4 ms·

My argument is an active lawsuit: https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/uber-lyft-sued-for-passenger-gender-preference-programs/ https://employmentlaww

• kelseyfrog 8mo ago
  Feel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one. Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution. Arguing against filtering cannot be separated from the moral hazard of asking someone else to take on risk without themselves having skin in the game.
  • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
    > Feel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one. > Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution. You should be aware that these statements come off as extremely obtuse. A solution was shared at the top of the thread; albeit by a different commenter, but it makes sense that the second commenter would have the same suggestion in mind. You've not actually discussed the merits despite ample opportunity, instead agreeing that it's a better solution, but, because it's not been implemented, this solution is still necessary for the time being. What you've not done is argued for why that should be the case, as opposed to the bare assertion that it is. It seems that would be beneficial to your point of view in this discussion, given that others seem to be saying that it should not be.