|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'll stick to killing my own family, thanks. Jeremy Corbyn detected Take back the means of Jam production
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Uber has lost more than 1.3 billion in the first half of this year http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/technology/uber-2016-losses/ Still waiting for them to become over-leveraged. Most of the loss is from paying driver subsidies for rides (they are underpriced). Who will still use Uber when it costs 2-3x as much?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Roger Craig posted:Uber has lost more than 1.3 billion in the first half of this year http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/technology/uber-2016-losses/
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:I don't think Uber will ever be profitable. They had a possibly decent shot at longterm profitability if they had been able to stay in China, but they lost there precisely because there's nothing about Uber that distinguishes it from competing services. In the US, Uber is probably doomed. The entrenchment of the taxi industry in the most profitable markets (cities) and the resulting pressure on regulators will probably force Uber to comply with standard insurance/regulatory requirements for taxis. That will cost them. Likewise, the cost of living in large cities is much higher, so Uber drivers will probably not be able to afford to drive for them anymore if the subsidies stop. But but but... They have a self-driving car program that's about to start in Pittsburg! They are going to replace all private transportation in our generation! Travis is a CEO like Zuckerberg or Bezos, and he is driving their market valuation right now. (These are all things I have actually heard from various people. It makes it even more clear that Uber's Pittsburg program is purely smoke-and-mirrors to keep their valuation propped up.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
The other thing in Uber's way is that their sudden rise forced local taxi services to get on a hailing app. And once they do that (and many have already) the difference is yeah just the normal things, unless you're really into passenger ratings or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
The YellowCab / HailO / whatever apps aren't as polished as Ub's. It's also not as ubiquitous, so that's a small ding against them. But yeah, in the alternaverse Uber licenses their hailing app and makes tons of sustainable money without looking like 1900s barons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I love the way Ubers have car seats for kiddies. That's something that other taxis really don't have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Anecdotally, I have heard that black people like Uber because they aren't discriminated against like they are with hailing cabs in real life. But that just means the app idea is sound, not that we should love the 1099 "no real employees" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
One thing that I've heard that's telling to me about the viability of Uber long term is the low barrier to entry in their market. Their valuation makes sense on a certain level if you think that they can hold on until self-driving cars become viable, and then can leverage their advantage to dominate transportation in general. But the chances of them claiming the whole taxi cab pie is unlikely in the extreme, given that they already have several competitors in most major cities. Making a ride sharing app isn't so hard, as long as you have the VC cash to lure drivers away with better rates. And then there's Ford saying they want to break into the transportation market, with the other car companies probably not far behind...it's hard to see this paying off to the extent that their valuation suggests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:But that just means the app idea is sound, not that we should love the 1099 "no real employees" bullshit. Do we love it when taxi companies do it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I hope they go out of business purely to stop the push of businesses to act like regulations shouldn't apply to them
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
That's as old as tradespeople not pulling permits or people being paid under the table. No unicrash is going to roll back centuries of corner cutting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I hope they go out of business purely to stop the push of businesses to act like regulations shouldn't apply to them That's never going to happen. Businesses will never just accept that regulations exist to do anything except unfairly inhibit their rights to make as much money in as short-sighted a way possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
This is maybe my favorite part of the cognitive dissonance of the Valley culture. Everyone is hyperliberal, concerned with social justice, vegan and gluten free. At the same time, they're working in exclusive young white man collectives, making their money by actively dismantling the social protections of local, state and federal government. They're the most obvious right wing conservative libertopians in the entire world. Peter Thiel is the only honest man in Palo Alto.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I hope they go out of business purely to stop the push of businesses to act like regulations shouldn't apply to them That and the 19th century financial fuckery they're up to. It was wrong when standard oil undercut everybody else to destroy all competition. It's wrong for Uber to do it now. It isn't free market competition when whoever has the biggest bag of money can just operate at a loss until everybody else dies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:One thing that I've heard that's telling to me about the viability of Uber long term is the low barrier to entry in their market. Their valuation makes sense on a certain level if you think that they can hold on until self-driving cars become viable, and then can leverage their advantage to dominate transportation in general. But the chances of them claiming the whole taxi cab pie is unlikely in the extreme, given that they already have several competitors in most major cities. Making a ride sharing app isn't so hard, as long as you have the VC cash to lure drivers away with better rates. And then there's Ford saying they want to break into the transportation market, with the other car companies probably not far behind...it's hard to see this paying off to the extent that their valuation suggests. Ford and GM are going to crush Uber in the transition to self-driving cars if their current plans pan out, there's no way Uber can compete with a service that builds, maintains, and dispatches it's own fleet via ecosystem apps that work for both owner and non-owner users.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This is maybe my favorite part of the cognitive dissonance of the Valley culture. Everyone is hyperliberal, concerned with social justice, vegan and gluten free. At the same time, they're working in exclusive young white man collectives, making their money by actively dismantling the social protections of local, state and federal government. They're the most obvious right wing conservative libertopians in the entire world. Peter Thiel is the only honest man in Palo Alto. People want to feel good about themselves while simultaneously getting richer regardless of whether other people get shat on in the process. Crowing about things that they can't imagine will ever make them uncomfortable but which also don't interfere with getting richer is a practical way to feel good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I don't follow this thread regularly enough but I just want to say Thiel creeps me out on multiple levels and I pray he's never able to achieve whatever hosed up ends he's currently dreaming up
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
I finally realized who he reminds me of!! DAVID MISCAVIGE.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It isn't free market competition when whoever has the biggest bag of money can just operate at a loss until everybody else dies. The mistake is in assuming that "free market competition" is a thing that has ever, does, or even can exist. The free market is one of those conservative myths that falls apart under even light scrutiny since markets in the modern, capitalist sense literally cannot exist without governments to support them. Complaints about regulations always boil down to "I don't like this specific form of regulation because it benefits someone else."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Aw, Uber got beaten to the punch: http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/25/nutonomy-singapore-self-driving-car-service/
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The mistake is in assuming that "free market competition" is a thing that has ever, does, or even can exist. The free market is one of those conservative myths that falls apart under even light scrutiny since markets in the modern, capitalist sense literally cannot exist without governments to support them. Complaints about regulations always boil down to "I don't like this specific form of regulation because it benefits someone else." I basically knew libertarians were full of poo poo when I found out a lot of them believe that monopolies can't exist without government intervention. That's just completely, demonstratively the opposite of what has actually happened in most industries throughout history. The degree of willful refusal to engage with inconvenient facts it must take to sustain a belief like that boggles my mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Aw, Uber got beaten to the punch: http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/25/nutonomy-singapore-self-driving-car-service/ Edited for clarity: Karl Iagnemma posted:NuTonomy’s first-in-the-world public [endangerment] is a direct reflection of the level of [hubris and avarice] that we have achieved. Baby Babbeh posted:I basically knew libertarians were full of poo poo when I found out a lot of them believe that monopolies can't exist without government intervention. That's just completely, demonstratively the opposite of what has actually happened in most industries throughout history. The degree of willful refusal to engage with inconvenient facts it must take to sustain a belief like that boggles my mind. Austrian Economist (i.e. mega Asperger libertarian) Joseph Schumpeter was upset to find that the economy of the United States came to be dominated by large corporations instead of his preferred legion of small time entrepreneurs and thought the development would lead to the demise of capitalism. I guess he'd never heard of economies of scale? MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Aren't there lots of rumors about Thiel secretly funding alt-right/dark enlightenment poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Aren't there lots of rumors about Thiel secretly funding alt-right/dark enlightenment poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
I wouldn't doubt it. He already not-so-secretly supports dumb libertarian will-to-power crap like Seasteading Instititute and Blueseed, the absolutely retarded plan to park a decommissioned cruise ship in international waters off the coast of California to act as an incubator for startups looking to exploit cheap immigrant labor without running afoul of visa restrictions.
Baby Babbeh fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Yeah i wonder who spread those? Yeah, drat the entire media establishment who pointed out that Thiel is a Trump supporter who gave a speech at the RNC. Totally a Gawker led conspiracy 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:Yeah, drat the entire media establishment who pointed out that Thiel is a Trump supporter who gave a speech at the RNC. Totally a Gawker led conspiracy 
Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
There's a difference between a right wing tycoon funding republican candidates and a right wing tycoon funding an actual floating office building in international waters with a stated mission to circumvent immigration laws. I'm pretty liberal but if you told me about a rich lefty dumping money into some sort of floating socialist city-state I'd think they were exactly as unhinged as Peter Thiel is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Aren't there lots of rumors about Thiel secretly funding alt-right/dark enlightenment poo poo? I thought he funded Urbit at one point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:There's a difference between a right wing tycoon funding republican candidates I mean, Trump is a unique candidate too. If Thiel had been endorsing Romney or McCain, sure whatever. But like, this is something else. Anyways, sorry for the derail. Content: tried telling my family to opt out of letting WhatsApp share their phone numbers with Facebook. Everyone's reaction was a huge meh. No one gives a poo poo about their privacy. Chasiubao fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:I mean, Trump is a unique candidate too. If Thiel had been endorsing Romney or McCain, sure whatever. But like, this is something else. quote:Anyways, sorry for the derail. Content: tried telling my family to opt out of letting WhatsApp share their phone numbers with Facebook. Everyone's reaction was a huge meh. No one gives a poo poo about their privacy. Nobody cares about privacy because it does nothing for you, and quite frankly I think even fewer people care about the fact that their data is being shared as opposed to the potential abuse of that data. It's a topic where people need to be protected from their own stupidity and/or laziness, so that when someone does abuse that data they can sue them or have them prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:I mean, Trump is a unique candidate too. If Thiel had been endorsing Romney or McCain, sure whatever. But like, this is something else. Or they don't consider phone numbers to be private.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
duz posted:Or they don't consider phone numbers to be private. It's  and an additional dumb thing to worry about, until something goes wrong. The solution is to increase protections in the case of something going wrong, not to tell people they need to put effort into worrying about additional things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
duz posted:Or they don't consider phone numbers to be private. Or Facebook already has their phone number.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nobody cares about privacy because it does nothing for you, and quite frankly I think even fewer people care about the fact that their data is being shared as opposed to the potential abuse of that data. It's a topic where people need to be protected from their own stupidity and/or laziness, so that when someone does abuse that data they can sue them or have them prosecuted. I don't really care that google/facebook/redtube knows my secret shame, I just don't want them to leak it into the real world. "User friendly" features have a potential to do it, like recommended videos on youtube. "No, I have no idea why it's suggesting 'cake farts #16' to me  "
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Aren't there lots of rumors about Thiel secretly funding alt-right/dark enlightenment poo poo? He funded James O'keefe's ACORN video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Aren't there lots of rumors about Thiel secretly funding alt-right/dark enlightenment poo poo? is it a secret? he pretty openly supports humanity plus and the singularity institute, ground zero for the so called dark enlightenment
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:humanity plus and the singularity institute The Nerdrapture is just sperg religion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Wheany posted:I don't really care that google/facebook/redtube knows my secret shame, I just don't want them to leak it into the real world. "User friendly" features have a potential to do it, like recommended videos on youtube. "No, I have no idea why it's suggesting 'cake farts #16' to me I bet a lot of people would be uncomfortable if they realized that by default, YouTube creates a publicly-visible playlist of your liked videos, so if somebody say, clicks your name in the comments section of a video, they can see every video you've liked. I actually don't mind but it does seem kind of creepy that it's the silent default.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 22:09
|
|
