6 ms·

Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption.

by dsl 10y ago

Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators) I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can actually get killed.

goalieca 10y ago
Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
- dmix 10y ago
  It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human. > "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop driving? Or did Tesla also require a permit? From the DMV legislation: > (a) “Autonomous mode” means an autonomous vehicle, as defined by this article, that is operated or driven without active physical control by a natural person sitting in the vehicle’s driver’s seat. An autonomous vehicle is operating or driving in autonomous mode when it is operated or driven with the autonomous technology engaged. To me that sounds like it would cover what Tesla and Uber is doing if the driver is entirely hands-off. But this part is less clear: > (b)(d) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28-a2b7-03cbe213e51d/avexpressterms_93016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...
  - geofft 10y ago
    Nobody, until someone gets hurt. It's a valid political position to believe that people don't need government regulation (laws) to behave themselves, not make mistakes, and not take risks that might lead to mistakes. It's the libertarian/anarchist viewpoint, as mentioned. But that's not how the government in San Francisco, California, or the US works. Those of us who don't hold to the libertarian or anarchist positions believe that it's a good thing for laws to prohibit risky decisions that are probably going to be totally fine, if the not-fine case is particularly bad. For instance, that's why there are food inspection departments; even if you don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to poison people, there are a set of risky behaviors (not refrigerating things promptly, not washing things, etc.) that stand a small chance of getting people sick, and we believe it's worth stopping those, even if it slows down production, and even if we can't completely eliminate people getting sick.
    - dmix 10y ago
      Just to play devils advocate here. Assuming Uber gets a permit to test autonomous vehicles in public, how much risk has been mitigated as a result vs not having a permit and allowing them to continue testing? Reading the legislation, the only requirement for the permit are: - have insurance with up to $5 million - the driver has a drivers license and has "Instruction on the automated driving system technology", as well as defensive driving training Those both sound like reasonable, common-sense things to have. I'd also want a company testing their vehicle to have insurance and know how to drive their car. But at the same time if this permit didn't exist, how much less safe would the world be? Really? They're not stress testing the software, they're not analyzing the code, they aren't testing the competency of the people who built the software, etc, etc. They aren't doing any of that for a good reason. So ultimately this is mostly just theatre or an exercise in letting Uber know who the boss is. Because I highly doubt Uber doesn't have the insurance or experienced drivers. Nor do I think there will be any significant amount of tech companies wrecking havoc on California because they didn't think to buy auto insurance before starting an automobile software company, save a permit.
      - serge2k 10y ago
- danharaj 10y ago
  I don't think Uber exemplifies any sort of anarchist culture except perhaps anarchocapitalism which is an instance of the red herring principle [1]. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle
- djf1 10y ago
  And for us! Uber pool lowers prices, surge pricing increases availability. Uber would not let passengers ride in an autonomous deathtrap -- the negative publicity would be disastrous to their goals. If this is our libertarian dystopia, I welcome it with open arms.
  - astrange 10y ago
    Does surge pricing actually increase availability? There's no public evidence for it.
- ijustdontgetit 10y ago
  So I have an off topic question? I originally got into tech because I hate my life and thought that tech was this outlet that could actually make some change. I come from a world of violence and abuse and never really cared for the powers that be. Tech seemed like the answer. So my question to the people who don't feel this way: why are you in tech? Serious question. Tech only seems interesting because you can move fast. What value do you find from working in this field if you don't feel this way? If you have to work inside some system? This comes from a person who lived in an abusive household most of my life and still struggling to find something outside of QA while I work on my own projects, but I don't really get the appeal of this field if all you want is a house with kids and work within the system. It comes off as mediocre to me. So as a person reaching almost 30 who hates life the way it is and wants to see a change, please explain to me what you get out of this. Thanks for those who answer this seriously.
  - codyb 10y ago
    Sorry about your experiences. Purely anecdotal but I enjoy tech because I enjoy building things and the rabbit hole that is technology is near unendingly deep. The salaries are great, benefits are great, paid time off is great. It's hard to complain.
  - bdrool 10y ago
    I'm in tech because I'm an idealist and believe very seriously that, done right, technology can change people's lives for the better. For the record, I don't think I could be convinced work at Uber.
  - judahmeek 10y ago
    I switched from Marketing to Computer Science because I got tired of writing multiple page essays based on a few sentences out of a textbook and I wanted to be in a field of study where I was judged by what I could or couldn't do rather than by how many buzzwords I could fit in an essay. But there's plenty of other reasons to be in tech: The promise of money is almost as good as the finance industry; The ability to touch a lot of lives and improve people's quality of life is another possibility; The desire to understand technology as it exponentially permeates our lives was another aspect of my decision.
- doktrin 10y ago
  > the libertarian / anarchist subculture pls more like the greedy, callous and obnoxiously self important subculture in tech (inb4 downvotes from uber's legion of koolaid drinking fanboys & employees)
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, and please don't call names in comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  It's a gross misrepresentation to claim that ignoring (i.e., breaking) laws is considered acceptable by [generally recognized] libertarian philosophies. Even many anarchist philosophies would reject that, although not all. Perhaps the concept you're looking for is "anti-authoritarian", although it's entirely possible to be anti-authoritarian without being willing to break laws as one sees fit.
- friedman23 10y ago
  > to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. who cares?
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  > Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. You are misusing those terms, as belovedeagle pointed out. > ... will never be regarded as an engineering profession > It's like we rebelled against adulthood Who is "us"? Many, if not most, software engineers would welcome being able to refuse doing anything morally questionable. Many are unhappy about companies disregard for safety, security, privacy, respect for users. Yet, most are powerless in a world of at-will employment, H1B shackles, NDAs, and lack of professional organizations to protect those who disagree with their employer on ethical grounds.
bko 10y ago
> in light of projects where people can actually get killed. Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds. Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have progress and a thriving society.
- kyrra 10y ago
  Vision tests depend on the state. Colorado and Texas both require vision tests every X years (depends on age in some cases).
- Spivak 10y ago
  I'm going to talk about my state's perspective because what you're saying sounds like madness. > 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school The standard curriculum for 16 year old drivers is 12-16 hours of in class lecturing, 5 hours of in-car instruction with a licensed professional, a minimum of 50 hours of in-car instruction from a guardian or family member, a nuanced written test, and an hour in-car examination. That's just to get a restricted license. Until you get your real license 6 months later you have to additionally obey the following: * No passengers except for your guardian, parent, or instructor. * No driving after 11 PM. * Absolutely no cell-phone use (even hands free). * Any ticketable violation has a mandatory court appearance and will trigger a second round of more difficult driving instruction. > Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. I have terrible vision and I have had to go through the test three times; after the third time I now have to my to wear my glasses to drive. It happens every time you have to renew your license. > car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds That's a bit misleading, there isn't much else that kills young people. My point is that in situations where there is that kind of risk involved we actually to go through a lot of effort to mitigate it.
  - bko 10y ago
    That's a lot of regulations. I would think that teenage drivers are very safe. > In 2014, 2,270 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 221,313 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. In 2013, young people ages 15-19 represented only 7% of the U.S. population. However, they accounted for 11% ($10 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries. The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16-19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash. > Of the teens (aged 16-19) who died in passenger vehicle crashes in 2014 approximately 53% were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.2 Research shows that seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half Perhaps someone can pass a law mandating seatbelt use! [0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendriv... Edit: it's also misleading that you suggest that the driver must have a minimum of 50 hours of driving experience. While technically true in NY State, all the applicant has to do is provide a completed Certification of Supervised Driving (MV-262) signed by your parent or guardian and that's only for teens under 18 year olds.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by dsl 10y ago

goalieca 10y ago

Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.

dmix 10y ago
It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human. > "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop driving? Or did Tesla also require a permit? From the DMV legislation: > (a) “Autonomous mode” means an autonomous vehicle, as defined by this article, that is operated or driven without active physical control by a natural person sitting in the vehicle’s driver’s seat. An autonomous vehicle is operating or driving in autonomous mode when it is operated or driven with the autonomous technology engaged. To me that sounds like it would cover what Tesla and Uber is doing if the driver is entirely hands-off. But this part is less clear: > (b)(d) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28-a2b7-03cbe213e51d/avexpressterms_93016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...
- geofft 10y ago
  Nobody, until someone gets hurt. It's a valid political position to believe that people don't need government regulation (laws) to behave themselves, not make mistakes, and not take risks that might lead to mistakes. It's the libertarian/anarchist viewpoint, as mentioned. But that's not how the government in San Francisco, California, or the US works. Those of us who don't hold to the libertarian or anarchist positions believe that it's a good thing for laws to prohibit risky decisions that are probably going to be totally fine, if the not-fine case is particularly bad. For instance, that's why there are food inspection departments; even if you don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to poison people, there are a set of risky behaviors (not refrigerating things promptly, not washing things, etc.) that stand a small chance of getting people sick, and we believe it's worth stopping those, even if it slows down production, and even if we can't completely eliminate people getting sick.
  - dmix 10y ago
    Just to play devils advocate here. Assuming Uber gets a permit to test autonomous vehicles in public, how much risk has been mitigated as a result vs not having a permit and allowing them to continue testing? Reading the legislation, the only requirement for the permit are: - have insurance with up to $5 million - the driver has a drivers license and has "Instruction on the automated driving system technology", as well as defensive driving training Those both sound like reasonable, common-sense things to have. I'd also want a company testing their vehicle to have insurance and know how to drive their car. But at the same time if this permit didn't exist, how much less safe would the world be? Really? They're not stress testing the software, they're not analyzing the code, they aren't testing the competency of the people who built the software, etc, etc. They aren't doing any of that for a good reason. So ultimately this is mostly just theatre or an exercise in letting Uber know who the boss is. Because I highly doubt Uber doesn't have the insurance or experienced drivers. Nor do I think there will be any significant amount of tech companies wrecking havoc on California because they didn't think to buy auto insurance before starting an automobile software company, save a permit.
    - serge2k 10y ago
danharaj 10y ago
I don't think Uber exemplifies any sort of anarchist culture except perhaps anarchocapitalism which is an instance of the red herring principle [1]. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle
djf1 10y ago
And for us! Uber pool lowers prices, surge pricing increases availability. Uber would not let passengers ride in an autonomous deathtrap -- the negative publicity would be disastrous to their goals. If this is our libertarian dystopia, I welcome it with open arms.
- astrange 10y ago
  Does surge pricing actually increase availability? There's no public evidence for it.
ijustdontgetit 10y ago
So I have an off topic question? I originally got into tech because I hate my life and thought that tech was this outlet that could actually make some change. I come from a world of violence and abuse and never really cared for the powers that be. Tech seemed like the answer. So my question to the people who don't feel this way: why are you in tech? Serious question. Tech only seems interesting because you can move fast. What value do you find from working in this field if you don't feel this way? If you have to work inside some system? This comes from a person who lived in an abusive household most of my life and still struggling to find something outside of QA while I work on my own projects, but I don't really get the appeal of this field if all you want is a house with kids and work within the system. It comes off as mediocre to me. So as a person reaching almost 30 who hates life the way it is and wants to see a change, please explain to me what you get out of this. Thanks for those who answer this seriously.
- codyb 10y ago
  Sorry about your experiences. Purely anecdotal but I enjoy tech because I enjoy building things and the rabbit hole that is technology is near unendingly deep. The salaries are great, benefits are great, paid time off is great. It's hard to complain.
- bdrool 10y ago
  I'm in tech because I'm an idealist and believe very seriously that, done right, technology can change people's lives for the better. For the record, I don't think I could be convinced work at Uber.
- judahmeek 10y ago
  I switched from Marketing to Computer Science because I got tired of writing multiple page essays based on a few sentences out of a textbook and I wanted to be in a field of study where I was judged by what I could or couldn't do rather than by how many buzzwords I could fit in an essay. But there's plenty of other reasons to be in tech: The promise of money is almost as good as the finance industry; The ability to touch a lot of lives and improve people's quality of life is another possibility; The desire to understand technology as it exponentially permeates our lives was another aspect of my decision.
doktrin 10y ago
> the libertarian / anarchist subculture pls more like the greedy, callous and obnoxiously self important subculture in tech (inb4 downvotes from uber's legion of koolaid drinking fanboys & employees)
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, and please don't call names in comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
belovedeagle 10y ago
It's a gross misrepresentation to claim that ignoring (i.e., breaking) laws is considered acceptable by [generally recognized] libertarian philosophies. Even many anarchist philosophies would reject that, although not all. Perhaps the concept you're looking for is "anti-authoritarian", although it's entirely possible to be anti-authoritarian without being willing to break laws as one sees fit.
friedman23 10y ago
> to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. who cares?
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
> Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. You are misusing those terms, as belovedeagle pointed out. > ... will never be regarded as an engineering profession > It's like we rebelled against adulthood Who is "us"? Many, if not most, software engineers would welcome being able to refuse doing anything morally questionable. Many are unhappy about companies disregard for safety, security, privacy, respect for users. Yet, most are powerless in a world of at-will employment, H1B shackles, NDAs, and lack of professional organizations to protect those who disagree with their employer on ethical grounds.

bko 10y ago

> in light of projects where people can actually get killed. Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds. Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have progress and a thriving society.

kyrra 10y ago
Vision tests depend on the state. Colorado and Texas both require vision tests every X years (depends on age in some cases).
Spivak 10y ago
I'm going to talk about my state's perspective because what you're saying sounds like madness. > 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school The standard curriculum for 16 year old drivers is 12-16 hours of in class lecturing, 5 hours of in-car instruction with a licensed professional, a minimum of 50 hours of in-car instruction from a guardian or family member, a nuanced written test, and an hour in-car examination. That's just to get a restricted license. Until you get your real license 6 months later you have to additionally obey the following: * No passengers except for your guardian, parent, or instructor. * No driving after 11 PM. * Absolutely no cell-phone use (even hands free). * Any ticketable violation has a mandatory court appearance and will trigger a second round of more difficult driving instruction. > Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. I have terrible vision and I have had to go through the test three times; after the third time I now have to my to wear my glasses to drive. It happens every time you have to renew your license. > car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds That's a bit misleading, there isn't much else that kills young people. My point is that in situations where there is that kind of risk involved we actually to go through a lot of effort to mitigate it.
- bko 10y ago
  That's a lot of regulations. I would think that teenage drivers are very safe. > In 2014, 2,270 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 221,313 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. In 2013, young people ages 15-19 represented only 7% of the U.S. population. However, they accounted for 11% ($10 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries. The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16-19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash. > Of the teens (aged 16-19) who died in passenger vehicle crashes in 2014 approximately 53% were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.2 Research shows that seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half Perhaps someone can pass a law mandating seatbelt use! [0] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendriv... Edit: it's also misleading that you suggest that the driver must have a minimum of 50 hours of driving experience. While technically true in NY State, all the applicant has to do is provide a completed Certification of Supervised Driving (MV-262) signed by your parent or guardian and that's only for teens under 18 year olds.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]