5 ms·

Quoting the article: "I don't know if this is legally feasible, but my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber," the commissioner of Po

by marcell 12y ago

Quoting the article: "I don't know if this is legally feasible, but my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber," the commissioner of Portland's Bureau of Transportation, told the Times. "Lyft seems like a respectable company, and Uber seems like a bunch of thugs." It is a bit shocking to hear a public regulator talk like this. A regulator's role should not be to pick and choose winners between two (essentially identical) companies based on personal preference.

buro9 12y ago
It's a quote, quotes are usually lacking some context and this doesn't appear as bad as you make it out. What if a few missing/implied words were added in that related to earlier parts of the conversation? > my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber becomes > my inclination based on the legal interpretation of how these companies have operated would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber His quote remains an opinion, the only missing context is whether this opinion is based on the legal arguments in the case or a purely personal opinion or external set of information that would show a bias away from the legal arguments. He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes as possible to 'win' in-spite of the wishes of the people of the affected cities that they do so in accordance with the wishes of the people of those cities). I think this is not shocking at all, it's how it's supposed to be. Shocking is how some companies wish to ignore the codified will of the people of a city (or state, or country) purely to turn a dime. And yes, it's also shocking that some representatives of the people are corrupt as hell and that the written law has enough holes in it to fly a 747 through. But a representative of people's tax dollars standing up to ask for companies who operate within a city to do so in accordance with the wishes of those who pay the tax dollars is not shocking, it should be the norm
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes... By definition, the codified will of the people is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law" is what politicians kind of want to happen, but never actually passed a law for. Also, the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
  - desdiv 12y ago
    Arrow's impossibility theorem only applies to rank order voting systems, not democracy in general.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      At it's core, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that there is no ranked preference a group larger than 2 with at least 3 policy choices. I don't know what "will of the people" means if not a ranked preference. Maybe you can explain?
      - desdiv 12y ago
        Let's say I like party A 10 times more than I like party B. In a preferential voting system, there's no way to precisely express my preferences using the ticket. I'm forced to choose between "1. A" or "1. A, 2. B". Someone else who like part A 2 times more than party B will end up voting identically to me, despite the huge difference between our preferences. Any preferential voting system is necessarily flawed because how limited its input is. That's basically what Arrow's impossibility theorem says. Due to its limited inputs, a preferential voting system will necessarily fail one of the three fairness criteria. There are far better voting schemes out there, none of which are affected by Arrow's impossibility theorem.
        12y ago
gobengo 12y ago
its his personal preference on what sort of businesses to allow in his city. In my opinion, this is actually one of the only points of accountability for a corporation growing unchecked (which has this many varying complaints against them and some think act like thugs)
- blfr 12y ago
  He's not a feudal lord. It's "his" city, sure, but not in that sense.
onewaystreet 12y ago
Picking winners and losers is the definition of progressive (liberal) government. Welcome to Portland.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cmdkeen 12y ago
You'd be queuing up to praise a financial regulator that cared about the spirit not just letter of the law. Just in this instance the spirit of the law is going against a disruptive tech darling.

by marcell 12y ago

buro9 12y ago

It's a quote, quotes are usually lacking some context and this doesn't appear as bad as you make it out. What if a few missing/implied words were added in that related to earlier parts of the conversation? > my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber becomes > my inclination based on the legal interpretation of how these companies have operated would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber His quote remains an opinion, the only missing context is whether this opinion is based on the legal arguments in the case or a purely personal opinion or external set of information that would show a bias away from the legal arguments. He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes as possible to 'win' in-spite of the wishes of the people of the affected cities that they do so in accordance with the wishes of the people of those cities). I think this is not shocking at all, it's how it's supposed to be. Shocking is how some companies wish to ignore the codified will of the people of a city (or state, or country) purely to turn a dime. And yes, it's also shocking that some representatives of the people are corrupt as hell and that the written law has enough holes in it to fly a 747 through. But a representative of people's tax dollars standing up to ask for companies who operate within a city to do so in accordance with the wishes of those who pay the tax dollars is not shocking, it should be the norm

yummyfajitas 12y ago
He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes... By definition, the codified will of the people is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law" is what politicians kind of want to happen, but never actually passed a law for. Also, the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
- desdiv 12y ago
  Arrow's impossibility theorem only applies to rank order voting systems, not democracy in general.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    At it's core, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that there is no ranked preference a group larger than 2 with at least 3 policy choices. I don't know what "will of the people" means if not a ranked preference. Maybe you can explain?
    - desdiv 12y ago
      Let's say I like party A 10 times more than I like party B. In a preferential voting system, there's no way to precisely express my preferences using the ticket. I'm forced to choose between "1. A" or "1. A, 2. B". Someone else who like part A 2 times more than party B will end up voting identically to me, despite the huge difference between our preferences. Any preferential voting system is necessarily flawed because how limited its input is. That's basically what Arrow's impossibility theorem says. Due to its limited inputs, a preferential voting system will necessarily fail one of the three fairness criteria. There are far better voting schemes out there, none of which are affected by Arrow's impossibility theorem.
      - 12y ago

gobengo 12y ago

its his personal preference on what sort of businesses to allow in his city. In my opinion, this is actually one of the only points of accountability for a corporation growing unchecked (which has this many varying complaints against them and some think act like thugs)

blfr 12y ago
He's not a feudal lord. It's "his" city, sure, but not in that sense.

onewaystreet 12y ago

Picking winners and losers is the definition of progressive (liberal) government. Welcome to Portland.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cmdkeen 12y ago

You'd be queuing up to praise a financial regulator that cared about the spirit not just letter of the law. Just in this instance the spirit of the law is going against a disruptive tech darling.