|
Pump it up! Do it! posted:Have people completely forgotten about google glasses? In what way do you mean? Snap's dumb piece of poo poo glasses manage to not cost $1500 and don't attempt to do anything more than being a questionably more useful way to take pictures in a limited set of circumstances. Project's probably a total money pit for them, but that's the way things go. Interesting that that article still uses the older publicity shots, the actual product looks marginally less goofy, although a lot more like the cheap $20 "spy sunglasses" you can order off aliexpress:
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:I mean, if I'm reading this as an amoral investorial ubermensch who couldn't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about diversity, it still might put me off sticking my money in Uber. That stuff about the game of thrones style management culture is textbook failing company. It's what happens when the assholes have metastasized through the whole middle management layer because the higher ups are too clueless to excise them. Unless you're a born and bred lolbertarian, in which case the only purer company is Sears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 00:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
nm posted:But why aren't there many women in tech? I knew some people at amazon who got the same treatment, and they were even fired for reporting sexual harassment in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Uber can't afford any more bad publicity after they lost >200K accounts in the #DeleteUber craze. If customers start getting a nasty unpleasant feeling about Uber, they're going to use a different service. In other other news, Yahoo, the Dead That Cannot Die (see thread header) has just repriced the Verizon deal again, giving up $350 mil. You get three guesses as to why. Ready? Last week they announced yet another big security breach
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If customers start getting a nasty unpleasant feeling about Uber, they're going to use a different service. Where there is another comparable service available, yeah. I suspect that #DeleteUber is almost exclusively where Lyft has service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
If you are hired on and report something to HR while in your probationary period or at any point in an at-will employment state the most likely outcome is you getting terminated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Where there is another comparable service available, yeah. I suspect that #DeleteUber is almost exclusively where Lyft has service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:If you are hired on and report something to HR while in your probationary period or at any point in an at-will employment state the most likely outcome is you getting terminated. Really depends on the company and who you are reporting on. Some companies take this poo poo extremely seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Agreed. I have no idea how Lyft's penetration compares to Uber's Notably, Lyft is not present in my Chicago-sized city, part of a 6M-person metropolitan area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Really depends on the company and who you are reporting on. Some companies take this poo poo extremely seriously. Actual grown up companies that aren't running on a business model of hoovering up venture capital until some moonshot cuts your cost of doing business by 80% take this poo poo very seriously indeed. The benefits of not having a toxic corporate culture are a lot more self-evident when you've existed for decades and intend to exist for decades more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Notably, Lyft is not present in my Chicago-sized city, part of a 6M-person metropolitan area. How about Grab? They just put an Uber-like interface on getting real taxis. Lyft's core business model is identical to Uber's and open to all the same criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Actual grown up companies that aren't running on a business model of hoovering up venture capital until some moonshot cuts your cost of doing business by 80% take this poo poo very seriously indeed. The benefits of not having a toxic corporate culture are a lot more self-evident when you've existed for decades and intend to exist for decades more. Wouldn't know about that. I'm working with a decades old tech company and had a situation where a high up manager broke the law but got around it by pleading ignorance of my circumstances. Went to my manager and then to HR and got told what's done is done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:How about Grab? They just put an Uber-like interface on getting real taxis. Is Grab anywhere other than Singapore?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:How about Grab? They just put an Uber-like interface on getting real taxis. The core business model isn't the problem as much as how it's executed (pricing, legislation, subprime car loans). The core business model (take a cut from non-employee drivers who can't set their own rates) is pretty much exactly how taxi and limo services operate. You can use Uber to get regular taxis here, too. Grab doesn't seem to operate in my country at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
The big problem is Uber trying to maintain employer-like control over their workforce without offering them employee-like protections. And also a predatory model of advertising for drivers that encourages them to enter into debt to acquire a car to achieve an income stream that's a lot less than what's advertised when you factor in liability and maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:The big problem is Uber trying to maintain employer-like control over their workforce without offering them employee-like protections. And also a predatory model of advertising for drivers that encourages them to enter into debt to acquire a car to achieve an income stream that's a lot less than what's advertised when you factor in liability and maintenance. Funnily enough there's a tax lawyer in the UK arguing that because Uber lost their case to define their employees as contractors, they've actually been paying less than their fair share of tax (can't disrupt VAT) and owe the Treasury £20m/year for 4-5 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:The big problem is Uber trying to maintain employer-like control over their workforce without offering them employee-like protections. I've never been an Uber driver, but are you talking about imposed pricing and responsiveness, or something else? Both of those are the case for taxis and limos as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
HR's job is to protect the company. Sometimes that means firing shitbags. Sometimes that means protecting employees by letting go some other resource.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Is Grab anywhere other than Singapore?  I've mixed up my apps. I've used Grab in SEA. The first-world one I was thinking of is Curb. Proud Christian Mom posted:HR's job is to protect the company. Sometimes that means firing shitbags. Sometimes that means protecting employees by letting go some other resource. Firing shitbags is protecting employees. Not firing them is not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Oh god. https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber  heard about this the other day and figured it was just your typical startup sexual harassment story. Travis' response was pathetic and I'd be pretty spooked if I was an investor. Doesn't matter how good your idea is, management styles like this will kill any company eventually and turning this around is going to be next to impossible as all the actors will be scrambling to stab eachother in the back even more now. They'd have to fire just about all of the leadership at this point and would probably tank the company even faster. Too bad for Uber that noone outside of the investor class will really care. The sooner this bay area libertarian fever dream dies the better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
The worst thing is the leather jackets. It's like they're actively trying to make their employees hate the place. And there's a simple solution. Charge fatties an extra fee to subsidize the ladies, sheesh. It's like watching some aynrandians trying to do reverse virtue signaling to show off how much of an rear end in a top hat they are. But what's good about Uber is the civil disobedience they perform to get the laws protecting incumbents changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
sarehu posted:The worst thing is the leather jackets. It's like they're actively trying to make their employees hate the place. And there's a simple solution. Charge fatties an extra fee to subsidize the ladies, sheesh. Their argument was that a smaller order of women's jackets would end up costing more per jacket than the men's order, ie more spent per woman than per man, and that would be unfair. Their solution was to only buy jackets for men. They don't need a subsidy, they need algebra.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Their argument was that a smaller order of women's jackets would end up costing more per jacket than the men's order, ie more spent per woman than per man, and that would be unfair. Their solution was to only buy jackets for men. The fall of unicorns: tech industry algebra subsidies
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
sarehu posted:The worst thing is the leather jackets. It's like they're actively trying to make their employees hate the place. And there's a simple solution. Charge fatties an extra fee to subsidize the ladies, sheesh. Or peel off a rounding error from the CEO's bonus and just pay up for the extra cost. They're loving flush with VC cash but decide to be penny pinchers when it comes to an employee perk. What a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
You don't exactly have to be a feminist to even realise that getting jackets for every employee EXCEPT for the women is like the dickest of dick moves that essentially says, "you're not really welcome here".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:They don't need a subsidy, they need algebra. Huh? They are algebraically correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
sarehu posted:But what's good about Uber is the civil disobedience they perform to get the laws protecting incumbents changed. Please tell me you're kidding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Travis' response was pathetic and I'd be pretty spooked if I was an investor. Doesn't matter how good your idea is, management styles like this will kill any company eventually and turning this around is going to be next to impossible as all the actors will be scrambling to stab eachother in the back even more now. They'd have to fire just about all of the leadership at this point and would probably tank the company even faster. "We will replace all our drivers with AI within 20 years" (fails to notice all his female engineers leaving)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Huh? They are algebraically correct. Under whatever measure of fairness you prefer, compare the two options:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Actual grown up companies that aren't running on a business model of hoovering up venture capital until some moonshot cuts your cost of doing business by 80% take this poo poo very seriously indeed. The benefits of not having a toxic corporate culture are a lot more self-evident when you've existed for decades and intend to exist for decades more. I think you're right: If Uber doesn't want to pay attention to local transportation and licensing laws, it makes sense they'd ignore HR regulations as well. And if your intention is grow big fast and then cash out (rather than build a company), rules and regulations are only holding you back. Not to mention the Silicon Valley mythology of people who "break the rules" (if only metaphorically).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
sarehu posted:The worst thing is the leather jackets. It's like they're actively trying to make their employees hate the place. And there's a simple solution. Charge fatties an extra fee to subsidize the ladies, sheesh. Funny too because if they really wanted to be such dicks about cost they could have gotten the women mens leather jackets in their sizes. I also suspect whatever manager came up with the unit cost zinger was basing it on averages since clothing is sold in sizes. So no doubt they paid twice as much for 1 gigantic leather jacket for treebeard and more than the womens jackets would have costed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
I don't think math is the best way to solve morality issues. The real problem is the sharp line between men and women due to a paltry cost. It is not actually a cost issue, because again, less than 10 leather jackets vs 100. Nor is it a fairness issue, because an employee would have to be really petty to care that someones leather jackets cost the company 1.2 more. But hey, whining about how a minority group is getting a leg up due to the assistance they get/extra cost they incur because they are NOT a majority is a favorite pastime of many "Homo Economicus".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Yeah, Curb is US-only.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
In my opinion, the benefit to the employee would be the retail price of a jacket without the costs for the employer factoring in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Woman working for company that fucks over people gets hosed over, tears at eleven
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Or peel off a rounding error from the CEO's bonus and just pay up for the extra cost. Yeah you wouldn't think a company that's happy to lose $3 billion in a single year would worry about spending an extra $300 on jackets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
If a men's jacket cost $60 and a women's jacket cost $100 then the cost of jackets is $80. Providing something for only half your workforce is worse than providing nothing at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
The article talks about these dip poo poo managers described as top performers... in a company where the only tangible progress appears to be losing court battles and lighting money on fire, what do you think constitutes excellent management performance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:The article talks about these dip poo poo managers described as top performers... in a company where the only tangible progress appears to be losing court battles and lighting money on fire, what do you think constitutes excellent management performance? Cost saving initiatives, like only buying jackets for men.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
cowofwar posted:If a men's jacket cost $60 and a women's jacket cost $100 then the cost of jackets is $80. Providing something for only
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
