3 ms·

Thanks for posting the raw numbers. London is citing this 14,000 number as if its egregious, but my initial reaction was: "Out of how many total?" Based on the

Thanks for posting the raw numbers. London is citing this 14,000 number as if its egregious, but my initial reaction was: "Out of how many total?" Based on the numbers you're posting Uber was literally 99.9% compliant. That's definitely not "unfit." This is politics plain and simple. And not the first time Uber has had to play the game. This same thing played out in 2017. The courts will side with Uber.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
The number is actually quoted as "at least 43". I should have quoted more carefully. Sorry for that. You can google the URL and then click on the link to get through the paywall.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > The number comes from Cognizant I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo http://archive.is/mNxBo was it edited out after u read it?
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    I can't open your link for some reason. But it's all still there in the original FT article. It is a bit unclear though which numbers and findings come from Cognizant and which are from the TfL investigation.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      hah yea crazy that article seems to be the only source linking cognizant to those numbers. Those numbers are repeated everywhere without any context or sourcing. Totally sounds like a smear job to me.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        Having read it again, I now think the numbers are indeed from TfL and not from the more recent Cognizant review.