gotothedoctor

9 ms·

31.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
could, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
32.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I'm not offended; its just the opposite of persuasive. And "jumping on the bandwagon" is kind of a conversation ender: if that's how you understood my reply, we're unlikely to understand each other & its not wo
33.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a sou
34.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
OK. I replied the parent comment to explain that issue above. Regardless, SCOTUS did not, as you claim, "express concern about expanding motive in RICO cases". On a very different court, RBG wrote a concurrence, explaining that sh
35.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
It seems we disagree on too many facts. Like many others, I am critical of and will not financially support Uber's unethical & criminal corporate behavior. If this is what you consider "jump(ing) on the bandwagon" and &qu
36.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
You would be incorrect. Humans, not companies, engage in civil disobedience. Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it shou
37.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
That's not my read of that case & I don't think it applies here regardless. as per above, Uber is a company, so it can't engage in civil disobedience--thus there need be no concern that RICO "could be interpreted as
38.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I can understand the confusion/maybe I should have separated that into several points & or not sought to respond to the corporations are people comment I was certain I'd get before it was even said:) I'll try to unpack it
39.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I don't think any of this is true (eg some cities have medallion systems, some don't; some are more & less corrupt). But for argument's sake, lets say all of it is true. So what? If Uber's big innovation was being a
40.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading au
41.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
This is an oddly structured argument, which collapses upon itself based on the examples the author chose-and the vocabulary he uses to segment them. An amateur does a thing because they love it, while a professional does it because they are
42.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I'm guessing it depends on your age whether you find the joke funny. I got one for free from Microsoft one year and initially, it wasn't actually a bad product-it had quite a few DJ fans (interoperatibility)--and they spent tons o
43.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I am often critical of Nick Bilton's opinions, but he is not a "drug war fanboy" by any stretch of the imagination; nor does he have a "fundamentalist prohibitionist ideology." If Silk Road did not facilitate the sa
44.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Confused: is this satire? Or does the author really earnestly believe that Microsoft paid to place a failed product in a film?
45.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Wikitribune's professed goal to raise enough money to pay 10 print journalists. That seems like a big stretch?
46.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I suppose I can understand why a guy named Jonathan Pollard is so sensitive about proving his innocence & credibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
47.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
The donor list was not "leaked" and Eich was not "outted." Donations to CA ballot propositions has been public information since the 1970s, when voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative in response to the Wate
48.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Since taxis also operate via apps & the drivers are the same people, this is simply no longer true. While I'll agree that Uber used to provide a higher quality experience (nicer cars etc), this is no longer the case. The rating sys
49.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Sure; debating is definitely a bad idea. Even if most of us think our needs (/convenience) is more important than everyone else, most of us also appreciate the role that doctors & nurses play. Plus, airlines have rules about liter
50.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I have read the study; there is just no longer a difference. "Traditional" taxis now use apps & drivers now drive for Uber, Lyft and local taxi companies.
51.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Why shouldn't the passenger's role as a doctor have any bearing? If an airline must choose passengers to disembark, shouldn't doctors (& nurses) be the last people you'd remove?
52.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I found that to be true at the beginning. But now, Uber drivers are Lyft drivers are taxi drivers. They all use apps now. And evidence suggests drivers adapted and found new ways to discriminate. https://www.theatlantic.com&#x2F
53.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I guess it varies? My CA doctor prescribed it for ADHD and I had no insurance challenges.
54.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
TLDR: Finding a good doctor is really the best way to figure out what is best for you. I also have ADD & tried Modafinil as an alternative. My doctor prescribed me 200MG as well, and it gave me splitting headaches and, until I learned t
55.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Protip: Modafinil is prescribed by doctors for ADD (& narcolepsy). Instead of risking many things (examples: counterfeit or poisoned pills, being ripped off, being arrested, or even just dealing with bitcoin), why not just go to the doc