If you have a problem with them, feel free to stop using Uber. I have no problems with the company or service so I, like the millions of other riders/drivers, will continue using Uber.
Your comment was needless and contributed nothing to the parent comment. Then again, you knew that, demonstrated by you making a brand new throw away account just to make your overly aggressive comment.
Not sure if you were afraid of the downvotes or having your true feelings connected with your identity - as if anyone would care. Either way, quite the cowardly move.
Actually, the comment it was replying to was made by someone who apparently works for Uber. That a person working for Uber uses Uber seems to be rather less than informative.
My 2 largest complaints are equally valid for Uber and Lyft.
1)if a driver accepts my fare and then tries calling me to weasel my destination out of me so he can choose whether or not to actually pick me up, my choices are to cancel on him, wait until he gives up hope, or use the compeitor. In all three cases, I am denied the option to rate this driver as we never actually took a trip together. It's a shitty experience that allows these drivers to go unpunished.
2)if my driver is driving in an unsafe manner, i am stuck with them until my destination or have to make them pull over somewhere and sit alone in an unsafe location and wait for another ride.
These two items make both services terribly unreliable for those of us who don't live in the big cities. And even then, cancelling on a particular driver or hailing from a competitor usually leaves you with the exact same driver accepting your request over and over. There is no way to block drivers. And even if there was, there is no way for my fellow riders to know they should block these drivers.
I can only speak for Uber, but in my experiences they're extremely pro-consumer if nothing else good.
When I've reported drivers for rude behavior, I've been swiftly refunded for my ride, and in cases where a driver has requested I cancel it from my end, I've filed a report and received an apology along with any money lost from a cancellation fee.
It may be a case like Amazon where it's easier to refund riders and move on than actually remove the driver (or remove counterfeit products in Amazon's case), however, similar to Amazon, I must admit that I nonetheless feel defended by the company in these situations.
I called a Lyft. I waited for 8 minutes, the driver rode right past me (As I was waving my phone), turned, and stopped three blocks over. (It was perfectly safe to stop and pick up on my street.)
After waiting for 5 minutes, I cancelled the ride, and was charged a fee. I walked half a block to the arterial, and hailed a taxi in two minutes.
To be fair, these points apply equally to taxis. I'm not the only person who got into a taxi in Manhattan on a Friday evening and promptly told to get out when I said take me to Brooklyn?
Technically speaking, it is the Bureau of Engraving and Printing from the Department of the Treasury creates the one executing the order of creating the physical currency. The Fed helps determining the money supply and distributing the resulting money (please correct me if I am wrong here).
However that's just the physical money. In practice, because of fractional reserve banking, banks create money by being allowed to loan more money than they have in their vaults.
Plenty of VCs invest their own capital. Do not confuse private equity, funds with limited partners that contribute the bulk of the money in the fund and classical venture capital where the bulk of the fund is raised from the managing partners.
Is it expected? It probably was, when the money was first invested. Now their expectations are irrelevant.
In my area, there's already another competitor (Cabify), plus taxis, who are not significantly more expensive. Uber doesn't have a chance of raising their prices to cover that.
I'm hoping they last just enough for another competitor to appear, and that they'll crash and burn afterwards.
I hope she took them to the cleaners. Whatever makes executives think they can get away with this is an open question, I also strongly believe that regardless of whether or not the woman pursues this there should be some kind of criminal penalty for the executive(s) involved assuming they are found guilty. And then there is the question how they managed to obtain these records in the first place, the local authorities really should be interested in that.
Naive question: when does the executive and cultural behavior represent enough of a risk to be a tipping point for investors to completely pull their investment?
And have the limited partners pull their funds and/or file lawsuits because you backed out if one of the few out of the park financial successes your fund had?
I would say that is likely the wrong question. Investment is a matter of giving up money in the expectation it will return value. If the morality or ethics of a company are so utterly repulsive that this question should be raised the investor has to ask if they can throw their investment money away. Most people are not willing to throw money away even if disgusted.
I was thinking along the lines of the recent payoff for the data breach, the myriad of sexual harassment claims.. etc. Each of those represent a legal risk with a financial impact that, to someone ignorant about the VC space, would make me think twice about the going concern of the business.
Evidently, repeated incidents of rape are OK with these investors. But on the other hand, their hands may be tied; once you have invested how do you then back out? Your investment bought you X shares in the company, so the only way out is to find another investor to take them off your hands, and this is an illiquid market.
Repeated incidents of rape? Firstly, no Uber employee was actually involved in the rape. This case was about a rogue Uber driver. When Uber starts operating at the scale it currently does, all sorts of bad actors end up as Uber drivers. Of course this doesn't justify Uber's investigation into the rape, but please stop spreading misinformation and paranoia.
Point still stands. When you have x million users on some platform and these users are a normal representation of the populace, an equal proportion of bad actors (with no prior records of such) will end up on that platform.
What does "pull their investment" mean, though? Uber has burned through most of their cash, and the assets they have are mostly unsellable (name recognition, relationships with partners, workers with experience, etc). When you buy a lottery ticket, there's nothing to gain from ripping it apart before the numbers are called.
Regarding the second, it's my opinion based on what we know of them vs competitors. The software may be good, but it hardly justifies a difference of $60B compared to Lyft's $11B valuation, let alone Cabify's $320M. I'm pretty sure their offices are not worth that much either. So most of their worth comes from the stuff I mentioned in the previous post, but that can't be sold.
The only normal way for an investor to 'pull their investment' is to sell their stock to another party. If the stock is worth more now than it was when they bought in then there is a chance the investors will be happy to sell but if the stock is worth less they are more likely to want to take the chance on the longer term to avoid the write-off.
Of course that opens them up to an even steeper drop in value.
And then there are the shareholder agreements that may limit what they can do with their stock as well as lock-up terms and the various authorities.
Shareholders are usually not in a position to claw back their investment unless this has been agreed upon up front and the conditions for such a clawback have been triggered and the company still has the money. If the company does not have the money then some or all of the execs may be personally liable for it but I have never seen a case where that succeeded.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; engineers, is there really no other company with the same interesting problems to work on but Uber? I can understand staying with a company past a big scandal and shake up in management, who knows, maybe you’ll be remembered as one of the people who made the company better now that the only way is up. But when scandal after scandal after scandal rolls by, and the common denominator of them is the very people who works there, is this really the company you want to support?
Why did you become an engineer? I can understand if your answer is money, respect or ”doing math and coding is fun” really, that’s enough for me, you don’t need to do it to save the world, and Uber does offer money, respect, and opportunities to do math and code. But, wouldn’t you rather sleep knowing you don’t support a company that screws over people like this poor woman? There are plenty of companies screaming after good engineers, why do you support such a rotten, morally bankrupt management by writing their code for them? Can you honestly talk about the stuff you knew your company did, and all the opportunities out there you passed on, to your children with a straight face?
Because I would like to see the snakes in Uber’s management write their own code and explain away responsibility the next time a scandal hits them.
If a group of people X did bad things in the past and they are no longer affiliated with Z. Why should learning more about those bad things in the past affect your current interactions with Z? It’s essentially a different group of people.
It’s similar to the issues people have with Europe over the crimes they committed in the colonial era. People are legitimately upset about it, but judge the current governments on their recent actions. Time scales are of course different, and it does not excuse future transgressions, but those our judged on their own merits.
I will also directly address this comment as an Uber engineer without any deep vested commitment to Uber i.e. not an early employee who can't leave for the FANGs of the world for the same incentives.
Your viewpoint is incredibly naive and dangerous I am sorry. There are a few nuances worth understanding:
1. A lot of Uber's rotten culture stems from top-down, from Travis, who while not intending malice, operated from a viewpoint of fear and paranoia. That very top-down set up has now been replaced all the way up from the CEO. Why would someone not want to be part of that especially when you're able to see the change first-hand. Past skeletons still need to be cleared out but what happens once the company starts afresh?. You owe it to yourself to keep an open mind and not prophesize the very one-sides narrative that sells a lot better in the media circles.
2. While I can sympathize with #1, I am not sure how you can make the claim that Uber is in the business of screwing people over. It's outsized impact to consumers – both riders and drivers – is the favorite aspect of working at Uber. Most of us would otherwise be busy forcing people to click on spammy ads. Uber for me has helped blur the line between digital and human impact and I have first-hand noticed the impact from my work. Think about how fewer riders need to drink and drive because of Uber. In most of our cities, drivers who initially would have no source of part-time income, are now able to make money for all sorts of needs (help kids pay for college, side-gig while recovering from an injury are ones I have heard first-hand recently). Hearing these stories is inspiring. It compels you to get rid of the bad parts and be part of the change. In addressing your direct comment, I am proud to tell my kids the opportunities I have helped create for people across the world.
Now if only we figured out to sell our story better and win people over such as yourself. Give us some time :)
I do agree that a lot of Uber’s impact is positive on both riders and drivers. Every time an Uber scandal rolls by I’ve heard the same two quotes from friends and family; ”Really? All I know about Uber is that when I used them in a completely foreign country it was still the best taxi experience I’ve ever had” or ”My son drives for them to get money on the side in college”. People are amazed about these two sides; management not really caring about who or what is in the way and the employees such as yourself delivering such great value.
I’m not going to pretend my employer is Jesus or something, they’ve done their fair share of bad stuff that puts their name in the paper too, but I personally feel like there is a line. When you witness so many cases of the management prioritizing profit over being decent, doesn’t that bother you? I could pull up five serious cases of abuse of trust Uber is directly responsible for that happened just this year, is there a number of infractions on the magnitude this poor woman has suffered that would make you leave?
This thread is incredible to be. I think it really is an HN/SV bubble, but people really can't stop comparing and equating moral failures and business success.
Moral failures (which Uber has shown time and time again) should not be compared to whether or not their business is useful to you. Business failures should be compared to business success, and moral bad should be compared with moral good. Uber has shown little to zero moral good. Not treating their employees who drive for them like crap would be a good place to start. Or their customers when raped would be another.
Lyft also provides huge business value in the exact same industry but without all the immoral baggage (as far as I've seen).
But this view on HN hat business value somehow replaces moral value mind boggling.
All it takes for a 22 year old straight out of school to write ad tracking code, spam software, or god knows what else, is 120k combined compensation. No, software developers are not any different from lawyers, finance, big oil, or any other industry with deep institutional issues that routinely subvert humanity.
I can see why Uber don't think the law applies to them. It's probably because the law in the UK, for instance, doesn't apply to them[0]. this group already showed at tribunal that Uber should be charging sales tax, and HMRC (IRS for the UK) is refusing to take action. The conclusion many are coming to is that there is a sweetheart deal between the UK and our colonial masters in the US to allow Big Tech tax free access to our backwater.
Didn't think. I believe it's reasonable to use past tense now. They really shook things up.
The question remains though if it's reasonable to continue to use uber. Is it a good idea to reward such awful behavior in the startup phase? IMHO, I think not. I'd prefer to use lyft and hopefully send a message (however minuscule) that startups shouldn't act this way at any point in their life.
I just call a taxi firm. I always know the local firms number, because it is a transposition of my desk phone number at work! I take a lot of calls wanting a taxi, and god are people rude to people they think they can get away with. I have half a mind some days to say 'yes, be with you in 10 minutes'.
56 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadWhere is this money coming from? You.
Stop. Using. Uber.
> Stop. Using. Uber.
No, I will not stop using Uber.
If you have a problem with them, feel free to stop using Uber. I have no problems with the company or service so I, like the millions of other riders/drivers, will continue using Uber.
Not sure if you were afraid of the downvotes or having your true feelings connected with your identity - as if anyone would care. Either way, quite the cowardly move.
1)if a driver accepts my fare and then tries calling me to weasel my destination out of me so he can choose whether or not to actually pick me up, my choices are to cancel on him, wait until he gives up hope, or use the compeitor. In all three cases, I am denied the option to rate this driver as we never actually took a trip together. It's a shitty experience that allows these drivers to go unpunished.
2)if my driver is driving in an unsafe manner, i am stuck with them until my destination or have to make them pull over somewhere and sit alone in an unsafe location and wait for another ride.
These two items make both services terribly unreliable for those of us who don't live in the big cities. And even then, cancelling on a particular driver or hailing from a competitor usually leaves you with the exact same driver accepting your request over and over. There is no way to block drivers. And even if there was, there is no way for my fellow riders to know they should block these drivers.
Btw, have you tried contacting Uber regarding those drivers? Not that I'd be surprised if they ignored you, just curious.
When I've reported drivers for rude behavior, I've been swiftly refunded for my ride, and in cases where a driver has requested I cancel it from my end, I've filed a report and received an apology along with any money lost from a cancellation fee.
It may be a case like Amazon where it's easier to refund riders and move on than actually remove the driver (or remove counterfeit products in Amazon's case), however, similar to Amazon, I must admit that I nonetheless feel defended by the company in these situations.
After waiting for 5 minutes, I cancelled the ride, and was charged a fee. I walked half a block to the arterial, and hailed a taxi in two minutes.
Money creates money, it's not a scarcity resource
Feds create money, in the US.
> they also create wealth by investing in new services.
Wealth for themselves? Wow, isn't that great for me?
However that's just the physical money. In practice, because of fractional reserve banking, banks create money by being allowed to loan more money than they have in their vaults.
However it is expected to ultimately be self-sustaining and come from you.
In my area, there's already another competitor (Cabify), plus taxis, who are not significantly more expensive. Uber doesn't have a chance of raising their prices to cover that.
I'm hoping they last just enough for another competitor to appear, and that they'll crash and burn afterwards.
UK courts have ruled that Uber drivers are employees. So that dodge won't work anymore.
Source?
Regarding the second, it's my opinion based on what we know of them vs competitors. The software may be good, but it hardly justifies a difference of $60B compared to Lyft's $11B valuation, let alone Cabify's $320M. I'm pretty sure their offices are not worth that much either. So most of their worth comes from the stuff I mentioned in the previous post, but that can't be sold.
Of course that opens them up to an even steeper drop in value.
And then there are the shareholder agreements that may limit what they can do with their stock as well as lock-up terms and the various authorities.
Shareholders are usually not in a position to claw back their investment unless this has been agreed upon up front and the conditions for such a clawback have been triggered and the company still has the money. If the company does not have the money then some or all of the execs may be personally liable for it but I have never seen a case where that succeeded.
Why did you become an engineer? I can understand if your answer is money, respect or ”doing math and coding is fun” really, that’s enough for me, you don’t need to do it to save the world, and Uber does offer money, respect, and opportunities to do math and code. But, wouldn’t you rather sleep knowing you don’t support a company that screws over people like this poor woman? There are plenty of companies screaming after good engineers, why do you support such a rotten, morally bankrupt management by writing their code for them? Can you honestly talk about the stuff you knew your company did, and all the opportunities out there you passed on, to your children with a straight face?
Because I would like to see the snakes in Uber’s management write their own code and explain away responsibility the next time a scandal hits them.
Either that or finance to exploit arbitrage opportunities.
If a group of people X did bad things in the past and they are no longer affiliated with Z. Why should learning more about those bad things in the past affect your current interactions with Z? It’s essentially a different group of people.
It’s similar to the issues people have with Europe over the crimes they committed in the colonial era. People are legitimately upset about it, but judge the current governments on their recent actions. Time scales are of course different, and it does not excuse future transgressions, but those our judged on their own merits.
Your viewpoint is incredibly naive and dangerous I am sorry. There are a few nuances worth understanding:
1. A lot of Uber's rotten culture stems from top-down, from Travis, who while not intending malice, operated from a viewpoint of fear and paranoia. That very top-down set up has now been replaced all the way up from the CEO. Why would someone not want to be part of that especially when you're able to see the change first-hand. Past skeletons still need to be cleared out but what happens once the company starts afresh?. You owe it to yourself to keep an open mind and not prophesize the very one-sides narrative that sells a lot better in the media circles.
2. While I can sympathize with #1, I am not sure how you can make the claim that Uber is in the business of screwing people over. It's outsized impact to consumers – both riders and drivers – is the favorite aspect of working at Uber. Most of us would otherwise be busy forcing people to click on spammy ads. Uber for me has helped blur the line between digital and human impact and I have first-hand noticed the impact from my work. Think about how fewer riders need to drink and drive because of Uber. In most of our cities, drivers who initially would have no source of part-time income, are now able to make money for all sorts of needs (help kids pay for college, side-gig while recovering from an injury are ones I have heard first-hand recently). Hearing these stories is inspiring. It compels you to get rid of the bad parts and be part of the change. In addressing your direct comment, I am proud to tell my kids the opportunities I have helped create for people across the world.
Now if only we figured out to sell our story better and win people over such as yourself. Give us some time :)
I’m not going to pretend my employer is Jesus or something, they’ve done their fair share of bad stuff that puts their name in the paper too, but I personally feel like there is a line. When you witness so many cases of the management prioritizing profit over being decent, doesn’t that bother you? I could pull up five serious cases of abuse of trust Uber is directly responsible for that happened just this year, is there a number of infractions on the magnitude this poor woman has suffered that would make you leave?
Moral failures (which Uber has shown time and time again) should not be compared to whether or not their business is useful to you. Business failures should be compared to business success, and moral bad should be compared with moral good. Uber has shown little to zero moral good. Not treating their employees who drive for them like crap would be a good place to start. Or their customers when raped would be another.
Lyft also provides huge business value in the exact same industry but without all the immoral baggage (as far as I've seen).
But this view on HN hat business value somehow replaces moral value mind boggling.
[0]https://goodlawproject.org/uber-case/
The question remains though if it's reasonable to continue to use uber. Is it a good idea to reward such awful behavior in the startup phase? IMHO, I think not. I'd prefer to use lyft and hopefully send a message (however minuscule) that startups shouldn't act this way at any point in their life.