NoTeslaThrow

They did. But the model of uber was obviously designed to drive them out of business, damn legality and short term losses and devastation of the local community.

Well, now we're stuck at the airport waiting for a mob of cars to fight each other to transport us each as least efficiently as humans have figured out how to do. But at least we can stare at our phone while we wait to get fucked.

And this doesn't even touch the horror of the driving side

Meanwhile, my city is suing a local cooperative for "safety reasons" or some bullshit. I don't expect anything to ever improve at this point.

I'm not even sure what this means for a language to punch through in a way the author or reader might find desirable. Do you have an example?

Then they shouldn't charge for faster delivery. It just doesn't make any sense. Like i'm 95% sure in most cases you don't actually get a car faster and they just take your money and provide no marginal value (granted, I only use the apps about every other month). How else could they consistently offer multiple price tiers regardless of availability? I'm not claiming fraud necessarily, but I also can't imagine how you could offer it without committing fraud. At some point you're just lying ("estimation with negative effort" as a friend calls it) about car etas to drive the perception of value.

I find it a lot easier to just not use Uber and Lyft at all. It's so insanely expensive it's really only worth it if you need to get to or from the airport and all your social circle is at work. Otherwise it's easier and cheaper and generally less stressful to drive, walk, or take public transit.

I have heard a lot of people speak about dynamic pricing, but I have yet to hear any benefit to the consumer or society as a whole.

Basically any possible pitch for it is worse in every way than simple downward wealth redistribution.

I'm not sure what a right is if not a "slogan".

Presumably they're specifically referring to uber rather than the broader conversation about dark patterns in canceling. I, too, remember how hard it was to cancel ZipCar—I think I just ended up closing the credit account it was backed by because I couldn't successfully navigate the labyrinth of phone-based customer support to cancel.

Not to mention they don't refund you you when they fail to deliver the car on expected arrival.

I can't express how angry it makes me that I only had access to taxis for a couple years in the city before they were all pushed out and rates were jacked, screwing both the customer and the driver providing the value. It will take decades to reverse this course even if everyone has decent intentions, and shareholders rarely do.

Open source will inevitably succeed, but only in the long run. In the short term VC (or tech giant) cash will dominate any conversation. There's absolutely nothing you can legally do from preventing reimplementation (which is a good thing, because it means over the long term we will reimplement everything as free software).

I don't understand why we don't just lean into the "osi = corporate, copyleft = good faith" model that's worked perfectly well for the last thirty years.

> But they don't offer it as a service and don't give away the information to anyone except the person it concerns.

Here in the us I know how insubstantial this claim is. If you know enough law enforcement $10 can get you pictures of a full lookup. And this is with a fairly bare relationship.

> Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody.

I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.

> because it would infringe on the public's right to remember

? What are you referring to? I've never heard of such a concept.

Surely the major issue is thinking you've converged when you haven't. If you're unsure if you've converged you can just bail after n iterations and say "failed to converge".

Seems a lot more productive and straightforward to sample rather than speculate.

Antisemitic by whose definition? The ADL's?

Yes, I should have said "we just stopped employing americans".

> I don't think it's a matter of willingness, but simple global geo economics.

I don't see a difference. If we want local industry, we must address the global geo economics.

And yet, "free market" advocates are boldly positioned in publications across our culture, pitching utopia and delivering dystopia.

We never stopped manufacturing, we just stopped employing people.

> We don’t have the infrastructure to manufacture

That's trivially false given we're the second-largest manufacturer in the world. We just don't want to employ people, hence why we can't make an iphone or refine raw materials.

The actual issue is that our business culture is antithetical to a healthy society. The idea of employing Americans is anti-business—there's no willingness to invest, or to train, or to support an employee seen as waste. Until business can find some sort of reason to care about the state of the country, this will continue.

Of course, the government could weigh in, could incentivize, could subsidize, could propagandize, etc, to encourage us to actually build domestic industries. But that would be a titantic course reversal that would take decades of cultural change.

I don't see much difference. What is C suppose to express that assembly cannot? What is assembly suppose to express that C cannot? Does this conversation matter to begin with?

Is there anyone who both understands what the term free market term entails and still argues for it? Somehow no proponent of free markets has managed both success and influence

America is split into far more than two parts. It's thousands of peoples pressed into a single space with the illusion of peace enforced by violence. The entire concept of a unifying culture is preposterous.

The partisan lens doesn't seem to offer any benefit to most people.

I don't have any hope for europe, either. They seem equally divorced from the material.

> It's the internet where slam dunks reign.

The internet is also where most person-to-person interaction is these days.

This is much more revealing of how western media reports on Latin America than anything.

The criticisms were valid then, too. C (including the preprocessor of course) is still not fully parseable if you include things like token concatenation.

Dis you miss the concluding phrase of the comment?

> When your computer is a PDP-11, otherwise it is a high level systems language like any other.

Describing C as "high-level" seems like deliberate abuse of the term. The virtual machine abstraction doesn't imply any benefits to the developer.

Republican voters can see many if not all of the same economic ills in society that Democrat voters do. In some cases they can even agree on the cause. I'm not going to stand next to how right-wing media (and its eager audience) may characterize "main stream media". But I do think the window of representation across how americans see and characterize ourselves through newsrooms in general has narrowed too far (in its seemingly-permanently partisan polarization) to sustain a rational democracy. Social media and the internet have provided the means to see this clearer than ever, in both great and terrible ways. A lot of contradictions in society about values we have and language we use as a people will have to resolve now.

All I can say is I hope we see a real economic policy response from democrats in congress, and fast. They seem to be fishing around for ideas in all the wrong pockets (foreign interests, domestic private interests, namely not the daily interests of the majority of their constituents).... but even rhetorically, it would be a start.