4 ms·

1. You're confusing the author's position with my own. I don't claim (and frankly don't care) whether or not taxi drivers get a better deal than Uber drivers.

1. You're confusing the author's position with my own. I don't claim (and frankly don't care) whether or not taxi drivers get a better deal than Uber drivers. The reason I don't care is that taxi service is terrible, and I consider each taxi ride I've taken to be just shy of theft ... and this in NYC, Philly, Paris, Rome, Lyon, Atlanta, Le Mans, Berlin, Moscow, Abu Dhabi, Bejing and literally every place in the world where I've had the misfortune of hailing a cab. 2. You're categorically insane if you think taxi drivers will survive the arrival of driverless cars. Until that happens, the author's points may well hold.

ThomPete 11y ago
1) I am not confusing anything. You said "we're" unless you talk about yourself in plural. I have had my fare share of cabs around the world too. To claim normal taxi in any normal city is terrible is absurd and just an attempt to pump up your position as being more rational than it is. I don't care who gets a better deal either I just know that both solutions of upsides and downsides thats it. Coming out in defence for one or the other based on what O'reily does is where it goes wrong. 2) Why the strawman? Where did I ever claim such a thing?
- omginternets 11y ago
  No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be affected by automation, but taxis would not. If you're willing to admit that both services are affected by automation, then your point about Uber welcoming automation is a red herring. Moreover, the article is a rebuttal to an argument that says "Uber = bad, because it treats the drivers unfairly". As such, evidence to the contrary invalidates that argument, even if one doesn't particularly care about driver pay.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Please point to where it implies that?
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Uber hire drivers as freelancers but treat them as employers. - Uber drivers can't hire people to drive for them. - Uber drivers can't decide which car they want to use. - Uber drivers can't decide the price they are charging their customers. - Uber discourages tipping. - Uber doesn't pay for their healthcare. Thats not a clear case of anything. Thats the opening of an important debate because it points to some underlying issues with society and technology that needs to be debated much more seriously than simply yelling "Luddite fallacy" and what people otherwise like to brush aside any concern about the speed of technology vs. societies ability to cope with it.

ThomPete 11y ago

1) I am not confusing anything. You said "we're" unless you talk about yourself in plural. I have had my fare share of cabs around the world too. To claim normal taxi in any normal city is terrible is absurd and just an attempt to pump up your position as being more rational than it is. I don't care who gets a better deal either I just know that both solutions of upsides and downsides thats it. Coming out in defence for one or the other based on what O'reily does is where it goes wrong. 2) Why the strawman? Where did I ever claim such a thing?

omginternets 11y ago
No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be affected by automation, but taxis would not. If you're willing to admit that both services are affected by automation, then your point about Uber welcoming automation is a red herring. Moreover, the article is a rebuttal to an argument that says "Uber = bad, because it treats the drivers unfairly". As such, evidence to the contrary invalidates that argument, even if one doesn't particularly care about driver pay.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Please point to where it implies that?
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Uber hire drivers as freelancers but treat them as employers. - Uber drivers can't hire people to drive for them. - Uber drivers can't decide which car they want to use. - Uber drivers can't decide the price they are charging their customers. - Uber discourages tipping. - Uber doesn't pay for their healthcare. Thats not a clear case of anything. Thats the opening of an important debate because it points to some underlying issues with society and technology that needs to be debated much more seriously than simply yelling "Luddite fallacy" and what people otherwise like to brush aside any concern about the speed of technology vs. societies ability to cope with it.