|
In an important status update, they have managed to fix the status update page. For posterity: quote:Update at 11:35 AM PST: We have now repaired the ability to update the service health dashboard. The service updates are below. We continue to experience high error rates with S3 in US-EAST-1, which is impacting various AWS services. We are working hard at repairing S3, believe we understand root cause, and are working on implementing what we believe will remediate the issue.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Motronic posted:And that person's computer is currently broken badly. So we get to see just how many of these tech companies are truly unprepared. Meanwhile amazon is up because they have redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
call to action posted:Ooh, someone's cranky! Try Googling it perhaps, it's well known that Uber takes between 20-30% of the fare as a commission, in addition to other fees charged (TNC, etc.) But we're not talking about what Uber does now, we're talking about Uber's hypothetical fleet of self driving cars. Where did you get the idea that it'll be 80% of the fare with that? Do you even know what you're talking about at all or do you just want to jerk off over that failure of a company?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
100% - 20% = 80%
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Jethro posted:100% - 20% = 80% Why would Uber only take 20% or 80% of the fare on their own car with no driver? The problem the dude is glossing over is that if Uber owns and opern cars, they now have a massive amount of spending they have to do to get the cars, to operate the cars, and to maintain the cars, as well as all the relevant licensing fees for owning a fleet of cars. They get 100% of the fare if they're self-driving, but it also means they go from covering 0% of the costs of driving as they do now, to covering literally all the costs. fishmech fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
This thread claims that uber takes 20% of the fare as fees and simultaneously gives the driver an extra ~100% of the fare as an anticompetitive VC subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-uber-ceo-argues-with-driver-over-falling-fares https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why would Uber only take 20% or 80% of the fare on their own car with no driver? quote:The problem the dude is glossing over is that if Uber owns and opern cars, they now have a massive amount of spending they have to do to get the cars, to operate the cars, and to maintain the cars, as well as all the relevant licensing fees for owning a fleet of cars. They get 100% of the fare if they're self-driving, but it also means they go from covering 0% of the costs of driving as they do now, to covering literally all the costs. I have no position on whether this claim is correct, I was just annoyed by your inability to parse call to action's first post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Jethro posted:THEY'D TAKE THE OTHER 80% IF THERE'S NO DRIVER, IN ADDITION TO THE 20% THEY CURRENTLY TAKE, FOR A TOTAL OF ALL THE FARE. THAT IS WHAT call to action IS SAYING. No, what he's saying is that taking the rest of the fare would magically cover the costs, because he doesn't understand what he's talking about. And what he's saying is flat out wrong. Uber's fares as they are now already cannot cover the cost of operating the service, despite Uber not actually paying for the costs of driving. Adding on actually maintaining the fleet to that makes it impossible for Uber to get by. He's frankly an idiot that believes since electric cars need less maintenance that this would solve the problems at stake. It's kinda hosed up that you don't have any position on obvious facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
I don't think it's obvious whether self-driving cars help or hurt Uber; too much rides on exactly what the costs of building and maintaining a fleet are. Right now, labor is far and away the greatest cost to Uber, but that is because they operate a low asset model that obviously brings a shitload of advantages: they can avoid regulation and pass all the risks onto the driver. Issues like utilization of the fleet are of no concern whatsoever to them right now. If they invest in a massive fleet of self-driving cars, their income goes way up, but so do the expenses, and I have no idea how a company like Uber manages to buy those cars at this point. The best-case scenario for Uber would be a huge consumer market opening up for self-driving cars, and people renting out their cars to Uber whenever they're not using them. That is not going to happen any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-uber-ceo-argues-with-driver-over-falling-fares  Haha good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I don't think it's obvious whether self-driving cars help or hurt Uber; too much rides on exactly what the costs of building and maintaining a fleet are. Right now, labor is far and away the greatest cost to Uber, but that is because they operate a low asset model that obviously brings a shitload of advantages: they can avoid regulation and pass all the risks onto the driver. Issues like utilization of the fleet are of no concern whatsoever to them right now. If they invest in a massive fleet of self-driving cars, their income goes way up, but so do the expenses, and I have no idea how a company like Uber manages to buy those cars at this point. I mean, there's already all sorts of companies that own and operate massive fleets of cars. It's not a new thing, or thing practiced infrequently, we can make very good estimates on what building and maintaining a fleet of vehicles looks like - and that's rather expensive. Especially if it's some company like Uber that aims to operate not even nationwide but globally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, what he's saying is that taking the rest of the fare would magically cover the costs, because he doesn't understand what he's talking about. Take your pills and consider the interpretation offered by other people in this thread, smoothbrain. Your weird, angry lashing out at someone who rarely (never?) has the displeasure of posting at you is pretty strange.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
call to action posted:Take your pills and consider the interpretation offered by other people in this thread, smoothbrain. Your weird, angry lashing out at someone who rarely (never?) has the displeasure of posting at you is pretty strange. It's pretty funny how you're unable to defend your argument that having a whole fleet of cars won't be expensive because "electric cars need less maintenance". consider not sucking Uber's dick for a minute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's pretty funny how you're unable to defend your argument that having a whole fleet of cars won't be expensive because "electric cars need less maintenance". consider not sucking Uber's dick for a minute. Why the gently caress would I want to defend anything to you, I'm posting at work to kill time
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Reminder that people who buy cars to do business (Uber drivers) are owners of capital thus the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I mean, there's already all sorts of companies that own and operate massive fleets of cars. It's not a new thing, or thing practiced infrequently, we can make very good estimates on what building and maintaining a fleet of vehicles looks like - and that's rather expensive. Especially if it's some company like Uber that aims to operate not even nationwide but globally. In fact Uber has some experience with this. They do own their fleet in some area. Singapore for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why the gently caress would I want to defend anything to you, I'm posting at work to kill time So you admit that you literally don't know what you're talking about, and posted something you knew was bullshit. Good to know. Have you considered that if being asked to defend your stupid statements hurts your feelings so much, D&D isn't the place to post?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you admit that you literally don't know what you're talking about, and posted something you knew was bullshit. Good to know. There was corn in my poop, do you think that's a problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you admit that you literally don't know what you're talking about, and posted something you knew was bullshit. Good to know. Do you ever see people calling you the most tedious goddamn person alive and think "maybe they have a point?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
By the way that was rhetorical please don't make any posts on my account
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
call to action posted:There was corn in my poop, do you think that's a problem? Yeah your inability to defend any argument you make is a pretty big problem, dude. Senor Dog posted:Do you ever see people calling you the most tedious goddamn person alive and think "maybe they have a point?" No, because they're idiots. Stop crying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
fishmech you have been a member of this forum for nearly 11 years, how have you never learned how to just shut the gently caress up and disengage at a certain point? Jesus Christ you're worse than redditors sometimes. Everyone reading this thread is aware of your position. Everyone. Everyone reading this has formed an opinion of it one way or another. Just stop. You think owning a fleet of autonomous electric cars won't make Uber's business model work. Other posters think differently. We all get it. Stop spinning your tires and throwing poo poo everywhere you loving turd goblin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:
techlords.flv
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
TheScott2K posted:fishmech you have been a member of this forum for nearly 11 years, how have you never learned how to just shut the gently caress up and disengage at a certain point? Jesus Christ you're worse than redditors sometimes. Everyone reading this thread is aware of your position. Everyone. Everyone reading this has formed an opinion of it one way or another. Just stop. You think owning a fleet of autonomous electric cars won't make Uber's business model work. Other posters think differently. We all get it. Stop spinning your tires and throwing poo poo everywhere you loving turd goblin. If you hate discussing things so much you're free to not read the forum entitled Debate And Discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Omg are we back to automated cars?? gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Dominance displays aren't discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you hate discussing things so much you're free to not read the forum entitled Debate And Discussion. You're not discussing anything, you're slapfighting. I know what slapfighting looks like - I'm a profoundly bad poster. Just stop. It's not working and your poo poo is so loud nobody can talk about anything else. Every other topic is drowned out by you demanding the last word with everyone who doesn't fully agree with you and this happens all the god drat time. I swear half of these things I come across on the forums, you're the idiot in the center. This is such a good thread when you're busy elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I mean, there's already all sorts of companies that own and operate massive fleets of cars. It's not a new thing, or thing practiced infrequently, we can make very good estimates on what building and maintaining a fleet of vehicles looks like - and that's rather expensive. Especially if it's some company like Uber that aims to operate not even nationwide but globally. Bigger markets help in this case, more cars means lower acquisition costs per unit and lower maintenance costs per unit. It's expensive, but I don't think we can make a great cost estimate for a fleet of a self-driving cars yet, because I don't know how well we can estimate what the depreciation, fuel, and maintenance costs are going to be. If we were looking at a total cost of ownership of $10,000/car/year, which is a bit more than what it costs to run a compact van over its first five years, they'd do very well. [ed: if this is something the thread has discussed way too much already and I just missed it, sorry, I can back out] BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:[ed: if this is something the thread has discussed way too much already and I just missed it, sorry, I can back out] If it's about Uber, and it wasn't in the news in the last 48 hours, we've covered it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah your inability to defend any argument you make is a pretty big problem, dude. Actually you're the idiot that answered a rhetorical question heh
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
That's some nice alternative facts you got there, shame they aren't real ones. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Bigger markets help in this case, more cars means lower acquisition costs per unit and lower maintenance costs per unit. It's expensive, but I don't think we can make a great cost estimate for a fleet of a self-driving cars yet, because I don't know how well we can estimate what the depreciation, fuel, and maintenance costs are going to be. If we were looking at a total cost of ownership of $10,000/car/year, which is a bit more than what it costs to run a compact van over its first five years, they'd do very well. Self-driving cars don't really change the calculus for costs, other than bumping up the cost of initial acquisition, since they'll necessarily cost more than regular cars (and I guess maybe you need to make sure to wash them a bit more often to ensure various sensors can work, but that's a minor expense). And we already know that massive vehicle fleets are expensive to maintain. You add on top of it that the only thing Uber really has going for choosing Uber as opposed to anyone else to get a ride from is their current policy of massively subsidizing fares and thus losing billions of dollars on the whole thing - so if they're to keep a large portion of their riders when they try to raise prices, they're still going to have to deal with razor-thin margins at best, because they aim to be discount. Additionally, what sort of cost to run a compact van are you picturing there? If you're referring to how fleet vehicles like that are usually used, that'd be a lot less hard miles on it then a car intended to be used for taxi service all day and most of the night after all. Currently, taxi drivers who get a good amount of trips in a day will drive between 100 and 200 miles a day on their own, which is of course city mileage that's harder on fuel and brakes and so on then all highway or a mix, and with some of those taxis being used for two or three shifts over a day, that can easily end up with 250-500 miles per day (since obviously the shift that gets the really early morning hours is going to have significant downtime). There's also a lot of time spent idling mixed in there which would bring up fuel usage more but we'll ignore that for the moment. If we assume about 25 miles a gallon city, like you get on many newer cars, that would mean burning at least 10 gallons a day for a car expected to be used all day. So 3650 gallons a year and with an average national gas price of $2.30 a gallon, you're looking at over $8000 a year just in fuel. And of course that'll be a lot higher in many metro areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
What is it about self driving cars that sends people into a frothing rage? Like, this is easily the most partisan issue in tech since Apple products started sucking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Because they're an obvious example of highly disruptive tech: there are a LOT of jobs -- millions -- based on driving, and self-driving technology could eliminate most of them. I think that's the most obvious reason anyway, other ones include whether they're an example of Silicon Valley hubris and to what extent they can complement or replace conventional transit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:What is it about self driving cars that sends people into a frothing rage? Like, this is easily the most partisan issue in tech since Apple products started sucking. Anyone who has told you that there is sufficient advances in controls engineering to support self driving cars is lying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
I think the best side effect of the S3 outage today was this tweet: https://twitter.com/TheAVClub/status/836665124354150401
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:What is it about self driving cars that sends people into a frothing rage? Like, this is easily the most partisan issue in tech since Apple products started sucking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:19
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:What is it about self driving cars that sends people into a frothing rage? Like, this is easily the most partisan issue in tech since Apple products started sucking. Uncertainty. There's enough question marks involved that people can fill in a lot of spaces with their own assumptions. At the same time, there's enough concrete material (and a clear enough moral villain) that people are willing to defend their assumptions.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:I think the best side effect of the S3 outage today was this tweet: What was it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:What was it? Probably that Trump is a massive retarded piss baby. There was a pretty big rant that I didn't read completely, and unfortunately it didn't get cached.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 12:25
|
|