>A very convenient excuse, which is precisely why I don't find it convincing. Please spare me your patronizing explanations of Terms of Service; having already

>A very convenient excuse, which is precisely why I don't find it convincing. Please spare me your patronizing explanations of Terms of Service; having already studied law they're not very impressive. Do you have an argument that's not "it was unfair because it was technically illegal and Lyft probably didn't like it"? Maybe there'd be a more impressive answer if you could offer a more impressive proposition. >Win-loss outcomes are zero-sum by definition. I don't see this discussion going anywhere productive from here. This is pure fantasy. Win-loss is an unavoidable fact of any competition. You are competing because you are trying to get the the same limited resource (in this case, the market for a ride-hailing app). That's what makes it a competition. Giving up because you don't like competing is the same as a loss. The entity that gets that portion of the resource won, and the entity that didn't lost. A loss doesn't have to be wholly unprofitable, but it's still a loss. You have arbitrarily defined all competitions as fundamentally zero-sum. You say they're zero-sum by definition: the definitions I know of win means that someone has gained something and loss means that someone has either failed to gain something they wanted or lost something they had (not necessarily in proportion to the person who won). This is only zero-sum if you believe that all resources could be utilized equally well in anyone's hands. This is not even communistic or socialistic where a central authority decides the appropriate way to allocate resources, it's just anarchy.