4 ms·

Worked for Uber.

dbt00 9y ago
I don't want to take the thread away from what a bad idea ILPs are and onto how much Uber sucks, so I will only say that it's not clear to me that anything has actually worked for Uber as an entity yet. Yes the early investors have cashed out sufficiently, but that's true of fraudulent ICOs too.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Worked for Uber Uber deliberately broke rules in an effort to change them and went into their fights willing to pay the penalties. That’s civil disobedience. They didn’t argue the rules wouldn’t be enforced because of regulatory competition or whatever. Furthermore, when Uber broke the rules it was their asses on the line. They had a terrific record of reimbursing drivers who got fined for taxi violations. With ILPs, in the other hand, we have some rando encouraging others to take stupid bets. Night and day.
- ada1981 9y ago
  >> That’s civil disobedience << Please refrain from putting Travis K. in the same category as Rosa Parks.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Please refrain from putting Travis K. in the same category as Rosa Parks Civil disobedience isn’t inherently good, momentous nor socially activistic. (See the story behind Homer Plessy [1], who was hired by railroad owners in a bid to cut costs related to a segregationist state law. It famously backfired when SCOTUS created “separate but equal”.) It is simply “the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws of the state, and/or demands, orders, and commands of a government” [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
    - hndamien 9y ago
      This is exactly what you are rallying against here in your quote. "This is a toxic attitude. “Don’t worry if you’re breaking the law; they’ll have to change to stay relevant!”" Uber X enabled a cheaper form of public transport by adding some efficiencies, but also by actively skirting regulation that was in place for Hire Cars and Taxis (that also made them more expensive options) that was designed for public safety. Following this, Governments changed laws to allow for this new class of driver with new regulations that lowered the cost of compliance. This is exactly the same as a new financial instrument designed to allow some other form of innovative public good that breaches current regulations that were designed for safety. With the expectation that regulation will ave to change for them. In both cases the regulations being breached were designed for some kind of public safety. The breakers believed they were delivering some kind of greater good. I'm not saying the method is right or wrong... it appears to get results.
    - ada1981 9y ago
      As far as I can tell, your history is a bit confused. I've never read anything about Plessy being "hired" by railroad owners - rather there was a civil rights group, the Citizens Committe, who were comprised of a variety of folks opposed to the seperste car act. They asked Plessy to voulenteer to be test case, to which he agreed. (And yes, it did backfire). The railroad company was an ally to the cause due to costs of adding more cars, so they agreed to help. Also, while that sentence does come from Wikipedia definition, I've never heard it used outside the scope of activism / civil rights work in 35+ years of activist work.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "Uber deliberately broke rules in an effort to change them" Care to show me where Uber lobbied for changing of the taxi laws? Last I saw, they were just fine with those still existing, so long as they were exempt.
- trhway 9y ago
  >That’s civil disobedience. no. To me it looks more like RICO as Uber leadership never risked to be subjected to any punishment. The rank-and-file were actually violating the local laws and were caught/cited/fined. >They had a terrific record of reimbursing drivers who got fined for taxi violations. "your family will be well taken care of" :)

Worked for Uber.

I don't want to take the thread away from what a bad idea ILPs are and onto how much Uber sucks, so I will only say that it's not clear to me that anything has actually worked for Uber as an entity yet. Yes the early investors have cashed out sufficiently, but that's true of fraudulent ICOs too.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Worked for Uber Uber deliberately broke rules in an effort to change them and went into their fights willing to pay the penalties. That’s civil disobedience. They didn’t argue the rules wouldn’t be enforced because of regulatory competition or whatever. Furthermore, when Uber broke the rules it was their asses on the line. They had a terrific record of reimbursing drivers who got fined for taxi violations. With ILPs, in the other hand, we have some rando encouraging others to take stupid bets. Night and day.

ada1981 9y ago
>> That’s civil disobedience << Please refrain from putting Travis K. in the same category as Rosa Parks.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Please refrain from putting Travis K. in the same category as Rosa Parks Civil disobedience isn’t inherently good, momentous nor socially activistic. (See the story behind Homer Plessy [1], who was hired by railroad owners in a bid to cut costs related to a segregationist state law. It famously backfired when SCOTUS created “separate but equal”.) It is simply “the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws of the state, and/or demands, orders, and commands of a government” [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
  - hndamien 9y ago
    This is exactly what you are rallying against here in your quote. "This is a toxic attitude. “Don’t worry if you’re breaking the law; they’ll have to change to stay relevant!”" Uber X enabled a cheaper form of public transport by adding some efficiencies, but also by actively skirting regulation that was in place for Hire Cars and Taxis (that also made them more expensive options) that was designed for public safety. Following this, Governments changed laws to allow for this new class of driver with new regulations that lowered the cost of compliance. This is exactly the same as a new financial instrument designed to allow some other form of innovative public good that breaches current regulations that were designed for safety. With the expectation that regulation will ave to change for them. In both cases the regulations being breached were designed for some kind of public safety. The breakers believed they were delivering some kind of greater good. I'm not saying the method is right or wrong... it appears to get results.
  - ada1981 9y ago
    As far as I can tell, your history is a bit confused. I've never read anything about Plessy being "hired" by railroad owners - rather there was a civil rights group, the Citizens Committe, who were comprised of a variety of folks opposed to the seperste car act. They asked Plessy to voulenteer to be test case, to which he agreed. (And yes, it did backfire). The railroad company was an ally to the cause due to costs of adding more cars, so they agreed to help. Also, while that sentence does come from Wikipedia definition, I've never heard it used outside the scope of activism / civil rights work in 35+ years of activist work.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
"Uber deliberately broke rules in an effort to change them" Care to show me where Uber lobbied for changing of the taxi laws? Last I saw, they were just fine with those still existing, so long as they were exempt.
trhway 9y ago
>That’s civil disobedience. no. To me it looks more like RICO as Uber leadership never risked to be subjected to any punishment. The rank-and-file were actually violating the local laws and were caught/cited/fined. >They had a terrific record of reimbursing drivers who got fined for taxi violations. "your family will be well taken care of" :)