|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:are you hiring? My job is actually an incredibly boring 70 hour a week grind. It has small moments of schadenfreude but mostly it's reading bond documents at 2am, building models on Saturday, and coordinating with 5 sets of lawyers
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
withak posted:Until Uber goes out of their way to set up some service that crosses state lines, creating a new category of interstate commerce which would require the Trump administration to step in and produce some new regulations. The new regulations would allow them to do whatever they want. They call the NYC metro area "The Tri-State Area" for a reason. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
follow that camel!! posted:I think it also matters that Uber is a commercial vehicle picking up passengers, as opposed to an individual driving himself around. Regulation and enforcement tends to be more focused on taxis and commercial vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
I don't hear it any more. I hear "gig economy" and "independent providers", more than I'd like. I have heard pitches that explicitly distinguished themselves from Uber/DoorDash/etc by saying they would use employees and own the tools, to provide more reliable service. Warms the heart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I don't hear it any more. I hear "gig economy" and "independent providers", more than I'd like. Gig Economy takes it for what it is: we're all poor as gently caress and need to scrape together a living with as many random odd-jobs as we can handle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Part of that is that you only "share" with certain people. When Airbnb first started, their sales pitch was that you control who you let into your home. They required an established social media account to register, and hosts often reviewed a guest's social media before approving a booking. In addition, up until a few years ago smartphone use was concentrated in a few demographic groups, which further restricted who could use it. Airbnb would probably have never gotten big if they had their current anti-discimination policies when they started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:*in Bane voice* I was thinking more of a Nigel Lambert voice myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Hillary Clintons Thong posted:edit: Basically almost all of this poo poo seems like people having more money than sense, in a nutshell. And remember, after you hit a certain level of wealth, it actually takes work not to just keep growing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Time posted:I have a boss who has every one of those slides he has ever seen saved in one PowerPoint. He emails an updated version around every 6 months and makes me add in post-mortem stats about how hard they failed. You should make up a totally bullshit pitch to go with those slides and time how long it takes for different VCs and angels to say "No thanks." Or "How much do you need?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
I should find out how the venture-backed company that wanted to hire me to run engineering is doing. They found me on LinkedIn, see, and wanted to interview me as their first non-founder hire based on my profile. (Only vague stuff is listed, and I haven't been anything other than an individual contributor for a dozen years.) I first told them I wasn't interested in anything less than VP or C-level, and instead of saying "oh, never mind," the recruiter at the VC firm said "they'll discuss it." That's when I let them know it was a blow-off and they should really vet people better before asking if they'd like a job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
That fall of Theranos story is so on point, not just about Theranos but the whole tech industry. Some choice quote for those who haven't read it yet:http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive posted:... she is often surrounded by her security detail, which sometimes numbers as many as four men, who (for safety reasons) refer to the young C.E.O. as “Eagle 1”—and headed to the airport. (She has been known to fly alone on a $6.5 million Gulfstream G150.) The "white men" bit is overplayed I think - it's more that they're white guys that all went to the same universities and hang out with each other - but it's pretty damning of everyone in the system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The House Freedom Caucus's shopping list mentions Uber by name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Skipthedishes just "exited" for 200 mil to some uk startup who also provides a delivery service. Innovation everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
quote:The whole "sharing economy" thing is pretty much abandoned at this point, right? There is a McDonalds billboard ad on the main highway into San Francisco for 20-piece McNuggets, referring to them as the new sharing economy or something of that sort. (I just wanted to plant that little factoid in your brain where it will linger and rot forever, much like McNuggets.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Skipthedishes just "exited" for 200 mil to some uk startup who also provides a delivery service. Innovation everyone. 110, we'll see if they can hit the targets for the other 90
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Exciting news at Faraday Future, a self-driving car startup.quote:But six former Faraday employees told BuzzFeed News the company is headed toward its big CES reveal following a year fraught with financial troubles, including mounting unpaid bills, lawsuits from a supplier and a landlord, and a distracting side project undertaken at the behest of its largest investor. The past year has also seen a slew of departures, including senior staffers. quote:There is some evidence to support that characterization. In December 2015, employees at Faraday’s headquarters in Gardena, California, received a mandate from Jia: Design a prototype LeEco [a separate company owned by the founder] car that could be shown off publicly at a spring event in Beijing. According to several former employees, some of Faraday’s designers were pulled off of their core projects to work on the vehicle. And in April 2016, LeEco unveiled a sleek, electric sedan called LeSee. On stage, Jia, who has been outspoken about his plans to usurp Tesla, touted LeSee as a LeEco creation as the white sedan glided across the stage to park in a mock garage. The audience couldn’t see that the seemingly self-driving car was in fact being piloted from backstage via remote control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Sundae posted:There is a McDonalds billboard ad on the main highway into San Francisco for 20-piece McNuggets, referring to them as the new sharing economy or something of that sort. McDonals misuse a popular phrase? Why, I never! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Sundae posted:There is a McDonalds billboard ad on the main highway into San Francisco for 20-piece McNuggets, referring to them as the new sharing economy or something of that sort. They have a radio commercial with the same gimmick filled with Silicon Valley buzzwords, it's terrible. I'm pretty sure the McNuggets deal has existed for years, but maybe they got rid of it for a few months just to make a big deal out of bringing it back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
McDonald's 20 Piece Chicken Nugget is a product that provides more value to the world than 90 percent of startups, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if when Elon Musk described his Mars Mission or whatever said "A physics is performed"
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Uber refuses to back down and get the $100 permit, setting up yet another court case. Maybe they're hoping that this will be the case to revive Lochner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Uber refuses to back down and get the $100 permit, setting up yet another court case. It actually sort of sounds like they might not actually be self driving cars, just cars with a ton of driver convenience features. Like I am 100% sure the end goal is to eventually kick out the driver but it sounds like they have not just designed a self driving car then had a guy sit like a lump in the seat to meet a bare minimum requirement, it sounds like they actually aren't self driving cars and actually do require a person to do a lot of the driving. Just less than a standard car. http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/uber-tests-self-driving-on-san-francisco-roads-avoids-dmv-autonomy-definition/ Uber’s cars require a human operator to make any kind of significant trip, with Bloomberg reporting that in a Tuesday test drive, the engineer behind the wheel “took control of the vehicle more than a dozen times in less than 30 minutes.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/uber-tests-self-driving-on-san-francisco-roads-avoids-dmv-autonomy-definition/ Who cares? It's a $150 fee and three pieces of paper. They're just being huge dicks about a non-issue because they think they're making a stand against stifling regulation because they're the corporate personification of howard roark, it's got nothing to do with the technology or anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
The California Attorney General won't be scared of their legal department and because this will go up to the California Supremes (this is a matter of state law), they're probably going to get killed. Unless the car really isn't an autonomous car but they don't want to actually show that because marketing. I bet there's a whole bunch of SFPD and CHP officers who just are itching to tow the uber car too. Note also that last I heard, California's self-driving car regulations were considered pretty great by the companies doing self-driving cars. They're not particularly onerous. nm fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
nm posted:Note also that last I heard, California's self-driving car regulations were considered pretty great by the companies doing self-driving cars. They're not particularly onerous. Arsenic Lupin posted:I honestly think Uber must have some major libertarians at the top, and believe that complying with any sort of government regulation just encourages them. They argue about even the most minor of restrictions. This is why they aren't even paying $150 and filling out three pages of paperwork. They honestly think that the law doesn't really apply to the Randian Ubermensch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
So from more reading, it sounds like filing the forms also then requires that you coordinate with the city you're testing in and so forth. I wonder if the ongoing cooperation requirement is what they find objectionable. They aren't known for getting along well with municipalities. E: Oh, also, they'd have to file a report listing all the times autonomous mode disengaged, which they might not want to do if early reports of the frequency of driver intervention are true. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
eschaton posted:This is why they aren't even paying $150 and filling out three pages of paperwork. They honestly think that the law doesn't really apply to the Randian Ubermensch. They aren't wrong unfortunately. Listen or read anything about wealth managers or the super wealthy that's come out recently. Borders, taxes, laws the truly rich are currently ignoring all of them. It's pretty obvious the next step is to push it downwards and to get the entities they control to be able to ignore these things completely too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
eschaton posted:This is why they aren't even paying $150 and filling out three pages of paperwork. They honestly think that the law doesn't really apply to the Randian Ubermensch. They honestly don't think that the self driving car rules apply to their human driven cars. That seems like a non-insane position. Like should everyone fill out the form if their car has automatic transmission or cruise control too? Figuring out which automation is and isn't "self driving" is important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They honestly don't think that the self driving car rules apply to their human driven cars. That seems like a non-insane position. Like should everyone fill out the form if their car has automatic transmission or cruise control too? Figuring out which automation is and isn't "self driving" is important. Live by the marketing campaign, die by the marketing campaign. Once you've told the press it's "self-driving" it's too late to tell the state of California it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
It's also important for California to push on this because the failure to do so would establish a precedent that cars that mostly drove themselves don't need a permit. If a car isn't self-driving because the driver moved the steering wheel once every two to three minutes what about five minutes? Ten minutes? And by that point you could make the argument that a car that can be overridden by the driver isn't even self-driving. It'd be a dumb argument, but Uber would make it if it thought it could get away with it. The state can draw the line in the sand now or it can risk the line being established by an unfavorable court ruling later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They honestly don't think that the self driving car rules apply to their human driven cars. That seems like a non-insane position. Like should everyone fill out the form if their car has automatic transmission or cruise control too? Figuring out which automation is and isn't "self driving" is important. Yeah, it's a shame California didn't specify what they meant by autonomous vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
duz posted:Yeah, it's a shame California didn't specify what they meant by autonomous vehicles. quote:(b) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person. Active physical control is a bit sticky (does it cover vehicles with throttle/steering by wire?), but the rest of that is very clear. I don't really want to dig into regulations further, but there are probably ones that apply to non-autonomous vehicles about drivers maintaining control of their vehicles that California could ding Uber under. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
duz posted:Yeah, it's a shame California didn't specify what they meant by autonomous vehicles. They did, and the uber car, in requiring human input to navigate doesn't meet the requirements. It's literally not a self driving car. It literally has a person that is driving it and taking frequent action to control the car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They did, and the uber car, in requiring human input to navigate doesn't meet the requirements. It's literally not a self driving car. It literally has a person that is driving it and taking frequent action to control the car. Uber: "But there is a more fundamental point—how and when companies should be able to engineer and operate self-driving technology. We have seen different approaches to this question. Most states see the potential benefits, especially when it comes to road safety. And several cities and states have recognized that complex rules and requirements could have the unintended consequence of slowing innovation. Pittsburgh, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida in particular have been leaders in this way, and by doing so have made clear that they are pro technology. Our hope is that California, our home state and a leader in much of the world’s dynamism, will take a similar view." They are retroactively claiming "Whoops, not a self-driving car" but a large part of the argument is "You shouldn't be regulating us anyway". This is not an argument calculated to appeal to the California DMV. "Still, Bloomberg noted that Uber still hasn’t added itself to the DMV-managed list of companies that can test self-driving cars in California. That list includes tech companies like Google and Nvidia, traditional automakers like Volkswagen Group and Nissan, and auto component makers like Bosch and Delphi. The DMV told Bloomberg that "twenty manufacturers have already obtained permits to test hundreds of cars on California roads. Uber should do the same.”" Twenty other companies have pulled the $150 permit, but somehow Uber can't bother to do that because ~slowing innovation~.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
They probably don't care about the whole $150 thing because they figure they can perpetually count on the venture capital to help them win any legal fights and thus the larger battle for Who am I kidding? 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They did, and the uber car, in requiring human input to navigate doesn't meet the requirements. It's literally not a self driving car. It literally has a person that is driving it and taking frequent action to control the car. I'm not clear on it needing that much intervention by design or because the system makes too many mistakes. But to my mind if the car can literally drive itself a few minutes at a time is self driving. There are exemptions for equipment that helps the driver but those can't be trusted to drive cars. Cruise control sets the speed and that's it. No concern for collisions. Collision avoidance and lane assist can help prevent accidents. But they can't detect driving conditions and don't have precise navigational controls. GPS can tell you where you're at and where your going but it doesn't steer. Once you put those all into an integrated system designed to drive a car without input it becomes a self- driving car. Uber doesn't get a pass on that because there are, on average, one input every 2.5 minutes On the highway at speed that's almost 3 miles. In a school zone or a bus stop that can be the difference between a driver noticing a signal and slowing down and the car not noticing and driving into someone who came from behind a bus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:They probably don't care about the whole $150 thing because they figure they can perpetually count on the venture capital to help them win any legal fights and thus the larger battle for
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Speaking of dumb money, with interest rates at long last being raised, are we going to see a sudden drying up of funding sources as it percolates down the network?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Is it true Kalanick is a liberal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
i am furious about taxis. i hate taxis! one taxi driver called me a witch and accused me of being in a witch's coven of black widows and when i told him my uncle had actually died of cancer not murder he barely skipped a beat. my asian friends get sexually harrassed every second ride. rural taxi drivers are okay though, there's just the ten percent who are serial killers. however i have to honourably mention a taxi driver in the city once who was indian-australian and kept my mother and i regaled for twenty minutes about how he was some sort of guerrilla anti-racist freedom fighter who travelled around the capital cities giving rides to neo-nazis and effortlessly destroying them with his fists. he was great and i would happily pay twice the usual cab fare if every driver was guaranteed to be like him
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:05
|
|