognizable. Just yeah.
Excuse me, Uber. I think I see somebody over there that I know D:
This has been standard operating procedure in a number of controversial industries: the critic Film Crit Hulk is on record as saying when he was a student of oceanography he was offered cash money, straight up, to write anti-global-warming papers. We only hear about this stuff when someone turns it down for whatever reason.
If you want a real mindfuck, try looking up what sucralose is.
Stuff messes with my head like a psychotropic drug and gives my Mom diarrhea to the point that she avoids it, and this is an old lady who trusts ALL medicines and food additives implicitly and yet this one she shies away from, due to bad experiences.
Use that science and chemistry background to tell you whether you're familiar with sucralose, go on. It's in EVERYTHING these days. It's in stuff that's already loaded with sugar and HFCS. Read labels and then read what the stuff is.
More like the high cost of medallions is the free market assigning value.
Back when there was no limit on the number of taxis, there was thirty thousand taxis in New York, all breaking down and crappy. The medallions are literally about fixing the number of taxis, because when the free market decided how many taxis there should be, it clogged all the streets with taxis and New York City broke.
I realize it's a scary and new thought that the free market can cough up a totally wrong answer, but that's what happened. More often than not, the free market coughs up a hairball rather than an optimal answer, mostly because it cannot cope with externalities: it's short-term like the stock market.
How many times do we have to go through this nonsense? I'll give you this, however, it's good at 'disrupting'. Too bad that's not long-term useful.
Taxi medallions costing hundreds of thousands of dollars aren't an idea, they're the free market. If you don't like it, that might be a hint that you've learned something about the free market, and don't like that as much as you thought. It's nothing more than the natural setting of a price for a situation that's otherwise restricted. From Slate:
Things weren't always this way. When New York City first issued taxi medallions in 1937, they were just licenses, worth $150 in today’s terms. In the years after, life was pretty good for cabbies, as it was for many low-skill employees in postwar America. Some drivers owned their cabs. The rest were unionized employees who worked on commission and received a full slate of employee benefits.
Crucially, the owners were in the taxi business and took on the risk that entailed. If gas prices went up, that came out of the owners’ pockets. If drivers had a bad shift, the owners did too.
All that began to change in 1979. That year, New York’s Taxi and Limousine Commission changed its rules to allow medallions to be leased out for 12-hour shifts, making cabdrivers “independent contractors” under federal labor laws. The move cost such drivers their benefits, but the real fallout was far more profound. Even for medallion owners who operated their own taxi fleets, the economic value of the right to pick up fares was now severed from the value of actually doing so.
Uber is nothing more than a replacement medallion system in which capital interests lobby the system to get what they want. It hangs the drivers out to dry as much as Great Depression taxicabs ever did, and replaces private medallion ownership as a speculative investment with corporate market domination as a mode of disruption. It's not an alternative to the medallion system, it's a consolidation and doubling down of the mechanisms that made the medallion system what it is.
People working as musicians and sound engineers know 'sharing culture' as 'we will never get paid again, because mp3s replaced all the superior media people used to pay money to have'. These things cut various ways, and while your classic Stallman type 'code ideas are free' sharing is clearly about promoting understanding and collective knowledge for the betterment of all, in a capitalist system that is only one of many values to be weighed.
Get rid of money and you'll see 'sharing culture'. Using 'sharing culture' to help a psychotic corporation obliterate the world's applecart as far as livery services, is an exploit and has nothing to do with the 'collective knowledge' thing anymore.
Yes, indeed it is. Uber will be able to sue Germany, and so on, and countries will not get to function democratically and make their own rules within their borders.
Uber clearly is getting a running head-start on how they'll act on that day, which is predictable.
I doubt they'll do the most damage, but it's fascinating to see how libertarian fantasies of 'disrupt everything!' play out in reality.
I suppose that depends on whether you consider there is ANY utility to the concept of the common good.
If you totally abandon that idea and make everything about self-interest, then naturally you will see all decisions as an expression of some self-interested person's taking advantage, or alternately see them as insane, unpredictable and rather scary.
If you consider that there can be ANY sort of a common or collective good, then the concept of illegality isn't too difficult. It's like murder: in some sense, somebody is unreasonably imposed upon by somebody else's whim or convenience. We call that 'crime' or 'illegal' because collectively we think it's bad to leave that up to people's individual whims, because people can be crazy or severely impaired or form weird, unreasonable ideas.
like 'illegal because someone in power isn't getting a little extra jingle in their pockets because of it'.
To a working musician, you are a Somali pirate. The internet disrupted commercial music composition and performance so much that it's now useless to get involved in unless you're a hobbyist. Pre-internet, if you knew what you were doing you could earn a living nearly as good as a skilled accountant, but those days are gone.
The same is happening to computer games thanks to disruptive technologies such as game development kits (think Unity and Unreal Engine) that democratize those forms of creation.
Again: cry buggy whip makers all you want, provided you can either come up with that Star Trek future where everybody's fed and housed with replicators, or alternately abandon competitive economic models such as market capitalism and go with something like Basic Income so money turns into purely a means for a human to express its wishes, whatever they might be.
If you both disrupt everything not nailed down, AND run a market capitalist economy that punishes losers to make them fight harder, you're evil. You're setting up a Hunger Games thing where you're trying to kill off the unfit, but the definition of 'unfit' is insanely broad and will catch nearly everybody in time.
Because it's a lot easier to disrupt than to build. Disrupting is not the hard thing. Vandalism is disruptive, but nobody (usually) gets all giddy about that.
I think the word you're having trouble with is 'customer'. Consider, if you can, the idea that for nearly any concievable corporation, the rest of the people in the world are not in any sense 'customers'. They're what's technically called 'bystanders'.
Carry on like that and you'll be calling yourself Google's, or Facebook's 'customer' when in fact you are their 'product'.
Strangely it also takes money out of the US economy, even though they're based in the US. Globalization, you know. The money might live in Ireland or somewhere, like with Apple.
Competition can lead to pyrrhic victory. Perfectly streamlined competition with the widest possible net of competitors ALWAYS leads to pyrrhic victory.
If there's a special case where somebody is willing to throw their life away to be the victor and stomp all their enemies, competition will find that person and put them in a position to trash everything around them, give too much, and 'win' unsustainably and uselessly.
Darn right regulation is about restricting competition, because civilization and 'law of the jungle' don't get along. It's almost always possible to cosh some poor bugger and gain competitive advantage, but it doesn't benefit society when everybody's going around with massive head injuries.
I mean, look at the USA. Do you want to be like them?!?:)
Google Pinkertons. Historically, companies can have you killed if they like. Absolutely they can take away your right to drive your car if they can have you killed.
Thanks, bro. They're reading this and you're proposing extortion, which they are totally fine with. You've just given them more weapons.
I'm rooting for the Aussies, because this is stupid. Every other industry I've seen 'disrupted' in this way has ended in a race to the bottom and ceasing to even be an industry anymore.
The only way I'll buy this 'Uber disruptiveness uber alles' foolishness is if you go full Star Trek and abolish money. Everyone, ride free everywhere you want to go, on Uber's well, there are no dimes anymore. With Uber's blessing!
Failing that, you're just a bunch of Somali pirates. The end game is either Trek utopia, or a mind-mangling dystopia of total surveillance and techno-feudalism, with nearly everybody on the planet as the serfs.
Assuming humans even count as people! Imagine if AI begins running corporations this way. Very quickly humans will be outclassed and the only people with money will be literally thinking corporations. And they don't need to drive anywhere, so goodbye Uber.
We used to refer to these as 'Enron'. Failure is not quite the term for it, things can fail quietly.
To 'Enron' means, crank up a corporate culture full of libertarian bravado breaking all the rules you can in order to build a valuation bubble that you use to push things harder and harder until somebody significant gets caught in a position they can't weasel out of, for whatever reason.
At that point, the top bosses first tell all their employees to buy all the stock they can get their hands on, and then as the thing begins to collapse, lock the employees out of transactions (still not sure how Enron managed that but it's on record they did) while the bosses dump all their stock, driving the price to a hundredth or a thousandth of what it was by the time the employees and regular investors can bail out.
Uber will be doing this too, the only question is when and why. Maybe the new velocity of information will cause these 'unicorns' (as a unicorn fancier, I'm offended and suggest 'Enrons' as a more suitable monicker) to pop quicker?
"Enroned"? That's where we first heard of 'rank and yank'. We can say IT departments are trying to avoid getting Enroned: obliterated by a thing made of market capitalization that embodies toxic and perverse outcomes, destined to be spectacularly self-destroyed after doing incalculable damage to society.
Uber is Enron redux, complete with rewriting the rules to its own benefit, completely dependent on its own valuation to continue cancerously expanding or blow up. It'd probably be better for everybody if it blew up or got blown up quickly, rather than spawning a whole class of 'unicorn' act-alikes.
Terrorists 'disrupt'. This whole twist on advanced-stage capitalism is perverse as hell.
Slashdot Mirror
This. Can we please let certain things on a governmental, national scale EMPLOY economies of scale? There's a bridge in my own home town that needs rebuilding. Because it's not in service, I'm driving across two shitty railroad tracks both ways twice a week going to some meetings.
I've already lost one car to the cumulative damage caused by this, and I don't see local businesses setting up some sort of piggy bank to repair the bridge because the ones served by the out-of-service bridge are economically harmed by the changed traffic pattern and they're least able to take action, plus the scale of the rebuild is beyond their abilities even if regulation allowed J. Random Store to build a bridge linking a road to an interstate highway, whether or not they had the least idea how to build bridges.
Not the same issue as the healthcare, but also an infrastructure problem. We need government to do civic projects like this and take on things like national healthcare, or the things will not get done at all. It is wildly more expensive to make a 'market' out of some stuff. Certain people get rich doing it, but generally things just don't get done and we continue to decline towards cold war Soviet-level collapse. I guess communism and capitalism are so very unlike each other that they end up acting exactly the same. Only the names have changed.
Those so-called "policies" sound good to you because you fail to understand that they are empty promises, and that they inevitably lead to economic disaster and worse. I'm afraid Sanders is the fascist, and like all fascists, he rises to power on a program of right wing populism.
Why yes, those policies. Most notably, government intervention in the market. At this point, I think it's empirically proven that free markets are a complete disaster in practice and lead to economic disaster and worse. I think Enron is a great poster child for deregulation, and if you don't like that example wait five minutes. As for Sanders being right wing populism, I wonder if you're suffering from wing dyslexia?
People have a tendency to go, NOOOO you can't intervene in the sacred free market, it's so much more complicated, there will be disaster and badness and it's awful and you must instead remove even MORE regulations and controls and trust in the freeness of the freeing! Because it's so very complicated and you don't understand it ACtually and just shut up and let the smart people tell you how the future will be great if you just happen to do things that will profoundly tilt things to the currently rich and powerful!
Nope, Don't trust Enron (or Uber, or Twitter) to tell you what economic disaster is. Promises are only empty when you talk yourself out of doing them. Have a listen to Nick Hanauer sometime, he might save your ass, that's a very rich person who is loudly demanding that people get a clue before society inevitably breaks out the guillotines.
And intervening in the free market is as simple as bringing down a public shooter. Hire people, give them badges and weapons, and make it their job to identify the guy who's killing less-powerful, innocent or unrelated people and remove that guy from that situation. That's civilization. The idea that in a market, which is a human invention, we can't have civilization, is a crazy dumb idea. That's where we need civilization MOST, because it matters how it works.
It's the 'cloud' paradigm, very typical of this stuff. The 'new economy' is stuff that can just GO AWAY, silently in the night. Something happens or somebody buys something or the company's just all execs and PR people, and it becomes like a Google technology millions of people lean heavily on: suddenly, just gone, nobody to talk to about that.
'Disruptive', no?
Twitter could just go away, and a bunch of Slashdotters would snark that nothing of value was lost. Not quite true. The real take-away point is that in the new economy, nothing of value is being made. It's shared fantasy sucking up all the capital that otherwise would have to go find real work.
For God's sake don't give them ideas o_O
Ah, very very good point. Cloud/internets things don't HAVE to employ people at all, just machines.
Which speaks to Twitter and cloud-based corporations not nearly as much as it speaks to the stock market in general.
If it's nothing but a brainless stampede to what has the best valuation, it raises the question of 'is the highest valuation of a public corporation reserved for those that destroy all human resources leaving only capital itself and a bunch of cloud computers?'
If humans do not think so, then when computers take over winning in the stock market, will they be more likely or less likely to make fellow computers with no human involvement win in the stock market and wipe out everything else?
Weird kind of 'singularity', using the mechanisms of capitalism as economic warfare against humans themselves. Weirder that humans themselves are starting that tactic. I'm prepared to bet that massive layoffs will still be good for the stock price.
So wait. Not only does Uber choose to commandeer Slashdot at every opportunity to spout off how great it is through increasingly vehement sockpuppet ACs and the pushing of clickbait articles, it ALSO feels the need to pull you aside and fill you in on its paranoid fantasies?
Man, 'corporate personhood' is weird. This is distinctly a personality that's consistent and recognizable. Just yeah.
Excuse me, Uber. I think I see somebody over there that I know D:
This has been standard operating procedure in a number of controversial industries: the critic Film Crit Hulk is on record as saying when he was a student of oceanography he was offered cash money, straight up, to write anti-global-warming papers. We only hear about this stuff when someone turns it down for whatever reason.
That or it's a revenue source.
But that would imply it's about ethics in linux kernel journalism ;)
They are CELLPHONE CARRIERS. They can't talk to each other?
Is there a 'death' option? I suppose 'cake' is RIGHT OUT D:
If you want a real mindfuck, try looking up what sucralose is.
Stuff messes with my head like a psychotropic drug and gives my Mom diarrhea to the point that she avoids it, and this is an old lady who trusts ALL medicines and food additives implicitly and yet this one she shies away from, due to bad experiences.
Use that science and chemistry background to tell you whether you're familiar with sucralose, go on. It's in EVERYTHING these days. It's in stuff that's already loaded with sugar and HFCS. Read labels and then read what the stuff is.
More like the high cost of medallions is the free market assigning value.
Back when there was no limit on the number of taxis, there was thirty thousand taxis in New York, all breaking down and crappy. The medallions are literally about fixing the number of taxis, because when the free market decided how many taxis there should be, it clogged all the streets with taxis and New York City broke.
I realize it's a scary and new thought that the free market can cough up a totally wrong answer, but that's what happened. More often than not, the free market coughs up a hairball rather than an optimal answer, mostly because it cannot cope with externalities: it's short-term like the stock market.
How many times do we have to go through this nonsense? I'll give you this, however, it's good at 'disrupting'. Too bad that's not long-term useful.
Taxi medallions costing hundreds of thousands of dollars aren't an idea, they're the free market. If you don't like it, that might be a hint that you've learned something about the free market, and don't like that as much as you thought. It's nothing more than the natural setting of a price for a situation that's otherwise restricted. From Slate:
Uber is nothing more than a replacement medallion system in which capital interests lobby the system to get what they want. It hangs the drivers out to dry as much as Great Depression taxicabs ever did, and replaces private medallion ownership as a speculative investment with corporate market domination as a mode of disruption. It's not an alternative to the medallion system, it's a consolidation and doubling down of the mechanisms that made the medallion system what it is.
People working as musicians and sound engineers know 'sharing culture' as 'we will never get paid again, because mp3s replaced all the superior media people used to pay money to have'. These things cut various ways, and while your classic Stallman type 'code ideas are free' sharing is clearly about promoting understanding and collective knowledge for the betterment of all, in a capitalist system that is only one of many values to be weighed.
Get rid of money and you'll see 'sharing culture'. Using 'sharing culture' to help a psychotic corporation obliterate the world's applecart as far as livery services, is an exploit and has nothing to do with the 'collective knowledge' thing anymore.
Yes, indeed it is. Uber will be able to sue Germany, and so on, and countries will not get to function democratically and make their own rules within their borders.
Uber clearly is getting a running head-start on how they'll act on that day, which is predictable.
I doubt they'll do the most damage, but it's fascinating to see how libertarian fantasies of 'disrupt everything!' play out in reality.
I suppose that depends on whether you consider there is ANY utility to the concept of the common good.
If you totally abandon that idea and make everything about self-interest, then naturally you will see all decisions as an expression of some self-interested person's taking advantage, or alternately see them as insane, unpredictable and rather scary.
If you consider that there can be ANY sort of a common or collective good, then the concept of illegality isn't too difficult. It's like murder: in some sense, somebody is unreasonably imposed upon by somebody else's whim or convenience. We call that 'crime' or 'illegal' because collectively we think it's bad to leave that up to people's individual whims, because people can be crazy or severely impaired or form weird, unreasonable ideas.
like 'illegal because someone in power isn't getting a little extra jingle in their pockets because of it'.
To a working musician, you are a Somali pirate. The internet disrupted commercial music composition and performance so much that it's now useless to get involved in unless you're a hobbyist. Pre-internet, if you knew what you were doing you could earn a living nearly as good as a skilled accountant, but those days are gone.
The same is happening to computer games thanks to disruptive technologies such as game development kits (think Unity and Unreal Engine) that democratize those forms of creation.
Again: cry buggy whip makers all you want, provided you can either come up with that Star Trek future where everybody's fed and housed with replicators, or alternately abandon competitive economic models such as market capitalism and go with something like Basic Income so money turns into purely a means for a human to express its wishes, whatever they might be.
If you both disrupt everything not nailed down, AND run a market capitalist economy that punishes losers to make them fight harder, you're evil. You're setting up a Hunger Games thing where you're trying to kill off the unfit, but the definition of 'unfit' is insanely broad and will catch nearly everybody in time.
Because it's a lot easier to disrupt than to build. Disrupting is not the hard thing. Vandalism is disruptive, but nobody (usually) gets all giddy about that.
I think the word you're having trouble with is 'customer'. Consider, if you can, the idea that for nearly any concievable corporation, the rest of the people in the world are not in any sense 'customers'. They're what's technically called 'bystanders'.
Carry on like that and you'll be calling yourself Google's, or Facebook's 'customer' when in fact you are their 'product'.
However, nice try!
Strangely it also takes money out of the US economy, even though they're based in the US. Globalization, you know. The money might live in Ireland or somewhere, like with Apple.
Competition can lead to pyrrhic victory. Perfectly streamlined competition with the widest possible net of competitors ALWAYS leads to pyrrhic victory.
If there's a special case where somebody is willing to throw their life away to be the victor and stomp all their enemies, competition will find that person and put them in a position to trash everything around them, give too much, and 'win' unsustainably and uselessly.
Darn right regulation is about restricting competition, because civilization and 'law of the jungle' don't get along. It's almost always possible to cosh some poor bugger and gain competitive advantage, but it doesn't benefit society when everybody's going around with massive head injuries.
I mean, look at the USA. Do you want to be like them?!? :)
Google Pinkertons. Historically, companies can have you killed if they like. Absolutely they can take away your right to drive your car if they can have you killed.
Thanks, bro. They're reading this and you're proposing extortion, which they are totally fine with. You've just given them more weapons.
I'm rooting for the Aussies, because this is stupid. Every other industry I've seen 'disrupted' in this way has ended in a race to the bottom and ceasing to even be an industry anymore.
The only way I'll buy this 'Uber disruptiveness uber alles' foolishness is if you go full Star Trek and abolish money. Everyone, ride free everywhere you want to go, on Uber's well, there are no dimes anymore. With Uber's blessing!
Failing that, you're just a bunch of Somali pirates. The end game is either Trek utopia, or a mind-mangling dystopia of total surveillance and techno-feudalism, with nearly everybody on the planet as the serfs.
Assuming humans even count as people! Imagine if AI begins running corporations this way. Very quickly humans will be outclassed and the only people with money will be literally thinking corporations. And they don't need to drive anywhere, so goodbye Uber.
+1000 insightful. That's literally what that trade agreement is about.
We used to refer to these as 'Enron'. Failure is not quite the term for it, things can fail quietly.
To 'Enron' means, crank up a corporate culture full of libertarian bravado breaking all the rules you can in order to build a valuation bubble that you use to push things harder and harder until somebody significant gets caught in a position they can't weasel out of, for whatever reason.
At that point, the top bosses first tell all their employees to buy all the stock they can get their hands on, and then as the thing begins to collapse, lock the employees out of transactions (still not sure how Enron managed that but it's on record they did) while the bosses dump all their stock, driving the price to a hundredth or a thousandth of what it was by the time the employees and regular investors can bail out.
Uber will be doing this too, the only question is when and why. Maybe the new velocity of information will cause these 'unicorns' (as a unicorn fancier, I'm offended and suggest 'Enrons' as a more suitable monicker) to pop quicker?
"Enroned"? That's where we first heard of 'rank and yank'. We can say IT departments are trying to avoid getting Enroned: obliterated by a thing made of market capitalization that embodies toxic and perverse outcomes, destined to be spectacularly self-destroyed after doing incalculable damage to society.
Uber is Enron redux, complete with rewriting the rules to its own benefit, completely dependent on its own valuation to continue cancerously expanding or blow up. It'd probably be better for everybody if it blew up or got blown up quickly, rather than spawning a whole class of 'unicorn' act-alikes.
Terrorists 'disrupt'. This whole twist on advanced-stage capitalism is perverse as hell.