Dickhead of the Week: Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri - <AUTHOR> https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/09/11/instagram-ceo-adam-mosseri-dickhead <comment><USER2> Watch "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix, see how far off the rails the industry has gone, then come back and tell me that Apple is the bad guy here. Someone needs to start standing up for what's right, and Apple is probably the only one with the size and cash reserves to be able to do it.

For all the free market cheerleaders, remember this: we already have laws in place preventing or regulating businesses from engaging in certain activities, like exploitation, gambling, addictive drugs, etc. And these companies fighting Apple want to do exactly that: Epic wants to sell digital gambling (loot) boxes to children. Facebook and Instagram want to track everything you do every second of the day, for the dubious goal of making advertising "more relevant to you" (and just happens to have the _small_ side effect of being a tool currently in use to topple democracies around the world). Social networks are hooking into addiction centers of the brain to keep people hooked on misinformation that is actually killing people.

Is Apple perfect? No. Is this one thing going to stop all that I mentioned? No. But you have to start somewhere.

<comment><USER3> >Watch "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix

I'm sorry, but that show was really, really dumb and unrealistic and I couldn't sit through it.

3 engineers (notably: cringey white dudes) are never following one single user and controlling his interactions like that and it did more harm than good by pretending it works that way.

This implies someone is directly accountable, showing up to work every day and fucking with people's attention regularly, when in reality, it's soulless machines programmed to do this while the engineers are several degrees away from inflicting harm like this.

That's what makes it so dangerous -- not that tech companies have unlimited money to build situation rooms dedicated to following single users around.

<comment><USER4> Why bring up the skin color of the people in the show? What relevance does it have? And I am brown Incase you were wondering as I know skin color is important to you

<comment><USER3> Diversity in tech is a problem and this show was reinforcing that.

<comment><USER5> What are you on about? The show is about how Apps are made addicitve regardless of race, why are you pulling the race card when the tech is indiscriminant? Its like saying I shouldn't watch a documentary on the NBA cause the documentary is not diverse enough, where are all the brown, white, yellow people at? xD

<comment><USER3> >when the tech is indiscriminant

It sometimes isn't, but why did they put 3 white dudes in charge of messing with someone's life when they know that's the prevailing stereotype of SV engineers?

Could it be that they were trying to capitalize on that stereotype for shock value? I'd think so.

<comment><USER5> > why did they put 3 white dudes in charge of messing with someone's life

Maybe because they earnt their position through merit? Maybe because white males are still a majority of the work force in Google, Facebook, and may more? The probability of picking 3 random senior people who are white are not that slim.

I as an Asian man take issue that just because you see white people in the show and automatically assume what the show has to say is not representative of whats happening in the Ad-industry. You could literally replace any color of race and claim it is not representative and disregard the bigger message here. This is a classic reverse-racism.

<comment><USER3> >Maybe because they earnt their position through merit?

They earned the position of representing a wildly exaggerated view of how tech companies influence their users?

Give me a break, this show was just dumb. It added no value to the conversation around tech companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having just finished watching The Social Dilemma about fifteen minutes ago -- then hopping onto HN to satisfy the itch before bedtime (the irony is not lost) to read some commentary about Apple, Instagram, and Facebook.

"There are millions of [small businesses] out there that rely on us to target customers and to reach those customers." (quote from Instagram CEO)

I'm not an Instagram user / customer / product -- but it seems disingenuous for the CEO of Instagram to claim the company's primary concern is these myriad tiny companies, _other_ than in the context of them indirectly buoying up Instagram's business.

<comment><USER7> There's nothing wrong with getting paid to help people. That's the whole moral justification for capitalism.

<comment><USER8> But there is something wrong in harming billions of people just to help a few businesses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I might be one of the few, but I like the ads I see on Instagram and have purchased lots of things via IG ads. I can't think of any other app/site where the ads have sucked me in.

I realize this is besides the point, but I thought it was worth sharing in terms of how they might be doing personalization. For me, it's so good that it actually works.

<comment><USER10> Would you have bought these items otherwise? If the answer is no, then you were "sucked in".

Google AdWords was great, you search for product X you definitely _wanted_ to buy X, that's reasonable personalization.

Now they want to know _who_ you are, so they can optimize manipulatating you to want X even if you didn't before you saw their ad.

There's a big difference between the two type of advertising, although they're both personalized. One is aligning stake holders interest, the other forms an adversarial dynamics.

Of course, in reality, these are the two ends of a spectrum, I dichotomized it to make my point clearer.

<comment><USER11> I question the words "sucked in." _Influenced_ is more appropriate.

Before VisiCalc was invented by Frankston and Bricklin, nobody wanted it. Many people had the problem it solved, but nobody knew it existed, so they didn't go looking to buy it.

Advertising and public relations (see PG's essay "the Submarine") influenced people to buy it. A lot of those folks were people whose businesses improved after buying it, which is why "spreadsheets" went on to become one of the most important product categories of its age.

I think the difference between "influenced" and "manipulated" has to do with informed consent. An ad, clearly marked as such, influences. Advertorials masquerading as independent opinion, paying influencers to use a product to generate faux social proof, manipulating social media algorithms to make it appear as if a preponderance of people you know share a particular viewpoint...

That's all manipulation because the recipient is either completely unaware of what is going on, or dark patterns are used to make it difficult for them to discover what is going on.

But using keywords to target people and then giving them an ad that is clearly labeled as an ad? I think that's just influence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Personally, I find basically everything about Instagram bad. The only reason I use it is because a lot of my friends share their pictures there.

Their app is full of bugs, at least on my regular Android phone, dark mode always messes up, ghost notifications, random crashes, etc.

The platform is full of bots. My profile is set to private, so everybody who wants to follow me needs to request first. On some days, I get requests from 10+ profiles trying to sell porn. And that's without following any big influencers, just friends.

The bots also invade basically every public comment section, trying to sell porn or NSFW snapchat. I don't get why they are successful, but I assume they are, given the scale they operate.

Their TikTok clone feature that basically completely spams my discover/search tab is full of content taken from TikTok or barely dressed girls trying to push their OnlyFans. Maybe that was the plan, I find it just annoying.

And now to their ads, easily one of the most annoying parts. Given how much data Facebook/Instagram is collecting, you'd assume they'd somehow manage to show interesting and relevant advertisings. At least for me and some friends I talked to, that is absolutely not the case. While it feels like every third post is an ad, there is nothing relevant at all. Basically all ads I get on instagram are trying to sell me 100k passive income online courses, cheap Chinese drop shipping products, knockoff products or trading apps (something I was never remotely interested in either).

<comment><USER13> I was an early adopter of both Instagram and the iPad. (As an iOS developer, even at the time; I have to keep up with the ecosystem as it evolves.)

I waited for years for them to create an iPad-compatible version. It is literally one of the only apps I use that still uses iPhone mode on an iPad.

'According to Mosseri (Instagram CEO), the reason for Instagram's iPhone-only app is that the company doesn't have the resources to develop for both platforms.'[1]

Eye. Roll. If little indie shops can have this out of the gate, I'm sure you could figure out a way to allocate some of your resources to a tablet version.

It's been ten years since both the iPad and Instagram. I get that Instagram is a photo-taking app; and typically you'd use a phone for that. Many of my friends are iPad-only on the Apple ecosystem; and they enjoy taking and editing photos, especially with the Apple Pencil, on the device.

The new iPad Pros have excellent cameras for the hardware - not nearly as great as; say, the iPhone 11, but worthy of taking pictures and it happens all the time.

[1][https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/16/instagram-ipad-app- excuse/](https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/16/instagram-ipad-app-excuse/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I hate being in a position to defend Facebook or Instagram, but independent of the size of any of the platforms, Apple is a gatekeeper for them, not the other way around.

<comment><USER15> >Apple is a gatekeeper for them, not the other way around.

Given that Android has a 75% share[0] of the mobile OS market, that isn't really true. Apple is a gatekeeper for the 23% or so of mobile devices.

I think that giving end users control over what data about them is _exfiltrated_ from their devices is a good thing. And assuming that applies to Apple apps as well, it sounds like a win for IOS users.

N.B.: I do not currently, nor have I ever owned an Apple device. Even the Apple ][ I built from a kit in high school was a clone and not Apple hardware.

[0] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market- sha...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held- by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/)

<comment><USER16> Should be noted that in the United States, iOS has the majority share ~59%

[https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united- sta...](https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of- america)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I CAN'T WAIT for decentralized infrastructure to finally become robust enough that clones of instagram and facebook can all share a network -- they'll all become portals to the same social graph data. When that happens, there will no longer be any reason to put up with this abuse of privacy garbage.

<comment><USER18> Never going to happen. Ever. Decentralized means it's inevitably more cumbersome to use. If you make it easier you're taking shortcuts somewhere, especially if you want a platform that's resistant to censorship and is supposed to provide anonymity. And if you actually do succeed in this you'll inevitably end up with a platform where highly immoral content is just a wrong click away.

It'll be this cycle of a new platform being fresh and trendy, then they become bigger, care about being taken seriously by traditional media, for getting ad deals with the big players, then a new platform pops up, cycle repeats.

<comment><USER19> > Decentralized means it's inevitably more cumbersome to use.

Which will lead to a lot of users being hosted on a single instance which provides convenient access, which completes the loop to centralized. See gmail.

> And if you actually do succeed in this you'll inevitably end up with a > platform where highly immoral content is just a wrong click away.

I don't think that is necessarily a problem for most users.

> It'll be this cycle of a new platform being fresh and trendy, then they > become bigger, care about being taken seriously by traditional media, for > getting ad deals with the big players, then a new platform pops up, cycle > repeats.

This is, though. See Reddit :(

<comment><USER20> How many people (outside of the HN circle) actually use Gmail for personal email now? It's mostly been killed by Facebook, WhatsApp or their alternatives.

<comment><USER19> And most of these alternatives still need an E-Mail to sign up, which loops back to gmail. Statista puts the number of its users at 1.5 billion in 2018[0]. There are some alternatives, yes, but if you ever tried to run your own mailserver you'll quickly find out that gmail users not receiving your mail is very much a problem.

[0] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/432390/active-gmail- user...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/432390/active-gmail-users/)

<comment><USER21> Fastmail? Protonmail? Others? It's not as though the only options are gmail and running your own mail server. They aren't free, but neither is your time to run a mail server and gmail is only gratis, not libre.

<comment><USER19> I've never said its the only option. I use a rather unknown hoster myself. But the majority of the users are with very few companies; for the US and EU gmail probably dominates the private user market.

Or, let's say it this way: If someone selfhosting his mail server doesn't receive your mail, it's his problem. If gmail users don't receive your mail, it's your problem. And that's not a sign of decentralisation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I stand with Apple!

I deleted my FB account years ago, never used Instagram. Unfortunately I am forced to use WhatsUp because of my family :( .

I think it is time to put a stop at this selling user data business. Selling user data and ads is not an Apple business, so I trust Apple vs Google, where the majority of their revenue comes from ads.

<comment><USER23> Apple has to share your data with advertising partners whereas your data doesn't leave Google.

Apple patents trivial programming language features and curved phone corners.

Apple deceptive marketing is well known.

Google has actually contributed lot more than Apple to open source.

There is a FOSS app store for android, because it is not a walled garden like iOS.

There is privacy, as in Linux culture, and there is "Privacy!!" as in apple marketing.

I am not affiliated to Google. But the hate they get here is undeserved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > And give me a fucking break with bringing the pandemic into this. It's > especially infuriating coming from Facebook, of all companies. Maybe if they > weren't the main vector for the disinformation and anti-science nonsense > that has prolonged the pandemic by turning it into a needless culture war, > their "concern" would ring more true.

If companies are responsible for the content posted on their platforms, wouldn't that make iPhone the main vector? Especially since they take the most active filtering stance for any app onto their device.

<comment><USER25> Nope

Companies like Facebook not only show you content, they use algos to show you more of certain content. They provide an editorial choice over what content you should see.

Sure Apple could ban Facebook, but I know you're just making a stupid argument for sport, not that you actually believe that makes sense and that they should.

<comment><USER24> I don't see what's different about it. Apple quality control is also just a type of algorithm. They have an algorithm that filters apps with algorithms. It is an editorial choice as well. Stopping after Facebook but before Apple is arbitrary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's a pretty simple solution to both sides of the problem people are complaining about in here. Make a personal choice to stop using Apple, Facebook, Instagram, and Epic products. It's pretty easy and there's no cloudiness ethically to this solution. Take personal responsibility and vote with your $currency and attention.

<comment><USER7> I can't take personal responsibility for how the behavior of a million moron voters affects me.

As long as democracy exists, the crap poured into other people's brains is my responsibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > But Facebook has 2.5 billion users and Instagram 1 billion — and they're the > sole gatekeepers of their own massive platforms.

What's good for the goose, not the gander type of mentality at play here.

However, using these numbers 2.5 BILLION users for FB and 1 BILLION users for Insta. Even if these platforms have to go with non-targeted ads, that's still a huge pool of potential eyeballs for an advertiser. If you we placed in front of 1% of that pool, that's 10 MILLION viewers. You'd be hard pressed to get those numbers for a national TV ad. So even 0.5% brings it down to 5 MILLION people. These are very large numbers.

<comment><USER7> This is a minor variation of the "spammers fallacy" of believing 1% is the smallest number.

What it it's 0.1%? Or 0.00001%?

<comment><USER27> You're missing the larger point. I'm very well aware that numbers are smaller than 1%. I just used 1% as easy number to do math with larger numbers. The FB/Insta platforms are such a large market for an advertiser. As with all advertising, you can spend as much as you want to hit your numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Mosseri said Instagram's advertising business requires certain data to show > users relevant ads and to provide value for its advertisers, the majority of > which are small and medium-sized businesses.

And they're always showing me utterly irrelevant ads and content ^_^

Not that I complain, I like that they haven't managed to track me well so far. But then again, I do wonder if they'd ever share that info (or if it was leaked), which companies/people would believe about me: whatever I say, or the flawed model that they've built.

</comment><comment><USER29> The reason Instagram's founders are no longer there is because they could not stomach being forced by facebook to publicly make these kinds of statements.

</comment><comment><USER30> > but if their ads are less effective without privacy invasive user-tracking, > then so be it, they're less effective

For end advertisers IDFA is not about effectiveness, it's about measuring: we've spent $N on ads at platform X and got Y installs/purchases. Then they can tag those customers with source X and track lifetime value per source.

Without analytics like that we are back to times of TV and newspaper and billboard ads, and small business just may not afford that.

I think that's the point of original quote. I am not a big fan of Facebook and Instagram, but their ad targeting is indeed best on the market. I understand Apple just want to redirect that cash stream into it's own pocket (see "Apple own search engine" leak couple of weeks ago).

</comment><comment><USER31> Honest question: Does Facebook app on iOS need IDFA that much? A user is logged in and identified anyway, Facebook can deliver personalized ads.

Facebook loses data about user activity outside Facebook, but is it so important? Isn't in-platform data not enough to personalize ads?

<comment><USER32> I might be wrong about this, but it's my impression that Facebook tries really hard to track everything possible, not just what you're doing on FB/IG/WA, using those silly like/share buttons people embed everywhere, and other technologies. Considering their vehement arguments against this change in iOS, I'd guess they think those off-platform streams of information are quite important. And I can see why - a user might not use Facebook for hobbies or interests, and tracking them around the web would give a much better view of someone. It's quite sleazy.

<comment><USER33> I remember a study showing that 25% of the top 100 Android apps were sending data to Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Developers working on building adtech are just as unscrupulous and complicit in undermining our privacy as Zuckerberg and Mosseri are in defending their money-printing social media spyware platforms.

Change my view if you disagree.

</comment><comment><USER35> Also Instagram has lots of other ways to get info on you. eg if you follow or like photos in CityX then they can assume you are interested in that city and show you ads about it. And so on, about any subject.

</comment><comment><USER36> This article is not correct.

Does Apple track user information? Yes, they just don't sell those data to adverisers but keep those information for themeselves and use it as advantage to sell their services and devices.

The number of Facebook users doesn't mean anything because Facebook and Instagram are free services, there are a lot of inactive accounts and bot accounts. In order to publish their apps to app store they have to get approval from Apple and Google. So Apple is still the ultimate gatekeeper.

</comment><comment><USER37> All cylinders firing on this one. Couldn't agree more.

</comment><comment><USER38> Apple seems to be on a PR offensive after a few weeks of bad press and it seems they are employing their usual bloggers to entertain the developer audience. I dunno why devs participate in this PR circus.

And btw the author is wrong about comparing to facebook's platform, which is still the most open, free to use large platform out there.

<comment><USER33> That's a bit like saying "the most open, free" jail...

<comment><USER38> Yes if course. Developers need to treat all commercial platforms with cynicism and realize that they re honeytraps. You are always allowed to eat at first but then you gotta run out asap

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I find this article stupid for the primary reason that everyone has been absolutely bending over backwards to justify Apple's stance vs Epic, where everyone's argument in favor of Apple comes down to a pro-capitalist, dog-eat- dog, "if you don't like it, don't buy it" type of thing. But for other apps actually powering the iPhone's popularity, this argument is completely absent, and by behaving the same way, these companies are "dickheads." The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

</comment><comment><USER39> How many users Facebook or Instagram has is beside the point which is that Apple is most definitely abusing its market position.

<comment><USER40> Could you share your reasoning as to why this is Apple abusing its market position?

To me it appears that Apple is simply giving users control and transparency in what data is being used. I understand your point to be that because Apple is so large and controls a large market, they can't make changes like this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is your point, then I would have to disagree. By this reasoning, what could Apple do that wouldn't count as accusing I its market position?

<comment><USER11> You're 100% right. Everything Apple does can be construed as "abuse" if someone is willing to argue in bad faith.

iOS now tells you when one app pastes content from the clipboard, if the contents of the clipboard came from another app.

e.g., You copy a zip code from Messages, and then switch to the "HN-Maps" app. If HN-Maps sniffs the clipboard in order to suggest that zip code as a destination, you see a notification that "HN-Maps pasted from Messages."

That sounds like a good feature for me as a user, but a terrible feature for app developers that want to constantly and silently scan your clipboard for keywords they can add to the data they sell on their shady data exchanges.

They can and will complain that Apple is "abusing" its monopoly power, but this isn't abuse at all. Next, I expect them to complain that Apple's feature that shows you which apps are draining your battery is also abusing their power to make users uninstall apps that are greedy for battery.

iOS is a shopping mall, and when you write apps for the platform, you're renting a space in the mall and must able by all the regulations in the lease that were put in there for the benefit of the landlord. Part of the landlord's interest is their pocketbook immediately--see the app store's 30% haircut--and part of the landlord's interests are the long-term viability of the mall.

The landlord--Apple--has to care about things like user satisfaction, because the tenants--facebook, et al.--would happily burn down the entire platform for a buck or two.

<comment><USER41> > iOS now tells you when one app pastes content from the clipboard, if the > contents of the clipboard came from another app.

Does it do that for all apps, or only non-Apple-apps?

<comment><USER42> You'd expect first-party apps to handle this properly. The intention is that you probe the clipboard metadata (which doesn't display this warning) to see if the clipboard looks like it might be useful to you - and then act (or offer to act) if it does.

So first-party apps should have bought into the data-detectors stuff wholesale.

An example of this would be the url bar in Safari. If you try to paste into the address bar, you'll be offered "Paste and go" if the clipboard offers a url-like object, and "Paste and search" if it's a non-url stringy object. You'll get the "Safari has pasted from Mail" warning _after_ you select one of these, because the contents were not exposed during the metadata operations. This is the expected behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'd be way more interested in actually reading this if the headline didn't contain pointless profanities. Like this, I tag it Fanboi-ism and move on.

<comment><USER44> Eh, it's a reasonable post if you look past the headline.

The profanity likely comes about from frustration with facebook (particularly for playing the pandemic card) which I don't think is particularly unjustified or from a place of fanboy-ism.

<comment><USER7> Frustration is fine. But a professional with an audience of millions should proofread their work. Content that isn't allowed in HN comments shouldn't be in HN posts either.</comment></comment></comment>


AppJS - <AUTHOR> http://appjs.com/

<comment><USER2> The github repo description says "Deprecated!" [1]

Seems like there's not much activity lately either [2]

[1]: [https://github.com/appjs/appjs](https://github.com/appjs/appjs) [2]: [https://github.com/appjs/appjs/commits/master](https://github.com/appjs/appjs/commits/master)</comment>


Ask HN: What do you value your time at? - <AUTHOR>

Time and money aren't always fungible, but I find it helpful to keep a number in mind in terms of opportunity cost.<p>How do you value your time, either at work or your leisure time? <comment><USER2> When freelancing at an hourly rate, I often use that same calculation for everything that I do. That $15 cab ride will save me 20 minutes on the subway, maybe I can figure out a way to work more efficiently and bill that time?

I no longer find the mentality of wanting to make that calculation productive. Treating my time like such a scarce resource makes it hard for me to "waste" my leisure time. My rational self questions why I choose to "lose" 6 hours rock climbing, when it's something I completely love, but had to trade off many other things I could have done.

Similarly, it's a huge reward for me if I can get hired for 40 hours of Android development project that's going to "cost" me an additional 10 hours of un-billable time to be "forced" to learn something that I've wanted to, even if I'm "losing" more than it would have cost me to pay for some Android dev workshop.

I'm in my early 30s and personal time seems to have shrunk. I now cherish grabbing a beer for 45 mins after work with my childhood best friend, because he has kids. When ten years ago we would have thought nothing about wasting hours.

My point is that when I was eager for it, dollars were a great metric for my hourly value. Now, personal enjoyment, or feeling like I'm doing something valuable with that time has a much greater importance.

That's my $0.02.

<comment><USER3> _My point is that when I was eager for it, dollars were a great metric for my hourly value. Now, personal enjoyment, or feeling like I 'm doing something valuable with that time has a much greater importance._

I feel the same way now that I have a daughter (10 months old). I work full- time, but I have always done the odd freelance or consulting job on the side...a few hours in exchange for a few extra bucks used to be worth it. Now, I'd rather spend that time reading to my daughter, or watching her figure out how a toy works.

<comment><USER4> Slightly tangential, but how do you manage to work full time as a developer with a child when you could be working from home or freelancing and spending more time with your daughter?

I don't have any kids, but I have a very hard time imagining myself being away from them for 80% of the day, 5 days out of 7 when I do. I hope that by then, I have enough money saved up so that I can easily take a few years off, or at least have enough professional cred so that I can work on my own terms for the most part.

<comment><USER3> Every company I've worked for has been pretty hostile toward the idea of working from home full time, though I can grab a day here and there to work from home. If I can find a company willing to let me work remotely full time, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Freelancing is to unpredictable, so I likely won't go that route.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A way to maximise leisure/family time is to eliminate doing things that you can pay a service to do for considerably less than your opportunity cost. Just remember to account for the income tax you will have to pay when comparing costs.</comment>


Meteor.js, the dark side of the moon - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@llaine/meteor-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-f885d8fdbf6a

<comment><USER2> Hello! I'm learning to program and developing an app with telescopeapp.org. Really when things go wrong is complicated debug. But we have the kadira.io for the client side and the cli "meteor debug" to the server side.

Is message has been automatically translated.</comment>


Uber trying to recruit engineers by sending a coding game to play during rides - <AUTHOR> http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-recruiting-engineers-through-in-app-coding-test-2016-3 <comment><USER2> I was served this when I visited Google's Seattle office last week.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great, now the Uber app comes with recruiter spam. I am trying to catch a ride, do not #$%^ing disturb or distract me from this task.

I got this ditty in Austin a couple weeks ago and it annoyed the $h!+ out of me and all I wanted was for it to go away and never return.

Yep, Uber reached someone they might not have otherwise reached and then proceeded to make an extremely negative impression with it.</comment>