3 ms·
Again, from walking to buses to airplanes, they serve the same need, to get you from one point to another. How those methods do it is independent of their purpo
by yladiz 10y ago
Again, from walking to buses to airplanes, they serve the same need, to get you from one point to another. How those methods do it is independent of their purpose, even if one is demonstrably better at serving the need. Arguably the only major difference in need is that it's not physically possible to get to some places with some methods of transportation, e.g. you cannot get from San Francisco to England using a bus.
I'm also not saying that there must be fewer options, and I'm saying there are other options, not one single option (e.g. walking). I'm saying that it's not necessary for Uber to exist because other options currently exist that fill the exact same niche, even if those other options are potentially not as efficient.
- Malician 10y agoThen most anything is not necessary. In theory, we could replace restaurants and kitchens with Soylent. I wouldn't want to do that, because food tastes good and I like having that option. On the list of things that are useful, Uber is very high.