Also, this seems like maybe it would be a relevant consideration for joining Uber in 2010 - nobody joining in 2017 is hitting the lottery and contributing to a virtuous cycle.
Again, I'm not going to try and present information contrary to what you know (it would likely just be attacked for being biased), but I would encourage you to ask yourself if you're adequately applied the null hypothesis to any institution on which you have formed a position:
https://byrslf.co/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-and-wants-yo...
I would also encourage you to not consider the ways in which you believe an institution is worse than the status quo, but also consider the ways in which it is better. As an exercise, list out both when considering the relative merit of an institution. How is it better? How is it worse? Eliminate from both lists those aspects that are inevitable (for reasons of path dependency) regardless of which institution is solving the same problem. For those ways in which it is worse than the status quo, consider ways in which those could be corrected.
I won't comment on your last statement because it involves discussion of future growth prospects, which no two people will likely agree on.
This is silly. "I could refute your point of view, but you would just make a baseless character attack against me, so I can't. Your fault really."
Fowler put forth what I and many others have found to be a cool headed, well documented, and credible account of events.
The ball is in Uber's court. So far they hired Eric Holder and there have been some resignations. Too soon to know for sure, but it does seem to lend further credence to Fowler's account.
If Fowler made something up, it will be up to you guys make that point.
I don't find the "I won't provide my version of events because you guys are not discussing this in good faith" very convincing. It's passive aggressive.
If you can't discuss because of legal issues or an agreement with your employer, that's fine. But don't blame us.