The West Coast is beating the East Coast on transportation? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/nyregion/transportation-east-coast-vs-west-coast.html <comment><USER2> The thing that makes mass transit work is walkability. There are 3 million people in NYC who use the subway every day. They can do that because the walkability of the neighborhoods complements the mass transit.

In some European cities, the bicycle is its own form of transit, and it can likewise be that because separate bike paths exist that complement the walkable structure of those cities.

If we want to actually beat the East Coast on transportation we have to do one or both of those things. Otherwise we can build all we like and no one will ride. Problem is that the same homeowners who brought you Prop 13 also want to keep getting places by car and you're not going to get reasonable walkability until you de-prioritize the car.

<comment><USER3> That's just the thing though: Western cities are increasingly de-prioritizing cars, and Eastern cities are falling behind.

There are parts of Phoenix that are more bikable than much of New York.

LA, SF, Portland, and Seattle have started pouring money into their new transit systems, while MTA and NJ Transit and Port Authority keep having their budgets cut, leading to reliability so low that it's driving people into cars.

The East Coast used to be the star of American transportation, not much anymore.

<comment><USER4> Genuine question - what has SF poured money into? What we need here is expanded BART service and electrified Caltrain, unfortunately NIMBYs in Atherton/Palo Alto block that at every move.

<comment><USER5> \- $1.5B: [https://www.sfmta.com/projects/central-subway- project](https://www.sfmta.com/projects/central-subway-project)

\- $0.5B: [https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/ecc](https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/ecc)

\- $3.1B (thus far): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_BART_extension](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_BART_extension)

\- $2M (each): [https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars](https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars)

\- $1.2B: [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-Muni-s-new- light-r...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-Muni-s-new-light-rail- cars-are-different-12750729.php)

\- $1.9B: [https://calmod.org/](https://calmod.org/)

So stuff happens, and I'm grateful when it does -- the new BART cars are _nice_ \-- but generally at a snail's pace. It's hard to tell whether NIMBY obstruction ([https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2018/03/01/caltrain-and- ath...](https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2018/03/01/caltrain-and-atherton- cant-reach-a-deal-on-electrification-poles)) or contractor incompetence and mismanagement ([https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-subway- stalle...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-subway-stalled- after-contractor-lays-down-12905429.php)) is more to blame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article doesn't really mention that most of these expansions will be ready 20-40 years into the future (if not delayed).

If you buy a house in an LA suburb hoping that you will soon get subway nearby, you might get it once the mortgage is paid out and the kids have left for college.

What will the technology be like in 20-40 years? Everybody surely have cheap electric scooters and bikes or other electric devices and airbag helmets. Few, if any, combustion engine cars are left on the streets. Truly self driving cars are likely too. Drones that fly you across town? Boring tunnels in multiple levels? Shuttles to Mars?

I am not saying the subways shouldn't be built or that planning decades ahead is bad. I love subways. But in the area of transportation we will see huge changes in the coming decades.

<comment><USER7> > 20-40 years into the future (if not delayed)

that seems to be unreasonably long. In germany, both the city I am studying at and the city I was born are undertaking big changes in their transportation infrastructure, and both don't take that long. In munich, building just started and is expected to last unit 2026 [1]. And we always complain that it's taking too long to plan and build!

40 years seems to be crazy! You would have to start repairing the old stuff when the whole project is finished.

Or are you talking about the whole process, including the financing? Then it's more understandable, many big project here also stall for 20 years until everyone has enough money and the political will to follow through. But I thought the financing is covered due to the sales-tax increase.

While it's easy to complain about projects not moving for 20 years, the sums are often quite enourmus and i am not sure whether inefficiencies are to blame, or whether gathering enough money just takes a long time.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_line_2_(Munich_S- Bahn)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_line_2_\(Munich_S-Bahn\))

<comment><USER8> Let's not get too smug with things like Stuttgart 21, Transrapid München, or cities like Aachen getting rid of their tram network (and regretting it now AFAIK). And having a public that values and prioritises mass transport is not a given.

Admittedly, I'm a bit torn on this. Since infrastructure is so important to the liveability and growth of a city, and any sort of long-term thinking is a good thing. But predicting the future is hard, and having a 40 year plan survive (short-term) politics is also unlikely.

<comment><USER7> I agree, i think I was more confused. I thought he meant the time to realize the projects, not the complete cycle from estimating whether it's doable to financing to building.

There are also project on hold for 30 years in munich.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For the West Coast, the simplest solution is electric buses with dedicated lanes. Buses better serve the existing low density sprawl than trains. Lack of infrastructure is not the problem, the roads are already built. The real problem of course is lack of political will. Every road with two lanes gets at least one dedicated bus lane. Single occupant traffic would slow to a crawl making the buses faster. Buses would run on time because they have an empty lane. Additional bus routes would be added everywhere, paid for by significant increases to gas taxes. It would certainly work and be more efficient than our current mess, but of course would never be politically viable.

<comment><USER10> Dedicated lanes don't do much to help; the capacity of virtually all city streets is limited by the capacity of the intersections, not the streets themselves.

Give buses priority at intersections, or even better build them dedicated overpasses if you want to see buses really move.

<comment><USER11> >Dedicated lanes don't do much to help;

Actually, they do. Take a look at the MetroBus infrastructure in Mexico City[0] for example. Buses run on time, on an extensive, dedicated lane network.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metrob%C3%BAs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metrob%C3%BAs)

<comment><USER10> Good example, they have dedicated and priority intersections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Weird that they don't mention New York's awful inefficiency, especially since it was reported by the same paper. NYC tax payers are already spending billions and not getting much to show for it.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway- construction-costs.html?module=inline)

<comment><USER13> If they did, it would undercut the argument that the NYC subway needs more money on top of what it already has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hahaha.

I lived in Brooklyn, I lived on Long Island, spent a summer in Seattle, and I live in San Jose now.

One can't speak for the entirety of the either coast, but no city in CA comes _close_ to what NYC offers in terms of public transportation.

And what NYC offers is a true car-free lifestyle which carries you to work, leisure, and back home via public transport.

E-scooters aren't a reliable way to get anywhere yet, and who knows if they'll ever be, not to mention that they are not for everyone. My grandmother is not going to ride one -- nor my wife, for that matter, nor should the kids. But the Subway is a common denominator.

This reflects in the daily ridership. MTA carries an _order of magnitude_ more passengers than, say, BART. The same can be said about overall transit ridership[1].

East Coast vs. West Coast is a silly comparison when NYC Metro alone has more ridership than nearly all _other_ major metro areas _combined_ (including both Coasts, the Midwest, and the South).

So it's really NYC vs. Anywhere Else, and Anywhere Else still _sucks_ when it comes to public transport because, in practical terms, most people aren't commuting by public transport in Anywhere Else, but they do in NYC.

You can't slap a Lime scooter on a suburban development and call that "public transport". And a self-driving car is still a car, a glorified jitney cab if and when it arrives. And it's not going to solve the problems of the car- centric (sub)urbanism[2] anyhow.

The mistake the article makes here is a classic one: percentage growth vs. absolute value. Doubling from, say, 500K in a metro area with 7M population is going to be a bit easier than doubling the 14M ridership in a 20M metro.

As for the problems - people on HN of all places should be the ones who understand _scale_ and that some problems simply don't exist when the scale is insignificant.

I _want_ every city to be a public transit success story, but as it currently stands - the rest of the country will be playing catch-up for a long time.

[1][http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/transit- ridership](http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/transit-ridership)

[2][https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/611557/self- dr...](https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/611557/self-driving-cars- could-make-urban-traffic-jams-worse/)

\</comment><comment>--

TL;DR: NYC mass transit carries more people than systems in _all_ other major metros combined[1]. Any comparison - including this article - is silly.

<comment><USER15> Seattle actually has extremely high transit ridership and walk commmute share, which is pretty impressive considering how the transit system is mostly buses right now. And by 2024, major centers in the region will be connected by rail transit that is faster than road travel. Anecdotally, I live pretty well without a car here; I use Uber and Lyft when transit don't work out, and if I want to hike usually one of my friends will have a ride. So it feels just like back home in New York, except the trains and buses have a better chance of showing up on time.

<comment><USER16> I think there is an objective measure here. Just plot a 30-minute transit radius around the centers of various cities and you'll get a sense of the transit size of the city vs. covered population. Some cities are notoriously "small," like SF, despite it being on some best-to-live-without-car lists. You can't go very far before _practically_ needing a car: so what if you can get there by transit if it takes 1-2 hours and inconsistently? NYC, Boston are "large." Seattle is even worse than SF in this regard.

Transit is all about density. There is no way the west coast can beat the east coast in transit practicality for another 100 years.

<comment><USER17> Boston and San Francisco have realitively equivalent population densities and population. So this makes a very good comparison of the two regions.

For example my 4.5 mi commute in sf takes around 25 min. That's similar to what I remember from Harvard square to Boylston street which is an equivalent distance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm surprised by this article. Most people seem to agree that the the metro systems of NYC, Philadelphia, and DC are much better than those of the west coast. LA's is unusable for most people because there aren't enough stops. Seattle's light rail is definitely gaining steam as it adds more stops.

<comment><USER19> The difference is that places like Seattle and LA are expanding their systems. In New York, Boston, and DC it's rather stagnant.

<comment><USER20> Having lived in both Seattle and DC... this is wrong, at least comparing those two. DC managed to build a new line out to Dulles with others in the works, Seattle's light rail is a joke if you're trying to use it for more than a straight line through the city.

A common misconception people have about the DC metro is that it belongs to DC, but the abbreviation WMATA has nothing to do with DC for a reason. Maryland, Virginia, and I believe even the Federal Govt have to be a part of any changes that happen there. Given that, it's an absolute wonder that anything works.

<comment><USER21> Boston supposedly has the north/south station rail connector project under way again. It's only been half a century. I'll believe it when I see it. Even then I won't ride on it for a few years in case the ceiling falls down.

<comment><USER22> That has to be the most frustrating part of bostons transportation, none of the big hubs are conveniently connected.

<comment><USER21> And the lack of some sort of beltway line that connects the ends of the existing subway lines. As it stands anyone who has to cross the city by rail needs to go through the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's worth noting that Boston has been investing quite a bit in improving the T.

New rail cars are being added to all lines over the next 4 years. As another poster mentioned, a new North/South link project is likely to start soon. The Green Line is being extended into neighboring Somerville. The article seemed to focus solely on NYC.

</comment><comment><USER24> How about beating Europe or Asia?

<comment><USER25> > How about beating Europe or Asia?

London is the only city in Europe that even comes close to offering what NYC alone does in terms of public transit.

Even Berlin, the second largest city in the EU, has pitiful public transit in comparison.

<comment><USER26> Ever been to Paris ? London's transit is fairly bad compared to it. Or to Lyon (which is vaguely SF's size) ?

<comment><USER25> > Ever been to Paris ? London's transit is fairly bad compared to it. Or to > Lyon (which is vaguely SF's size) ?

I have. As of 2010 (before Cuomo's tenure began), New York had unambiguously better public transit overall than Paris, in addition to serving a city with four times the population of Paris.

Cuomo is doing his best to "fix" that, but in 2018, I'd still take NYC over Paris as far as public transit is concerned.

<comment><USER27> I have lived in both cities but I'm French so probably biased. The transportation system in Paris is overall much better. Denser, more lines, cheaper, and unlike New York it keeps growing. It's also more reliable (even though it has its share of issues).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For years and years Seattle and LA doubled down on a automobile oriented infrastructure system that clearly wasn't working, but voters finally gave up and got tired of it. Given that referendums are so difficult to win, especially ones that impose higher taxes, this is a commendable achievement.

Not mentioned is the other west coast success story, Vancouver, which has lead North America transit growth, with ridership up 5.7% in 2017. This has been driven by major government investments to drive expansion and improve services across the board. Additionally the system has not been hindered by ride share competition.

[https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/translink- ridership...](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/translink-ridership- growth-leads-canada-u-s)

</comment><comment><USER29> NYC's subway's are at a halt unfortunately. The MTA unions have paralyzed innovation and development.

The West coast has an opportunity to one up them, but a lot of money gets appropriated and given to contractors without a lot of actual results a lot of the time.

<comment><USER30> It's so sad to see how the NYC's subway is falling into ruin. I spent my adolescent years living in Brooklyn in the 1980's, and used the subways a lot. Pre-Giuliani, they were filthy and covered with a lot of urban camouflage, but they could be trusted to be there roughly on schedule. When they replaced them with the shiny stainless steel cars, it was even nicer. I moved away from NYC, but whenever I visit, it's sad to see the network, which worked really well in the past, be in such a sad shape. It's like the system got built, and then never maintained. What kind of idiots run such a large system in a world class city?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The west coast epitomizes postwar American culture - car infatuation, suburban sprawl, and so on. Transit is growing in the west coast, sure, but transit needs a critical mass of convenience for people to actually live without depending on their car (or choosing to own one at all)

We're not going to see cities go all-in on transit while self driving cars are on the horizon.

Maybe after cars drive themselves, when people learn traffic is still not getting better, more cities will get serious about transit infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER32> West coast public transportation will absolutely never beat East Coast transportation and I say this as a person who has lived on the West coast my entire life. In fact West coast public transportation will always be significantly worse than the east coast.

It doesn't matter what initiatives or policies are being implemented on the West coast. It is literally financially and physically unrealistic to have any transportation system even remotely close to what they have in NYC on the West Coast.

The reason is the layout of cities. West Coast cities are mostly suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl does not lend well to public transportation. For public transportation to work, you need a high density city. Los Angeles will never be walkable and will never have a subway system that all people use regularly simply because the city is too spread out.

Lets put it to numbers:

L.A. County has 4,084 square miles. New York City has 304.8 square miles.

For LA county to build a network of rails with the same effectiveness of NYC, the size of the NYC subway needs to be replicated approximately 13.4 times.

The NYC subway system has about 236.2 mi of rail. AN equivalent system for the same coverage in LA will be 3165 mi. The current longest subway system in the world is the Shanghai Metro at 420 mi.

Effective Public transportation will not work on the west coast due to physical limits and impossibilities. If you want to live in a city with great public transportation you need to live in a city of apartments. Any city where you can have your own backyard is a city that is not dense enough.

</comment><comment><USER33> Of course it is easier to build out new infrastucture to exacting specifications than it is to update 100+ year old infrastructure to meet modern demands.

</comment><comment><USER34> Compare NYC public transportport to silicon valley transport and it's no contest. Give me NYC. It connects way more places.

</comment><comment><USER35> The post's title different from the article's title : "Why the West Coast Is Suddenly Beating the East Coast on Transportation". Anyone else seeing different titles?

Also, the article is nothing but PR for the NYC transportation commissioner. Of course the NYC commissioner is going to say X is beating NYC because she wants more funding. She could have gone to Boise, Idaho and came back with similar story.

Electric scooters and a couple of test rides in self driving cars means the west coast is beating the east coast on transportation. Really? NYC metro area by itself outshines the entire west coast when it comes to public transportation. I couldn't take this article seriously. There is certainly room for improvement and investment in the NYC metro area, but what's the point of "east coast vs west coast" comparison that is simply not true.

</comment><comment><USER36> Kind of funny they don't mention Portland at all. It actually has a well functioning system already built.

<comment><USER37> Portland's transit system is OK. The MAX works well, but it has been neutered by NIMBYism: the new orange line has only a few stops in Milwaukee and goes no further. (And for that they hired three full time cops when it opened). The green line was supposed to be a loop, but it simply goes out to the Clackamas Town Center (just a few miles south of the border with Portland proper). The yellow line stops short of Vancouver, WA across the river, and we spent $4.5 million on coming up with several failed plans for a new bridge. The new line headed SW has to be voted on by the city of Tigard. It'll go up to the bottom of the OHSU hill, but they chose to simply increase the number of shuttles.

The buses are mostly reliable and can get you downtown. But several areas feel underserved, especially if you live outside Multnomah county.

<comment><USER37> Also the MAX slows to a crawl downtown, where it shares the street with cars and busses and stops every 2-4 blocks.

<comment><USER38> They're closing a few downtown stops that saw low usage to speed things up, but it will still be sluggish. I think the only real solution would be to move the Red/Blue lines to the transit mall and put all the downtown track underground with a cut-and-cover tunnel.

Also, the attempts to get the Yellow line into Vancouver fell through because the Washington legislature voted against it. There are renewed efforts to build it, though.

<comment><USER37> Yeah, not much we can do about WA. But that bridge is so old and has no shoulder. Any car accident means a huge slowdown.

It'd be nice if we had elevated trains that didn't have to share with busses, cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > There is at least one bright spot: Citi Bike has become an essential part of > the city's fabric. The bike-share system has 12,000 bikes across Manhattan > and parts of Brooklyn and Queens and recently announced plans to expand > under new ownership by the ride-hail company Lyft, which will triple the > number of bikes.

Almost a non-sequitur to mention _Citi Bikes_ in particular when there are far more notable examples like Lime. This must be a paid advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER40> Electric scooters aren't public.

</comment><comment><USER41> Ugh classic hype machine bullshit confusing the derivative with the function itself.

West coast is still total shit in land use, other than parkland allocation _sometimes_ , and until they make the hard choices to undo a century of mistakes, can they catch up with the east coast's century of stagnation.

<comment><USER42> Not just derivative, but relative change (derivative normalized by current value). There are transit systems on the east coast growing faster in absolute terms - they just have large existing systems so the relative growth is lower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Well the West Coast may be beating on getting voters to agree to dump money into long term transit projects. Actually getting them built in our lifetimes and then getting people to use them is a very different problem.

</comment><comment><USER44> Can anyone in other west coast cities speak about the crime on the new transit systems? I'm in Portland, and for the first time in my life, I'm worried about crime on mass transit. Maybe it is just the automated news feeds that are circulating stories of stabbings and attacks that have heightened my internalized hysteria. At the same time, I've felt a larger presence of people on mass transit who seem to be dealing with a mental health crisis of some kind. And, it makes me feel less excited to bring my kids with me when I ride. This article does not touch on that.

<comment><USER45> When I listen to my friends that ride buses and BART the major complaint is people doing utterly foul things like pissing or shitting. Or being harassed. Being harrased depends a lot on sex age etc. My GF's who looks like she lives in Walnut Creek gets harassed. Me who looks like an old skinny biker does not.

Got to remember BART carries around 400,000 riders a day, 365 days a year.

<comment><USER46> > Got to remember BART carries around 400,000 riders a day, 365 days a year.

Seems like the issue is lack of security/policing, not the number of passengers. There are plenty of subway networks with far greater traffic that don't have this problem to nearly the same extent.

<comment><USER47> > There are plenty of subway networks with far greater traffic that don't have > this problem to nearly the same extent.

I think you can go a lot further: almost all public transport networks, regardless of type or usage, don't have this problem to any extent.

Some people in large European or Asian cities don't like using public transport because of overcrowding, slow journey times, cost, inflexibility, infrequency, strikes, "terrorism" or whatever. I know people who would cite each of these reasons.

I don't know anyone who would say there is excrement or urine in the vehicles or stations, or even unwashed people. It's that rare.

Bay area residents needs to pressure their politicians into fixing the problem. That means some combination of

\- extra policing

\- extra cleaning

\- extra public toilets

and maybe working out some long-term solution to the mentally ill homeless people.

<comment><USER16> If a dog or child pisses everywhere do you tolerate it? There is a way to deal with it. It does not start with the word "tolerance" though, so no, politicians aren't going to be pressured into solving anything, because they were the ones that got voted in in the first place to turn a blind eye. People get the society they deserve.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Offering a price match - <AUTHOR> I'm in the B2B space, selling on-prem security software that sells for between $100-300 per node, depending on volume.
Our prices are comparable to the competition, but some customers say we look expensive compared to the competition, so I guess they are offering bigger discounts.
I was considering offering to match or beat competitors quotes, for deals where price seemed to be an issue, but I was concerned that just might make us look overpriced in the first place.
What are your thoughts on this? <comment><USER2> Do you really want to compete on price? Better to figure out why your product isn't compelling enough. Maybe your marketing could be better, maybe your product could be better. [https://stackingthebricks.com/guides/growing-your- biz/](https://stackingthebricks.com/guides/growing-your-biz/) has a bunch of articles along this theme.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't _want_ to compete on price, no. Fact is, our product has fallen a bit behind the competition. I'm working to fix that, but it's taking time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is there some way to justify the price difference?

Where are they cutting corners?

Can you get a copy of their discounted quote in writing?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I can't easily justify the price difference. In truth, our product is (for now!) a bit behind what the competition offers.

Somewhere the competition are cutting corners is security. I've managed to get my hands on some of their software, and it's _riddled_ with security flaws. I don't want to get into the position of bad-mouthing it to potential customers though - I've been on the side of the buyer before, and I personally don't like it when the seller does that.

Asking for a copy of the quote is a good idea tho.</comment></comment>


Server Sizing - CPU & RAM - <AUTHOR>

I need some help in sizing a new application we are developing for secure online storage. I am quite confident about storage and traffic numbers - but server numbers & size (CPU, RAM) is quite difficult since the application is still in development. Does anyone know some good reference material for this subject? <comment><USER2> FYI: You'll likely get better participation if you prefix your post with "Ask HN:"</comment>


Cornell Graduate School Helped Make New York Appealing to Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/nyregion/cornell-tech-startup-jobs-amazon.html <comment><USER2> New York made New York appealing to Amazon.

Snark aside, it's unlikely one can link Amazon's decision to a single factor. New York being what it has has a large number of assets in its favor: a huge, mobile workforce, strong business community, strong sales community, deep tech pool, a strong transit system, legitimately a world-class city...

<comment><USER3> New York is definitely a world-class city, but Amazon had the opportunity to attract talent to make a city that is not currently a world-class city into one but instead selected an already established one

<comment><USER4> > _Amazon had the opportunity to attract talent to make a city that is not > currently a world-class city into one_

Not really. Big cities operate at scales and complexities far above what Amazon can bring. Density begets density. Meanwhile, that cities have largely been built—and remained—in similar places (protected harbours with navigable rivers and ideally shallow bedrock) implies there are deeper reasons for why density exists where it does.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure about that. Amazon turned Seattle into a truly big city, which it wasn't before.

<comment><USER6> Eh, Microsoft and Boeing?

<comment><USER5> I lived in Seattle for a few years, as Amazon expanded. Traffic and housing exploded during that time. Boeing and Microsoft had their large facilities outside of Seattle proper, which I think minimized their effects on the city itself compared to Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Although Cornell is a great school and I know a few smart and capable alumni from Cornell, the nytimes is really reaching here. Certainly having top schools didn't hurt NY, but amazon's decision had nothing to do with cornell or their roosevelt island tech school. It had everything to do with political influence and vote buying.

The article is nothing but empty PR for Cornell. It would be like washingtonpost writing an ad for Georgetown by claiming Georgetown made DC area attractive to amazon. My suspicion ( and it's only a suspicion ) is that bezos wanted a headquarters in the DC area to buy good will amongst the politicians in DC and to be closer to the lobbyists and of course politicians.

If cornell and georgetown decided to move to wyoming, I doubt amazon is going to follow along. Now if the politicians, lobbyists and "influencers" in DC and NYC decided to move to wyoming, I'm betting amazon would be right on their coat tails.

</comment><comment><USER8> I was a little puzzled how Ithaca would factor in (~4 hours away) but apparently there's a satellite "Cornell Tech" campus on Roosevelt Island.

Clearly the local talent available helps when factoring where to locate, but I can't help but cynically think that this story is a retcon to distract from the public subsidies. It's telling that there's no quote from any Amazon employee that substantiates the headline's claim.

<comment><USER9> I agree with your general cynicism :-) Cornell Tech was established a few years back as an interdisciplinary grad school on Roosevelt Island that brings together a lot of STEM disciplines (as well as business. Cornell Med School is also in NYC. It's an increasingly common pattern; see MIT's recent announcement of an AI school.

Stanford tried pretty hard to get this campus but, among other things, it's probably fair to say that there was a pretty heavy thumb on the scales in Cornell's favor given that it's a significant university in New York state.

<comment><USER10> Stanford dropped out before submitting their bid because Cornell got a big donation that Stanford wasn't able to match. Stanford was actually the clear favorite before that happened.

<comment><USER11> Yes -- that big donation was exactly the thumb GP is talking about. :) It came from / was organized by Bloomberg, who seems to have had a strong preference for a NY school.

But there were also other reasons Stanford withdrew, including the weirdness of how real estate works in NYC.

<comment><USER12> > Yes -- that big donation was exactly the thumb GP is talking about. :) It > came from / was organized by Bloomberg, who seems to have had a strong > preference for a NY school.

First, Bloomberg himself didn't choose the winner; he was detached from the competitive process. Bloomberg launched the competition and also later donated money to the winner (Cornell), but those were separate events.

Second, Bloomberg himself appeared in a promotional video that was campaigning for Stanford. I don't know where the idea that Bloomberg had a strong preference for an upstate NY school comes from (especially since the other finalist - Columbia University - was already based in New York City).

<comment><USER11> Rumors and idle speculation of course. As mayor, Bloomberg would have had to keep his opinion obscured anyway...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is basically nothing mentioned about Amazon in this article. And it ignores one of the few unique elements that may have attracted Amazon, the Jacobs institute's new intellectual property policy.

<comment><USER14> That's because the article is primarily about Cornell Tech HELPING make New York appealing, not Cornell Tech as the causal reason. The piece is much more about Cornell Tech than about Amazon's decision.

<comment><USER13> >The piece is much more about Cornell Tech than about Amazon's decision.

Sure, but why does the article title mention Amazon and not Cornell Tech? It's dumb.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm going to be a Visiting Professor there in 2019, and I'll be teaching a deep learning course.

One interesting thing about Cornell Tech is that the faculty all work in an open office space, and I think that's to embrace start up culture. Faculty have "huddle" rooms for meetings. At my home institution, I spend 20 hours per week in meetings. Faculty do have dedicated huddle rooms, though.

<comment><USER16> Why embrace the bad parts of startup culture (open plans)? Seems cargo cultish: open plans exist as a cost control measure, and make it easier to grow/shrink. Academia has endowments and tends to have a more stable labor force.

<comment><USER11> "More stable labor force": you are thinking of faculty, who make up a small percentage of research labor at universities.

Graduate students & postdocs—who make up the majority of research labor—come and go, on the order of months-to-years, making open plans actually somewhat reasonable.

<comment><USER17> Yet the comment here was that it's _faculty_ who have the open floor plan. Why are they using the agile aspect of startups for the most stable asset in academia?

<comment><USER11> That is what the comment said, however, the open floor plan is not just all faculty in one open space, it is all researchers (faculty, students, postdocs, other research staff) in one open space.

Faculty additionally have huddles where they can take meetings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Isn't this a little weird? Why not choose Boston that is very close to MIT and Harvard. Why not choose SF which is very close to UC Berkeley and Stanford? NYC isn't even close to Cornell (~4 hours).

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Did you even read the article? Cornell Tech is in New York City.

<comment><USER18> My question still stands?

> Why not choose Boston that is very close to MIT and Harvard. Why not choose > SF which is very close to UC Berkeley and Stanford?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Isn't NYU Courant also known for being strong at mathematics/CS?

</comment><comment><USER20> Why can't some of the different cities and states "unionize"/show solidarity and basically say that they won't give concessions to businesses?

</comment><comment><USER21> If this is a PR Article, it works. This school seems kind of cool

</comment><comment><USER22> Massively taxpayer-subsidized wealthy private institution helped make New York appealing to massively taxpayer-subsidized wealthy corporation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Good news for Andy Bernard!

</comment><comment><USER24> Do top companies prefer recruitment from elite schools?

See the comment by the CEO of Duo Lingo:

[https://twitter.com/LuisvonAhn/status/1050426808393506817?s=...](https://twitter.com/LuisvonAhn/status/1050426808393506817?s=20)

<comment><USER25> Per the tweet: CMU has higher female ratios in their CS programs? Is that specific to undergraduate?

I've looked into applying to their masters programs and of the ~20 options, only two appear to have higher than 50% female[0]: (1) HCI and (2) Educational techn. and Applied Learning Science.

[0] [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/sites/default/files/SCS_Masters_Progr...](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/sites/default/files/SCS_Masters_Programs_in_Brief_2016.pdf)

<comment><USER26> Not CMU, but Cornell's College of Engineering most recent class enrolled more women than men.</comment></comment></comment>


GitHub Pro – Improved GitHub Dashboard - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/github-pro/iihgjgnkcjooinepfnjceobckhcdcggj?hl=en-US&gl=SG <comment><USER2> I'll just take this moment to say if you don't already have EXTREME caution when installing extensions, you should. Hackers and malware teams acquire existing popular Chrome extensions every day, then release auto-updates (which Chrome doesn't notify you of) that can do all kinds of terrible things.

I'd recommend these 2 items:

1\. View source of any extension (and optionally auto-disable): [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome- extension-s...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-extension- source-v/jifpbeccnghkjeaalbbjmodiffmgedin)

2\. Get notified up updates to any extension: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/extensions- update-...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/extensions-update- notifie/nlldbplhbaopldicmcoogopmkonpebjm)

<comment><USER3> So your suggestion is to install a potentially unsafe extension to notify me of extensions.

<comment><USER2> View the source yourself if you're unsure, that's why I included #1.

Furthermore, yes, that is what I'm saying. Would you rather not use it and have no idea when Chrome extensions update? You can't disable auto-updates. So if you want to go that route be my guest.

<comment><USER3> I'd rather just not use extensions to be honest. More garbage to clutter things.

<comment><USER4> The idea of an extension-free browsing experience is horrific, to me. I couldn't live without uBlock Origin.

Browsing without extensions is fine if you're okay with being tracked and bombarded with advertisements ad nauseam.

I could cope with using _few_ extensions — and I do try to use as few as possible — but I would not enjoy using _none_.

<comment><USER3> ok so one single extension. I'll give you that one. But also something I think should be built into privacy section of browser.

<comment><USER4> Well, I'd say NoScript (or equivalent) and HTTPS Everywhere are rather important, too. I believe a resource blocker and HTTPS redirect could both be things built into browsers, true. But as it stands they're extensions, and pretty important ones IMHO.

And this is assuming you only use your browser for general web surfing; there are a plethora of other extensions I use that really simplify my browsing experience, but that I wouldn't consider crucial. I similarly can't live without RedditEnhancementSuite for reddit, for example. There's just so much that extensions have to offer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You should change the name of the extension away from GitHub ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER6> The name confused me into thinking it might be an official product announcement.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, this should state "Chrome extension" or similar in the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you have installed this extension, please leave a review making it clear that this is not officially endorsed by GitHub in any way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed! I am going to put that in the chrome extension description now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Kind of unrelated, but I was thinking about these companies making SaaS as browsers extensions for a living.

I mean, when you see the whole add-ons system from Firefox being reforged, it just feels extremely unstable to build a business on this. What if tomorrow, a new browser arrives, get a huge part in market shares but has no extension system so you can edit the content/DOM of pages as much as you want... You are screwed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> UnOfficial Chrome extension for Github Dashboard ([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/github- pro/iihgjgn...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/github- pro/iihgjgnkcjooinepfnjceobckhcdcggj?hl=en-US&gl=SG))

</comment><comment><USER10> I've enjoyed Zenhub.</comment>


ESR: Cisco provides a lesson - <AUTHOR> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4441 <comment><USER3> I agree with Eric, but the problem is that even if you own your router (many residential users have provider-provided hardware), and run Tomato or DD-WRT, etc ... You have only one next hop, and zero control over that router.

So yes, don't invite Cisco into your living room, obviously. (Nor Cisco/Scientific Atlanta, but that's another discussion..!)

But you're still powerless and privacyless, sorry. Get a VPN box and tunnel everything (I do), but that's just kicking the can a few years down the road (less if you pick a cheap host).

Also, the bigger message from this fiasco is that Cisco is feeling revenue pressure even in their protective low margin consumer networking business. Cisco has never been a good consumer company, but they've just never cared enough to get "creative" before.

That's a bad bad sign for Cisco. Chambers, like Ballmer, has presided over ten-plus years of sideways, and this move seems _desperate_.

Run for the exits.

<comment><USER4> > many residential users have provider-provided hardware

Yep. Even if I bothered to find a replacement for my combination cable modem/router, I don't know if the ISP / cable company would "talk" to the new hardware. Probably not contractually required to do so.

I'm reminded of the liberation of phone handsets from the phone company - <USER2> until the 1980s, most everywhere, it used to be that one could only connect to the network a phone leased from the carrier.

The issue of who controls (has root) on all the computers we supposedly own, starting with internet access routers and going on to printers, smart-phones, e-book readers, game consoles, disc players and TVs, is a vexing one.

<comment><USER5> > I don't know if the ISP / cable company would "talk" to the new hardware

I honestly, no-ulterior-motive wonder how often this happens. I mean, isn't ADSL governed by real-world written-down standards? Isn't DOCSIS an actual standard? If so, and given the absolute standardization of things like ARP, RARP, DHCP, and so on, where could the problem possibly come in? Do they scan routers and refuse to talk to ones that don't respond with the right software version numbers?

<comment><USER6> A piece of anecdata:

I've got comcast, and I recently bought my own cable modem because the provider given one was dropping packets.

To get it to connect at all, I needed to call them up and tell them the model number and the the MAC address (or something that seemed analogous) of the router. I had two models to choose from (fewer than usual because I needed DOCSIS 3 I think), and they made it very clear that these were the only models they would allow you to use.

(it almost goes without saying, despite using their business support, it took three or four days, most of which I was without usable internet)

<comment><USER7> I started Comcast service about a year ago. They have a page of approved hardware on the web, and I bought a new modem off of that page. It seemed there was plenty of choice even then.

I happened to pick a Motorola SB6150. What surprised me was that there was not a shred of technical information or any management screen. After the cable was installed in my house, my brand new modem was attached to the cable infrastructure and then downloaded Comcast firmware for about twenty minutes. After my modem had completely joined the Borg, only then was it allowed to offer me internet service. Sigh...

<comment><USER8> sadly, that is DOCSIS. You get to see very little (some modems provide signal levels, some debug info, etc) if anything at all. Everything else comes from/is controlled by the CMTS. Even in the enterprise grade modems like cisco hwic's, the docsis portion is almost entirely hidden from you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The same person announcing in this blog post that Cisco is "doing evil" and that it's not true that "Open systems and networks aren't always better for consumers" is the person who wrote this blog post last month:

<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4386>

wherein he described how he's not at all like RMS, because RMS frames his advocacy "as a moral crusade" and because "his rhetoric and his thinking became dominated by terms like 'evil'" and RMS doesn't use "pragmatic argument about engineering practices and outcomes".

I think ESR is really telling us that he wishes we'd all start listening to him tell us about how we should stop doing evil things instead of listening to RMS do the same.

<comment><USER10> What I see in this case is evidence that RMS is not as deluded as his opponents paint him to be.

This case shows that "evil", "good", "moral" aren't some vague abstract concepts that only matter to graybeard philosophers. You might think they are somehow detached from "practices and outcomes". Until Cisco bricks your router and holds it hostage until you sign off your privacy rights.

Seriously, if I heard RMS rant about "what if Cisco bricks your router to force you to bend over" I'd wave him off as being unrealistic and exaggerating beyond common sense. Not anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Without wanting to start too much of a holy war, this is exactly why I prefer the GPL over BSD variants. The GPL takes ESR's argument in this blog post to its natural conclusion. The only way you (the user) can be completely free is if the code is forced to stay open. There's no other way around it.

Even if Cisco's firmware blob consisted entirely of compiled open source code, if it was all BSD licensed you'd still be no better off.

<comment><USER12> OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program?

And it's not like BSD licenses lack ways of encouraging contribution back either.

I just don't see the choice between these licenses as important as quality of software and pace of development in ensuring customer freedom.

<comment><USER10> > OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd > software, died together by a proprietary program?

I assume that you mean officially GPL'd, not secretly incorporated by Cisco (although this type of abuse also gets detected.) GPLv3 forbids tivoization, so GP would definitely be better off with a router running GPL'd software. With BSD there is nothing preventing the hardware vendor from locking the software away from users.

<comment><USER12> I don't know about that. Let's say the router is running a GPL'd light-weight web server. Just because you can't lock the person out doesn't mean that the component may be effectively replaceable.

Otherwise you could never effectively use any GPL v3 software in embedded devices unless you add additional update paths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The phrase 'better for consumers' doesn't seem to have any testable meaning. What hypothetical experiment, if performed, would determine whether a proposed rule change would be "better for consumers"?

Let's pretend that we can clone the universe and run an A/B test. Universe A receives the new rule treatment and Universe B does not. In both universes, we inject happiness meters into every living person's head. These meters also inject clones of themselves into fetuses for the next 100 years. So, we can compute the average happiness levels of all people on earth over the next century. Is a net positive change in happiness levels the definition of "better for consumers"? Must we also consider changes in the distribution of happiness among individuals? Is happiness even the right metric to consider? When the word 'consumers' is used, does it imply that everyone's happiness should be considered?

So, back to some reality. It's certainly possible that an Apple-like walled- garden approach might, for some particular technology/situation/problem/whatever set-off a chain of economic events which has a positive net effect on overall human happiness. However, I have no idea if I'm making a meaningful argument to those using the "better for consumers" phrase as no one seems too interested in attaching a strong definition to the term.

W.r.t. anti-trust litigation, the phrase is oft thrown about. What has bothered me is that the "obvious" answer is provided by a static, short-term analysis of current economic conditions. In the short-term, it's better for consumers to regulate the price of electricity. After all, it costs "too much", you know. However, the disincentive to build new power generation facilities likely leads to an outcome very negative for consumers -- shortages, rationing, etc.

tl;dr; Stop using the phrase 'better for consumers' unless you bother to attach to it a testable definition.

<comment><USER14> Really you could ask the exact same questions for the phrase "better for the economy" and doubtless many other things.

<comment><USER13> Agree. Whenever I hear the words better/worse used without an obvious axis of measurement, I am suspicious of the speaker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> They might be technically capable of doing this, but I would enjoy reporting them to the police for possibly having committed criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and others if they ever tried it on me.

I wonder if the much-hyped US-UK extradition treaty cuts both ways in such a flagrant case of unauthorised access...

</comment><comment><USER16> I really don't think that this has anything whatsoever to do with closed vs. open source. This is definitely a case of Cisco over-reaching. The genesis of the problem isn't really connected to closed source. There are plenty of closed source systems that don't even approach these kinds of issues.

Would open-source prevent this kind of thing? Probably. In this case, someone has to make the hardware, supply and maintain the infrastructure, so the problem is probably a little more complex than the simple contrast between closed and open source. There really aren't a lot of large open-source- everything projects out there (hardware + software + mechanical + whatever else) to know how this would play out.

Hardware, as a business, is really capital intensive. Software isn't. A college student in a dorm can sit down and write software that gets distributed to millions and reaches every corner of the world. And the cost of doing so is virtually nothing.

To replicate this in hardware is almost impossible (yet). There's a lot more to it than just designing and building it. There's support, warranties, regulatory requirements, etc.

Here's a dumb example: Who wants to be responsible for the lawsuit when an ill-designed piece of hardware kills someone because it does not deal with high-voltages in a safe manner?

Or another one: Who wants to be responsible for a recall of thousands or even millions of devices if they are found to be defective in some way?

Again, regardless of the contrast between hardware and software I don't think that this issue can be used to champion the FOSS flag.

<comment><USER17> > I really don't think that this has anything whatsoever to do with closed vs. > open source.

[...]

> Would open-source prevent this kind of thing? Probably.

I don't think I could have made the argument better than you have.

The point isn't that all closed source software does this, or even that most does it. The point is that when you cannot control the software, the abuse can happen. Anyone who has power can abuse it, which means that if you cede control over software in your router to Cisco, you have to trust Cisco not to abuse it. If you don't, then you don't have to worry.

<comment><USER18> Even if Cisco was running open source code they could still put ALL of this language into this agreement. The difference would be you could see the actual mechanism in work if they had open source code. The egregious part is the language, not the implementation.

<comment><USER14> Or you could get the code, rip out the parts you didn't like, recompile and install on your router.

You might be breaching the terms & conditions of their cloud stuff, but you could simply choose not to use it.

<comment><USER19> Well, even though I'm pretty technically literate and know my way around a compiler, I probably couldn't do this, even with the source. There's so much knowledge that you need to accumulate. I could probably learn how to do it, but that would take me weeks, if not month. So first, somebody would have to do it. Second, he'd have to maintain it. Then, my less-computer-literate friends would need someone who makes them aware of the issue and points them to the firmware, probably even install it. Most won't bother, check the box and accept the TOS, maybe thinking "I'm not planning on doing anything illegal anyways." - that won't be solved with open source.

Open source protects the technical literate people, but it's not the silver bullet that solves this issue. Raising awareness and pushing back is at least as important and that's possible with closed source as well.

<comment><USER20> While I agree with your point Open-source is not a silver bullet. I don't see anything other than Open-source as a good enabler.

Yes, pushing back is possible with closed source as well.

The real question becomes, which is harder? and for who? To push back at closed source, you'd have to be a big consumer of them or atleast big enough to be able to sue the vendor. If you're an individual, you're in real trouble. Of course, there are people who play both roles.

And I see Open-source as the best enabler for technical individuals. As far as i can see, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Eric has about the worst personality you could ask for in a representative of a movement; but i can't fault this post. Likely he doesn't realize that he's parroting RMS's key message more or less verbatim. But there's no reason to make a fuss about that when it's an important message for people to hear, regardless of the source.

</comment><comment><USER22> how would open source software prevent this?

I have an open source Buffalo router that shipped with DD-WRT. it has a service onboard where I can run an alternate SSID as a free wifi hotspot, and software on the router will inject a frame into clients web browsers to serve ads.

evil? yep. on by default? no. implemented entirely with open source software? yes.

what would happen if this feature shipped in an open-source router on-by- default and without the software button to click to change it? are you seriously advocating to consumers that they download the source code to their router, change some #defines to remove the code that injects ads, recompile it, and reload it onto their router?

<comment><USER23> Why would most consumers need to do that? It only takes one HNish person to get the code, fix it, and release something that consumers can easily use.

<comment><USER22> reflashing router firmware is still something out of reach to most consumers. it would probably not even occur to most consumers that the ads in their web browser would be something they could change.

<comment><USER14> You could ask/pay/sleep with a person of your choosing and have them do it for you.

To the second point, if you had a world with mostly open source software then people would start to assume that things like that could be done.

It's like arguing that you should design cars to be only serviceable by the manufacturer simply because not everyone is a mechanic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This reminded me that I owned some CSCO, and I need to sell some stock anyway. Sell sell sell!

(I laughed when I saw how _much_ CSCO I own -- I bought it in high school, also total it's worth about $250, and that is apparently about the same as it was worth when I bought it.)

</comment><comment><USER25> So he disagrees withe the statement that "Open systems and networks aren't always better for consumers." Ok, fine.

But he asserts that open is _absolutely never_ better, and he backs up that assertion with... a single example. That's not much of a syllogism.

</comment><comment><USER26> _last a few days Cisco pushed a firmware update to several of its most popular routers that bricked the device unless you signed up for Cisco's "cloud" service._

It did no such thing, even for very liberal uses of the term "brick."

</comment><comment><USER27> <http://www.tonidoplug.com/> anyone?</comment>


Mailchimp ends Shopify partnership due to privacy concerns - <AUTHOR> https://mailchimp.com/shopify-statement <comment><USER2> Here's TC's coverage of the story:

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/22/mailchimp-and-shopify- brea...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/22/mailchimp-and-shopify-break-up/)</comment>


The Quietest (Powerful) Computer In The World - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/02/19/worlds-quietest-pc/

<comment><USER2> Alternatively, do what we do for our customers and put the machines in another room and run long cables or kvm to your monitor(s), keyboard(s) and tracking device(s).</comment>


Pastebin: How a popular code-sharing site became a hacker hangout - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/06/05/pastebin-how-a-popular-code-sharing-site-became-the-ultimate-hacker-hangout/ <comment><USER2>
        Earlier this year Pastebin was under heavy attack by a hacker.
        This person was creating about 500 new pastes per second, all
        which were very much alike. Each item contained an email
        address and a message saying that I had to contact that email
        address if I wanted this attack to stop.

        The requests came from thousands of different IP's, but I
        managed to stop it for a few minutes until the hacker came up
        with another type of attack. Eventually I contacted the person
        in question. He replied that he was very impressed with my
        infrastructure, and that he wanted to know on what kind of
        hardware and software I was running.

        He was a big fan of Pastebin, and simply wanted to test the
        infrastructure. Of course I was fuming with anger at the time
        of the attack. Funnily enough, over time we got to know each
        other, and since then he has helped me guard off various other
        attacks.

This quote from the story is the more important to me. It's a great example to explain to people what is a hacker when all they know about the word is what the television says.

<comment><USER3> So a hacker is someone who fucks up your website till you do what he demands?

I don't think this is a good example of what a hacker is.

<comment><USER2> Not exactly what a hacker _is_ , but why he does what he does. Here it was simple curiosity and the fact that he actually liked the service (spare the rod and spoil the child), not at all an evil plan. I think it's a good example to give while trying to explain what a hacker can be (rather than "is", given that there are multiple valid definitions), but I agree that this text on its own it's clearly not sufficient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 'The code was originally written to operate from a single open-source PHP file with the code posted publicly so that users could hit "view source" to see how it operated.'

Is this true, they put their PHP source into the HTML document? Or is this just an instance of a confused reporter?

<comment><USER5> There would have been a link somewhere on the page to the .phps copy of itself

<comment><USER4> Yeah, but you don't view that with 'view source' in the browser. I think the author was confused about the difference between code that runs on the server and the client.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd say a ' _cracker_ hangout', but that's just me, not willing to let the popular media bastardize the true meaning of _hacker_.

<comment><USER7> Oh, c'mon. You lost that fight at least 15 years ago.

<comment> dorian-graph And have been completely obliterated lately due to all the "Someone hacked my Facebook" people -- what actually happened is they left it logged in and some intelligent fellow posted some horribly amusing and unique status message.

<comment><USER8> As long as programmers know the difference, I think that's all that matters. The media will do what it wants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This was brought up last week: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2595066></comment>


Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio's plan to rein them in - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/7/22/9015443/bill-de-blasio-uber <comment><USER2> All: Whether Uber needs reining in or not, HN threads about Uber do. They have reliably been turning into flamewars. It's time this stopped.

Kindly control yourselves, whatever your views. This is a place for thoughtful discussion, not venting.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't really like Uber's business practices but they do fill an essential niche in New York City.

A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New York.

I watched a very common event unfold the other day in Brooklyn Heights. A woman hailed a green cab. It pulled over and the driver opened the window, asking "where to?" The woman mentioned an address in Manhattan. The driver said, "sorry, green cabs can't go to Manhattan" and drove away.

That is 100% false. Like yellow cabs, green cabs have to take you anywhere in the five boros, but they're reluctant to take you to Manhattan because they aren't allowed to pick up fares there. They have to drive back to Brooklyn empty and not make any money, so they lie to customers to avoid that. The end result is that you still can't get a taxi in most of New York City, at least one that will pick you up near where you live and take you exactly where you want to go.

The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.

Anyway, this Forbes article about green cabs tells the exact same story: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiuffo/2013/09/30/nycs- new-g...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiuffo/2013/09/30/nycs-new-green- taxis-what-you-should-know/2/)

<comment><USER4> > _A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint > their cars green and take street hails._

Does anyone else see the absurdity in that? Compare to: _" In 2014, the city allowed people to wear green socks"_

If you want to transport people for a fee, what rational, moral justification is there for anyone to intervene in that? -To decide what colour your car should be, or where you can pick up customers?

<comment><USER5> The road is a limited common resource, and it's difficult to directly charge drivers per their usage of it, so the local government uses other forms of regulation.

<comment><USER6> It's not difficult at all. Gas taxes pretty much pay for this. Congestion charges also work nicely in cities.

<comment><USER7> Gas taxes are less equitable now with more electric vehicles.

<comment><USER6> As electric cars become more common, we can lower gas taxes to the point that they only cover environmental externalities and switch to a weight x mileage tax for roads.

(Mileage to be measured at vehicle inspection time and incorporated in registration fees.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Whatever you think about Uber, you have to realize that de Blasio's actions are not about congestion or the public's interest.

Let's not forget his original plan to have the city pre-approve upgrades to ride-hailing apps:

> The mayor's plan to require Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other > ride-hailing services to get city approval for upgrades to the user > interface on smartphone apps -- and to pony up $1,000 each time they do -- > has rankled a broad swath of companies, with 27 signing a letter protesting > his plan.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/tech-c...](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/tech- champion-de-blasio-under-fire-on-plan-to-regulate-uber-apps)

<comment><USER9> This is very similar to BitLicense which is also born in new York. It's unfortunate that they are heavily against permissionless innovation which had created $4 and $40 billion markets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Caught a taxi tonight in Paris. 5 euro but jacked up to a minimum of 7, driver claimed he couldn't give me change. He spent 5 minutes pretending to have no change, then gave me 2 euros in coins plus a 10 in exchange for a 20. Great.

Taxi services have practically begged for Uber etc to destroy them.

<comment><USER11> When you have French taxi drivers willing to injure, threaten, assault just for working for a competitor, it's no surprise that some of them resort to shenanigans like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There was un-coördinated public outreach, too. It may be unmerited graciousness, but a council member and a senior City administrator each told me, on separate occasions, that I swung their position on the bill.

New Yorkers have shit to do and places to go. I'm fine with paying for a congestion charge. But it needs to be fairly applied across traffic. Engaging regulators and - in a balanced and sensible way - poking them in their flabby spots, when warranted, is a well-tread feature of democracy. If you care about something, reach out to your local representatives.

Disclaimer: I don't work, nor ever have worked, for Uber. Neither do I hold a position in their stock, _et cetera_. I am a frequent rider. I've had many severely upsetting experiences with yellow cabs.

</comment><comment><USER13> The thing about Uber I don't understand is how they are going to defend their monopoly once they acquire it. Assuming they eventually win all the legal battles and drive all other taxi and taxi-like services out of business then how are they going to stop anyone else from entering their market?

Each transport market is effectively isolated (you don't hail a driver from SF to get around NYC). This means any new entrant can achieve critical mass in a market at a relatively low cost (especially if they start with small towns/cities). If Uber do manage to get to the point where they can start extracting monopoly profits they have no means of defending these markets other than competing on unit price. Consumers are going to win big time out of Uber, but I can't see how their investors will (at least their long term investors). Someone far smarter than me must have answered this?

<comment><USER14> It is rare to see, of not impossible, a real monopoly in a free market. Uber has to compete to win customers, if they artificially raise their prices to where people will not pay, people will choose a different form of transportation.

<comment><USER15> I think Ubers monopoly will be at least as strong as Ebay's in online auctions. There's a humongous liquidity advantage.

<comment><USER14> The common definition of 'monopoly' is the sole provider of a good or service. I doubt very much that Uber can ever achieve that. I much prefer 'market share', I think it's the most accurate term. Aside from that, I do see some parallels with eBay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> More accurate headline: De Blasio legislative threat successful in persuading Uber to turn over data at 11th hour.

California wasn't able to get that result with its $7m fine.

<comment><USER16> Not really, defeating the cap was much more important to Uber than the data access.

<comment><USER17> They haven't defeated the cap yet. According to the article, there will be no cap while a four-month study proceeds, and a cap may still be imposed, depending on the conclusions of the study:

 _The city will conduct a four-month study on the effect of Uber and other for-hire vehicle operators on the city's traffic and environment.

While the study is being conducted, de Blasio won't seek to cap the number of new vehicles Uber or other car services can put on the road. But de Blasio administration officials say a cap is still a possibility in the future._

<comment><USER16> That's just political face-saving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In the last few years NYC has closed stretches of Broadway (a significant north-south corridor) to traffic, squeezed vehicle lane widths to add bike lanes and introduced several measures to slow or impede traffic so the city is safer for pedestrians. These are all _very good_ things, but they come with a cost.

Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the roads, it just creates congestion and traffic.

If anything, Uber's model would seem to reduce traffic since their cars are more deliberate vs. taxis' aimlessly wandering.

NYC should try to figure out how to partner with Uber. Taxi's are already expensive enough to be something of a luxury (though filthy), Uber is a far better experience.

<comment><USER19> > _Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the > roads, it just creates congestion and traffic._

Most traffic theory maintains that this actually does magically reduce traffic. People who would have driven now decide that there's too much traffic and find another way. Similarly, expanding highways doesn't reduce congestion, the number of cars just increases to the previous levels of congestion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is a restaurant in Chicago called El Ideas [http://www.eater.com/2015/4/27/8486425/phillip-foss-el- ideas...](http://www.eater.com/2015/4/27/8486425/phillip-foss-el-ideas- chicago)

It's in a neighborhood that has no cabs and driving there not pleasant or convenient. Last night the chef told me if it wasn't for Uber, they probably wouldn't have survived

<comment><USER21> Why did they put their restaurant in a location that depends on a single, possibly illegal, transportation service to get their customers to them? Was that location easier to get to when they opened?

<comment><USER22> In theory, they should pay lower rent for a bad location. Uber, in driving up their profits, should in the longer term also drive up their rent. The landlord will eat all the advantage eventually.

<comment><USER20> it won't drive up their rent, because it's a really not a great neighborhood and doesn't show any sign of improving

<comment><USER22> Neighbourhood with Uber is commercially better than neighbourhood without Uber. Thus, rent should go up.

<comment><USER20> maybe, but it will stay ridiculously low for reasons unrelated to Uber

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does this mean Uber's daily spam robocalls from "Molly" to New York City residents that offer no option to be removed from the list or speak to a live person will stop?

<comment><USER24> If this is what they were actually doing, and not hyperbole, I suspect you would have a reasonable case to fill out an FCC complaint - see their "Rules and Resources for Dealing with Unwanted Calls and Texts" at [https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en- us/articles/2028738...](https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en- us/articles/202873880-Rules-and-Resources-for-Dealing-with-Unwanted-Calls-and- Texts)

<comment><USER23> I've gotten several. I still have one recorded in voicemail. It likely wouldn't matter since Uber would call it a "political" call, thus utilizing one of the loopholes so they can spam the heck out of your phone number. All they accomplished by calling me over and over and over is ensuring that I'll never use their service.

Vonage's auto-translate results for the curious: "Hi it's Molly with Huber and we need your help. We ended the days when you couldn't get a ride home because cab didn't wanna leave Manhattan now married to blog Theo is trying to bring the bad old days back because his millionaire taxi donors are telling him to why on earth would your council member. Ever consider voting for something like that. They should stand up for you. Not orders from the mayor your council member is sponsoring this bill and we need your voice. Please call your council number and tell them to take their name off of mayor-to-bother- as(?) an title bird(?) because you and all New Yorkers deserve a reliable transportation. Paid for by Huber 212-257-1745." "

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Can't stop, won't stop.

Uber continues to amaze me with their incredibly skillful political maneuvering. They seem to have roadblocks thrown in their way at every turn and they manage to just keep trucking. Heads down, eyes on the prize; it's really quite impressive to watch. I have to believe it starts at the top with a tunnel vision approach to revenue growth. It's like that old Al Davis quote "Just win baby!".

Whether you agree with what they're doing or not, it is incredible to watch their execution.

<comment><USER26> Yes, a company with an illegal business model stayed under the radar until they got big enough that they could combat the legal challenges to their illegal business model. Always a pleasure to watch.

<comment><USER27> When their business model is only illegal due to a corrupt, inefficient, entrenched monopoly which is just as hostile to its customers as its employees, yes, it is indeed a pleasure to watch someone take on the machine and win.

<comment><USER28> This seems like a non-sequitur. The business model was made illegal by people who were voted into office to make business models like these illegal.

Uber isn't wrong to push the letter of the law, but no one should be surprised that it will take a little bit of time for the law to adapt to this. Uber's vicious and cavalier attitude towards law in general is really disgraceful.

This seems like a classic "ends justify the means" type of scenario, and I'm generally skeptical of these.

<comment><USER29> It's just a hunch at this point, but I suspect the end game for personal transportation a few decades down the road will be government-provided rides.

Cities, counties, whatever municipal entities providing autonomous vehicles at subsidized rates, or maybe even "free". These are the entities paying for the infrastructure, after all, and once voters don't own vehicles, the argument will start to be made that governments should operate what what runs on the infrastructure.

But that's decades away, and there's money to be made now, in the current system. And Uber/Lyft/Google whoever else is in the business may provide the tech to the governments.

Anyway, like I said, it's just a hunch at this point, but it won't surprise me if things slowly move that way.

<comment><USER30> This is the future I want to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> No matter what Uber does, they always please me with stuff like this. It makes the anarch-libertarian blood run warm to see government cronies routinely bested and consumers offered superior services in a market that was ripe for innovation. Now we need this type of disruption in health care and education.

<comment><USER32> It started in education with Khan Academy and the like, but there's still a lot of work to be done. As for health care... it is one of my fondest wishes for a large company like Google to come up with a medical expert system that can solve even half of the "take two pills and come back in two days" consultation that currently cost me $50.

<comment><USER33> > it is one of my fondest wishes for a large company like Google to come up > with a medical expert system that can solve even half of the "take two pills > and come back in two days" consultation that currently cost me $50.

AFAIK, this is not a technical problem; such solutions have existed for quite a while. Drug control laws, laws governing scope of practice of various classes of health care providers, and insurance rules all require that, even if your diagnosis and recommended treatment come out of such a system, its done under the authority of a provider with a particular kind of license with a particular degree of contact.

<comment><USER32> Absolutely agreed; I was reading about such medical expert systems in the 80s. I know it's a political issue... unfortunately, I don't see anything smaller than an Apple or Google able to take on it.

A possible alternative might be a startup willing to offer such services to third-world countries that have really bad medical systems (which in turn would mean not enough political power to prevent it). Unfortunately, I don't know if there are enough money in such a venture - definitely nowhere near the current "get $1B quickly" trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Does anyone on HN "work" for either of Uber or Lyft?

There seems to be a lot "uber workers this" and "lyft workers that" without much substance.

<comment><USER35> I drive for Uber in my spare time as of a few weeks ago - they just started serving Cheyenne for Frontier Days (and I'm hoping they keep the service on after that, though I'm not sure the demand is gonna be there)

(That is, for the precisely _one_ ride I've gotten.. Something in the backend appears broken and nobody can request rides even though I'm online, and support hasn't been helpful on this >_<)

Can answer any questions you have, but I doubt there's going to be a lot to answer. Signing up as a driver and doing what you gotta do is a pretty straightforward process.

<comment><USER36> Spare time, what? Aren't you guys ruled to be _employees_ in some jurisdiction, which makes it employment? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I have one question for somebody knowledgeable about this market.

Why companies like YellowCab do not offer something similar to Uber? They developed the app but the app is jut front end to dispatcher: so there is no guarantee that cab will actually come (I tried it).

For example, ability to pre-pay taxi via iPhone so that there is guarantee that cab will actually pick me up. Or maybe hailing taxi via iPhone? Or something like Lyft Line?

Is management of cab companies to blame? Or is it taxi drivers?

</comment><comment><USER38> Most of my exposure to Uber has been negative articles about them. I've used them a handful of times, but not for a couple of years, until just this week.

I used them to get to and from the airport for a trip this week, and it was pretty interesting to compare with what I've been reading.

First, of course, the experience as a user was great. This is no surprise, but it sure does cement my desire to use them over any other service. I wanted to avoid taxis at all costs. I was ready to drive to the airport twice each way to handle all 8 people who were going, and pay for parking, rather than deal with that. I've done it before and wow, it just sucks. You call and get a surly dispatcher, you have no idea where your car is until it arrives, it might just not show up, credit cards are a joke, you have to figure out what to tip, etc. Uber was great. Hail in the app, see within seconds exactly where your car is and who's driving it, track them all the way, get in, ride, then get out on the other end and go, without even needing to explicitly pay. It just works! Even getting two different cars at 5AM in the suburbs was no problem. No cars were available at first, but within a few minutes they appeared.

I'll note that it's not just taxis who are problematic. I also checked into Super Shuttle, because heck, there's so many of us that we should be able to get a whole van at a good price. Checking on their web site, I thought that's how it would be. They wanted $28 plus $10/person, which worked out to quite a bit cheaper than four Uber rides (two each way). And we'd all go together, cool! Of course, it turns out that this is the price for _each way_ , so the actual price would be double. They are pretty careful not to make this clear until very late in their reservation process. To be fair, all the info is there if you pay very close attention, but they make it extremely easy to assume that the quoted price is the whole thing. Compare with Uber, which is happy to give me a pretty precise quote, and matched it (near the low end!) all four times.

OK, we know all this. It's a great service (unless you get a bad driver who attacks you or something) but it's built on the backs of the poor oppressed drivers. Except both drivers I talked to were ecstatic about Uber and loved doing what they do. One was relatively new on the job, having been an assistant manager at a pizza place until a few months ago. He started out doing Uber part time, then graduated to full time once it became apparent that it was the better choice. The other one has been doing it for about two years. He bought a brand new Toyota just to drive for UberX, and he's put over 60,000 miles on it since then. He loves the flexibility (apparently he's somewhat "on call" to help family members out doing various things, and when he needs to help them he just signs out of Uber, goes off and does whatever tasks this involves, and signs back in) and the money is pretty good. He usually hangs around downtown DC on weekends and makes good money accumulating lots of short trips, but hangs out doing occasional airport runs on other days to earn a bit more.

So they're good with customers, they seem to be great with drivers, and all I have left is a vague sense of unease at how they approach regulations, by basically barging in and ignoring them. Except they're totally on the up-and- up in Virginia now, having reached an accommodation with the relevant authorities to be completely above-board.

After all the stuff I've read about them over the years, I felt a little guilty using Uber for this trip, but practicality won out. The guilty feeling didn't last.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the second guy, with the new Toyota, previously drove a cab. It was awful, and says he tries to convince his cabbie friends to switch to Uber at every opportunity. They charged him $150/day to drive for them no matter what. No fares? Fuck you, pay me. He's extremely happy that Uber came along to give him a much better way to make money.

<comment><USER39> > _They charged him $150 /day to drive for them no matter what._

Not that I particularly want to defend taxi companies, but they also own and maintain the cars. Purchasing a newish vehicle and maintaining it isn't free - while not being charged daily, it's still a sizeable invoice you have to pay, no matter what. $150/day does seem extortionate, though.

<comment><USER38> Of course, but the quantity is outrageous. Financing a taxi-level car is going to be, what, $200/month? Maintenance should be substantially lower than that amount. That daily charge is literally an order of magnitude higher. "No matter what" is fine. $150 could be fine, if you earned a lot. It's the combination that's crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Services like Uber definitely need some regulation. I drove from downtown SF to the Castro this evening, and witnessed 4 separate incidents of Uber drivers being reckless and/or discourteous. Things like: driver stopped in the leftmost lane, at a green light, because he suddenly decided that he wants to turn _right_ instead of left; driver stopped in the right lane to pick up passenger, when he could have just stood in a parking spot a few yards down; driver stopped to pick up a passenger at a corner, blocking the crosswalk.

I'm all for "disrupting" the taxi industry, but please don't disrupt traffic because you're too lazy and/or clueless. Is there a way to report asshole Uber drivers?

<comment><USER41> What does it have to do with Uber? A lot of drivers are doing that, and don't even get me started on taxi drivers in New York City, they just do whatever they want on a road.

<comment><USER42> I have noticed the same in SF.

> What does it have to do with Uber?

If these are Uber drivers picking up/dropping off passengers, then it's Uber's problem, isn't it? Setting aside the contractor/employee dispute, these drivers are engaged in activity for which they'll get money from Uber, so it definitely is Uber's problem.

> A lot of drivers are doing that

Not in SF. I've lived here 10 years, and never saw this level of ineptitude. These days whenever I see a driver being an asshole, I immediately check to see if it's an uber driver; and 9/10 it is. I sometimes work in a cafe which is on a corner; and I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Uber drivers doing a U-turn _at the stop sign_ , confusing other traffic.

> don't even get me started on taxi drivers in New York City

Irrelevant, since we're talking about SF.

<comment><USER41> > "I've seen Uber drivers doing a U-turn at the stop sign, confusing other > traffic"

There is nothing wrong with doing a U-turn at the stop sign, it's absolutely legal [1]

1\. [http://www.pe.com/articles/insurance-629158-traffic- vehicle....](http://www.pe.com/articles/insurance-629158-traffic-vehicle.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Poor Comrade De Blasio didn't get his way.

</comment><comment><USER44> Uber's "we need to meet demand" argument is true, but disingenuous. Uber needs to keep adding more drivers because they have such a high turnover rate.

Many drivers work for a few months, realize that after costs they're making minimum wage, if that, and then quit. Naturally, Uber needs constant access to fresh blood in order to keep the scheme going.

<comment><USER45> If there was such an issue with churn, which isn't, the cap wouldn't be an issue because it was (as proposed) for total drivers not licenses issued.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The title would be better if it were "Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio's plan to block them from doing business". I think we really need to fight the notion that Uber promotes "ride sharing", whatever that even means now. Uber has shown that its service is anything but sharing - it is plain old taxi with a spiffy app and no labour protection, and where their "employees" are merely treated as another replaceable contractor. The media also needs to stop quoting meaningless buzzwords like "sharing", but I guess this goes to show the successful PR of Uber.

<comment><USER47> And yet people choose to use them and pay them money. But no, we must protect those willing customers from the dangers of doing business freely and having an actuall choice, instead of paying extra to a violent monopoly of taxi drivers who'd rather crash other's cars than compete honestly.

<comment><USER48> Just because some people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it's right. People in general are very happy to pay for things that have huge externalities not directly affecting them.

<comment><USER9> What externalities for uber are you referring to?

<comment><USER49> Uninsured Uber driver causes traffic accident. Pedestrian is severely injured. Uber driver cannot pay for the medical expenses and there is no insurance company involved who could.

Either the pedestrian is ruined for life, or society has to pick up the bill.

That's one of the clearest examples of externality you will ever see.

Our free choice evangelists try to frame the whole issue as "one Uber driver, one satified customer who only exercised a choice, and no one else exist in the world".

It's dishonest, but that's Internet discussions.

<comment><USER9> First of all, if that was true it would be a failure of the healthcare system ("society paying the bill" is just insurance with economies of scale). But that's not true. A lot of people are not aware of recent developments with uber. Uber offers commercial comprehensive insurance on all rides. When there is a passenger in the car, there is full commercial insurance.

When there are no pax, many insurance providers DO cover it under personal insurance. Some (like geico) don't, but I would wager that the majority of Uber are insured every second of the day.

<comment><USER49> You're simply wrong.

Even if the healthcare system eats the cost (as it would in my country), it's not supposed to. That's akin to entering a health insurance contract and then demanding the insurer pays for the theft of your iPhone.

Road traffic is insured by car insurers. The Uber driver doesn't have any, the car insurer therefore doesn't pay, so _someone else_ pays. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it with "oh, that someone else is also some insurer". It is someone not involved at all. Ergo an externality.

<comment><USER47> So, I'm from Russia. In Russia, there's a great variety of cheap taxis, great mobile apps with reviews, gps location of taxis and stuff like that. Very good infrastructure. All simply because government doesn't regulate that.

I am yet to meet a single person complaining that this is bad. There is no increase in road accidents. The service is great. The drivers are very polite and are always on time. One must wonder, how can you be so blind to an obvious example of free market at work?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Why are we still calling this "ridesharing"? Isn't it pretty clear to everyone that there is no ride sharing going on?

<comment><USER51> I use UberPOOL more often than UberX these days. I think it's fair to call that "ridesharing".

<comment><USER52> In other news, McDonalds is not a burger shop anymore because I just order the icecream.

<comment><USER51> That's silly. A more accurate analogy would be: We should stop saying there is no ice cream (no ridesharing) being sold at McDonalds (Uber). I think that's a reasonable assertion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm no fan of Uber and I can't stand its founder or his ridiculous smirk but... they played this well. Uber's got game when it comes to politics. If either political party ever learned demagoguery from Travis, I'd be scared.

It helps them that their opponent isn't sympathetic at all. Non-zero medallion values, by definition, mean that there are too few cabs on the road (and in New York, there are). The Medallion Mafia pisses me off; just a bunch of rent- seekers stealing money from drivers.

I'm actually glad to see the Medallion assholes get "disrupted". I just wish that it were a different company taking the lead in doing it.

<comment><USER54> My hunch is that if the company was different, it would lose. Like it or not, this is what's required to defeat our noble overlords a.k.a. the holy regulators and the munificent politicians.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Pity.

This modern day exploitation should end. Uber's huge profits are because they exploit people for labor. Ban it already.

<comment><USER55> As far as I know every Uber driver chooses to be one. Also, to be an Uber driver you have to own a relatively new car... I couldn't even drive for Uber because my car is too cheap. These people are not helpless.

<comment><USER56> Some people might take a loan to buy a car to drive Uber?

<comment><USER55> To get a car loan you need employment history and decent credit. While some folks that fit this category are struggling, it's not exactly the profile of an exploited class.

<comment><USER57> Uber push their own financing program to recruit drivers (or to get drivers to update their cars). They use subprime lenders and claim that even people with poor credit are eligible [https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/](https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/)

If you're recruited by Uber, enter into a loan, and then Uber drops the rates to a level where you're not profitable, that can be a problem. There are a bunch of stories of this kind, eg: [http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/uber-drivers- struggle...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/uber-drivers-struggle-pay- subprime-auto-loans) [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/27/uber- promote...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/27/uber-promotes- subprime-auto-loans-to-increase-driver-pool.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> no mention of ashton kutcher's day job as a tech investor.</comment>