6 ms·

Another Uber bug I ran into a couple weeks ago. I had a long trip which I updated after departing to be a short trip. After getting out of the Uber I clicked t

by zaroth 5y ago

Another Uber bug I ran into a couple weeks ago. I had a long trip which I updated after departing to be a short trip. After getting out of the Uber I clicked to pay a 20% tip, and it paid it on the original (much higher) amount. Worked out to be almost a 100% tip. I called support, walked the very nice woman through what happened, she filed a bug report and reset the tip to a normal amount.

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
> I had a long trip which I updated after departing to be a short trip Bugs notwithstanding, if intentional, then that's a pretty scummy thing to do. Not all drivers are given the full details of the offer they are accepting (it's the norm not to have details), but some offers that drivers receive do include things like "guaranteed $X trip". So even if unintentional, someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver).
- randallsquared 5y ago
  > if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver The rider isn't guaranteeing a $X trip, if anyone is -- that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference. If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message, right? Guessing or investigating the internal negotiations between a service provider and their own service providers is not the responsibility of the customer!
  - pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
    > that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference No one here is arguing otherwise. > If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message What is your conception of "update" here? Someone receives an offer for a given payout. The driver accepts and goes to pick up the passenger. The passenger gets into the car and then changes the destination, nullifying the entire set of conditions that were in play for the original arrangement. Does your "update" involve something magic, like a time machine?
    - randallsquared 5y ago
      > No one here is arguing otherwise. I thought you were, actually: > someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver). This is a little meta, but it seems weird to describe company C getting screwed if they are "forced" to cover their contracts, even while agreeing that they ought to cover their contracts. > What is your conception of "update" here? No time travel required; "update" meant as Uber moves into the future and makes adjustments to how they approach new agreements. If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or use language like "expected" instead of "guaranteed", or charge a floor to future riders, or both. In the specific case of this specific ride, Uber ought to pay out the amount they guaranteed, as you agree above, but there is no obligation of the rider to determine if or how their behavior impacts contractual language between Uber and the driver.
      - pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
        > it seems weird to describe It's not weird to take issue with mendaciousness and pass moral judgment on it. Most of the responses here take the form of an argument that says, essentially, that if something is possible and/or not illegal, then it's okay, which fundamentally recasts the context of the conversation to give that perspective a kind of leverage that it doesn't have in the original, moral context. This is all moot regarding the specific case, of course, given the reply of the original commenter, who clarified that it was not intentional (and who agrees that it would be scummy if it were intentional). But I find it disturbing the number of people here who were willing to jump in and argue for the "nyah, nyah, I'm not touching you" take, as if that were a serious argument, i.e. in the event that it were taking place in the context they desire. But on the topic of litigating the point both figuratively and literally, legislatures and courts, not to mention private businesses, do have the power to say, essentially, "We see what you're doing. Knock that shit off." E.g., a law that addresses unfair practices by laying out that something can be a cause for action not only if a person makes an untrue statement of material fact, but also if they fail to state "a material fact necessary to make other statements made not misleading". The responses here are pretty devoid of any kind of indicator of an awareness of this, and instead come off as My First Attempt to Exploit a Legal Loophole. > No time travel required; "update" meant Thanks for clearing this up. > If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or ... or charging those riders a fee that happens to correspond with the delta between the original and the new destination, or firing the rider.
- Marsymars 5y ago
  Many places have legislation that forbids taxis from discriminating based on trip destination. If someone lives in such a place, Uber shouldn’t be allowed to incentivize one trip over another based on destination, so if a passenger circumvents any such incentives, the ethical problem really is not with the passenger.
- manigandham 5y ago
  Situations and destinations change. There is nothing "scummy" about changing where you're going on a trip you're paying for. Any guarantees to the driver are an issue for the company to deal with.
  - pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
    Why did you chose to direct attention to the one set of circumstances that the comment you're responding to deliberately and visibly contains a hedge for? Arguing against the comment on the unintentional side of the issue doesn't even make glancing contact with the subject that's actually in focus. If intentional, lying about the ultimate destination and then changing it after pickup is a scummy thing to do.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- zaroth 5y ago
  I totally agree if intentional it would be scummy. The details are kind of irrelevant so I had left them out. I was going home from the airport, with a stop on the way to drop off a friend. I had a 10am call I needed to take in private, and the pickup and first stop took too long, so I re-routed my final destination to a co-working space nearby to be able to take the call. I didn’t feel bad at all because the new drop-off point is a hugely busy spot for Uber. Driver already had another fare on queue. The original destination was out in the sticks and driver would have had to come back to the city for their next fare. It definitely worked out better for the driver with the change!

by zaroth 5y ago

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago

> I had a long trip which I updated after departing to be a short trip Bugs notwithstanding, if intentional, then that's a pretty scummy thing to do. Not all drivers are given the full details of the offer they are accepting (it's the norm not to have details), but some offers that drivers receive do include things like "guaranteed $X trip". So even if unintentional, someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver).

randallsquared 5y ago
> if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver The rider isn't guaranteeing a $X trip, if anyone is -- that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference. If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message, right? Guessing or investigating the internal negotiations between a service provider and their own service providers is not the responsibility of the customer!
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  > that's a contract Uber is making with the driver, and they should absolutely cover the difference No one here is arguing otherwise. > If they find themselves losing money on that, then they can and will update the guarantee message What is your conception of "update" here? Someone receives an offer for a given payout. The driver accepts and goes to pick up the passenger. The passenger gets into the car and then changes the destination, nullifying the entire set of conditions that were in play for the original arrangement. Does your "update" involve something magic, like a time machine?
  - randallsquared 5y ago
    > No one here is arguing otherwise. I thought you were, actually: > someone would be getting screwed there (e.g. Uber, if they were forced to cover the difference to the driver). This is a little meta, but it seems weird to describe company C getting screwed if they are "forced" to cover their contracts, even while agreeing that they ought to cover their contracts. > What is your conception of "update" here? No time travel required; "update" meant as Uber moves into the future and makes adjustments to how they approach new agreements. If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or use language like "expected" instead of "guaranteed", or charge a floor to future riders, or both. In the specific case of this specific ride, Uber ought to pay out the amount they guaranteed, as you agree above, but there is no obligation of the rider to determine if or how their behavior impacts contractual language between Uber and the driver.
    - pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
      > it seems weird to describe It's not weird to take issue with mendaciousness and pass moral judgment on it. Most of the responses here take the form of an argument that says, essentially, that if something is possible and/or not illegal, then it's okay, which fundamentally recasts the context of the conversation to give that perspective a kind of leverage that it doesn't have in the original, moral context. This is all moot regarding the specific case, of course, given the reply of the original commenter, who clarified that it was not intentional (and who agrees that it would be scummy if it were intentional). But I find it disturbing the number of people here who were willing to jump in and argue for the "nyah, nyah, I'm not touching you" take, as if that were a serious argument, i.e. in the event that it were taking place in the context they desire. But on the topic of litigating the point both figuratively and literally, legislatures and courts, not to mention private businesses, do have the power to say, essentially, "We see what you're doing. Knock that shit off." E.g., a law that addresses unfair practices by laying out that something can be a cause for action not only if a person makes an untrue statement of material fact, but also if they fail to state "a material fact necessary to make other statements made not misleading". The responses here are pretty devoid of any kind of indicator of an awareness of this, and instead come off as My First Attempt to Exploit a Legal Loophole. > No time travel required; "update" meant Thanks for clearing this up. > If riders change destinations in such a way enough, Uber can start lowering guarantees or ... or charging those riders a fee that happens to correspond with the delta between the original and the new destination, or firing the rider.
Marsymars 5y ago
Many places have legislation that forbids taxis from discriminating based on trip destination. If someone lives in such a place, Uber shouldn’t be allowed to incentivize one trip over another based on destination, so if a passenger circumvents any such incentives, the ethical problem really is not with the passenger.
manigandham 5y ago
Situations and destinations change. There is nothing "scummy" about changing where you're going on a trip you're paying for. Any guarantees to the driver are an issue for the company to deal with.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  Why did you chose to direct attention to the one set of circumstances that the comment you're responding to deliberately and visibly contains a hedge for? Arguing against the comment on the unintentional side of the issue doesn't even make glancing contact with the subject that's actually in focus. If intentional, lying about the ultimate destination and then changing it after pickup is a scummy thing to do.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
zaroth 5y ago
I totally agree if intentional it would be scummy. The details are kind of irrelevant so I had left them out. I was going home from the airport, with a stop on the way to drop off a friend. I had a 10am call I needed to take in private, and the pickup and first stop took too long, so I re-routed my final destination to a co-working space nearby to be able to take the call. I didn’t feel bad at all because the new drop-off point is a hugely busy spot for Uber. Driver already had another fare on queue. The original destination was out in the sticks and driver would have had to come back to the city for their next fare. It definitely worked out better for the driver with the change!