Susan Fowler fears she's now the target of a smear campaign
twitter.com
twitter.com
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7240215/uber-exec-casuall...
And I suppose, today, Uber better be hoping none of its ex, current or future ex-employees ever get assaulted, baseball bat or not. For PR or legal defense, if not for actual human empathy.
Part 1: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Part 2: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Part 3: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Part 4: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Part 5: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Part 6: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Part 7: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/can-uber-ever-deliver...
Ride sharing is computationally NP-hard (assuming vehicle capacity larger than 2), the whole fleet management itself is NP-hard and depends highly on the realtime routing capabilities and prediction.
To make a combinatorial optimization algorithm capable of incorporating ride-sharing constraints and realtime data is a serious feat which maybe they jumped in too early to solve (given that no current research published tries anything similar). For really groundbreaking work to happen one needs quality engineers and researchers, and realistically, who would want to work in a company that is openly criticized for having terrible work culture?
The only way they can lower the prices and then find the sweetspot prices after monopoly is by having superior machine learning and combinatorial optimization solution.
I suspect this is what the GP is getting at: reaching the levels of optimization on this problem which are required to launch the service is comparatively easy. Going from there to optimality is extremely hard, but may not be necessary from a business or end user point of view.
Yes, service can obviously work with subpar algorithms but to really succeed at pricing it as cheaply as possible it requires practically an ability to successfully predict the whole day and then optimizing on the NP-hard problem of that whole day. Maybe sampling a million day variants while routing to make a single decision (which driver should pickup the next request).
Of course brute force greedy algorithms work but they can be, on a hundred vehicle scale, 30% away from the optimum cost.
I've been downvoted to oblivion so I cannot longer keep participating in this discussion (HN will shadowban me).
It comes down to basically believing what I immediately see and experience, rather than or regardless of: 1) What I am told; 2) What I might hope for -- either immediately or "at some point in the future".
There is a saying -- an aphorism? -- for this, that applies particularly -- but not only -- to initial impressions. (I won't say "first", in case of a literal bad day for someone.)
When someone shows you who [or what] they are, believe them.
This is also phrased as:
When someone tells you who [or what] they are, believe them.
When I reflect back on experiences with people who have ultimately disappointed me, I often find that indeed, they were telling me more or less directly that this would happen.
In descriptions of themselves. In descriptions of their other relationships. Sometimes in a particularly poignant word or sentence. It was there -- they were telling me so, right at the start.
I find that for institutions, too. And the personalities that comprise them and guide them.
Hell, in this case, even their name choice: U[e]ber. Really?
I'm not a fan of Uber either, but just based on that tweet it seems a little disengenuos to start another round of hammering the company.
I wonder if it would be possible to convince those people to support a better cause. There's a dire need for some good investigative journalism right about now.
I wouldn't hesitate to share the evidence with a journalist with a publication backing them though as that would be a more appropriate venue.
Having said that, I was more wondering if the people doing the threatening could be turned to better use. They surely aren't in it for the warm fuzzies, and if they're good at digging perhaps they could be convinced to do it for the good guys.
But given that Uber famously threatened to spend a million dollars digging up dirt on critics, and Fowler just wrote critically about her experiences at that company, its hardly surprising that people jump to the conclusion that Uber is doing what they once threatened to do.
I'm simply pointing out that her tweet is not enough evidence of fault to start another round of bashing the company as if it is true.
Even though it was under different circumstances...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/nyregion/investigation-of...