They have a couple people to manage test drives and they will ask if you have any questions and make sure your aware of the current interest rate or other sales incentives but they aren’t sales people in the sense that you would typically be used to.
If receiving stock based compensation is grounds for not being independent then wouldn't most companies have an independence issue with their boards? It just seems like a crazy claim on it's face.
This is why they are striking against automation. Those 25K will be out of jobs. It's funny how conservative (anti-technology, stuck in the past, don't want to make anything efficient) labor unions end up being when it suits them.
It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers.
You mean the remaining 25k will also be out of a job?
The article linked above doesn't go into detail on what container royalties are, but it sounds like it was a protection from being laid off negotiated in the past.
And in the context of AI so frequently discussed here, perhaps more workers will need those types of protections as automation takes hold elsewhere.
> It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers
This is a complete rewriting of history.
The reason Uber "won" is because they operated on a loss. The reality is that running a Cab business typically has low overhead. You use phone lines, maybe a website, and then pay for cars and maintenance.
Uber "innovated" the field by doing the exact same thing with MUCH higher operating costs. How did they provide a cheaper service then? That's the kicker, they never have. They just ate the loss.
Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year.
And that's how they won.
Of course, now Uber is actually more expensive than your average cab. Which makes complete sense when you consider calling someone's phone has got to be a lot cheaper than running one of the largest networks in the country.
And, is it really more convenient to tap around as opposed to make a call or even just stick out your hand? Maybe. But I think when it's double the price, people won't feel this way.
I got an uber the other day, had to wait 5 minutes for it. There were some taxis sat outside the station, but I chose uber because
1) I know it will take card. Last time I took a taxi the "card machine was broken" and "I'll drop you at an ATM"
2) I know I'll get a receipt, as a PDF, which I put into my expenses. Taxi drivers tend to be very grumpy about giving receipts
3) I know I won't get adverts - maybe this is just a New York thing, but last time I took a yellow cab in New York I was bombarded with adverts
4) I know I'll be going to the right place, without having communication difficulties and ending up at the wrong hotel or whatever
Price doesn't come into it.
And if uber can't gets its operational costs down below a taxi firm paying for a dispatcher and manager to handle paperwork etc, given the scale they operate at, then they really need their tech stack sorting.
Not true, price did come into it, you just decided the price differential was fair. If Uber was 1000x more expensive then you wouldn't have taken it, even if they massaged your feet and kissed your forehead.
> And if uber can't gets its operational costs
They can't, because the idea itself is flawed. Taxi companies don't need a tech stack. It costs very little to pay some bloke 10 bucks an hour to operate a phone. Paying hundreds of software engineers is very expensive, and it doesn't really matter if you switch away from Ruby or whatever. That's the least of their worries.
Again, this is a rewriting. I'm sure this played a role, but Uber fares are not actually fixed! There's no "per mile" rate, the algorithm is a complete black box! They won because they were cheaper for the consumer.
As someone who grew up in NYC, lol. Taxis were horrible and tried to rip you off at least 20% of the time. Ubers have a transparent rating mechanism and transparent pricing.
Uber has a rating mechanism. They do not have transparent pricing and have a history of building tools to misrepresent their activities to legal authorities so nobody can trust them not to play games with pricing at any time in the future.
Better than cabs were 15 years ago but we should expect more transparency.
I trust Uber somewhat more than a taxi driver. So far Uber's worst to me was rides not showing up, with taxi drivers I've been essentially robbed (and in most of the world, that it was only "essentially" means I had a not so bad experience).
No really, taxis were the first thieves of the world, on paar with politicians.
Look, I went to Russia, I took Yandex Taxi. I went to Indonesia and took Grub. Whether you pay double of half is i consequential compared to “Yes I take credit cards” then “Oh my credit card apparatus doesn’t work” then “Let me find an ATM for you, at your expense”.
The one brand than invested on marketing is for nothing in the death of the taxis; Everyone was wishing they’d disappear.
The price was the cherry on the cake, the bottle of water was the finger to every awful taxi driver that has existed in history.
From a country which suffered from a notorious taxi mafia which is now basically extinct, Uber isn't game changing because it is cheaper.
It is game changing because now the drivers have a reputation from their previous customers and you know you won't be treated like a stupid mark at best, or sexually assaulted etc.
THAT was the game changer and good riddance to bad rubbish. Even such "tiny" details as the cars being clean and not smelly are, in fact, a major improvement in quality.
Old-style taxi guys had zero incentive to keep their cars clean. Many smoked in them outright.
Did you never take a cab pre Uber? It was a poor experience. At best it went ok. But you have to be constantly paying attention, know the local roads (when on vacation/business that didn't work, or even when it did, you are having to straight call out old boy for being a scummy scammer and taking the wrong streets), deal with the 'sorry the mileage ticker is broken' 'sorry I can't take credit cards' after saying they did at the start. Uber fixed a TON of that experience.
Sure, but again, I know many people and I think consumers as a whole would happily take a shittier product if it's half the cost. The reason Uber won is because they were competitive in price. If they were not competitive in price, which they aren't now, then I am extremely confident in saying they would've went nowhere.
I've seen Uber come up with the most outrageous routes to take me around NYC, so I don't think this is true at all w/r/t to being something that Uber "solved."
"Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year."
I'm not even talking about the wage aspect of the business. Before Uber and Lyft, getting a cab was inconvenient. Mostly telephone or hailing it in-person. Uber and Lyft forced them to innovate. There are now apps available to get a cab in almost every major city.
Why did it take the Uber/Lyft disruption to get something like this? Because the cab companies didn't need to compete and the unions kept this monopoly in place.
I fail to see how using an app is more convenient than hailing in person or using the telephone.
What happens if you don't have the app or don't want to download it? We really have to sit down and make an account and do all this bullshit?
It's "more convenient" because you've been influenced. But, certainly, I can make a phone call faster than calling an uber. And I can do it without any data or without even a smartphone. In actuality, it's not more convenient, it's just less human.
Cabs refused to innovate. Before Uber the process to obtain a cab meant using a phone to call a human to radio a driver in a vehicle. It was obvious in the year 2005 that booking through the internet was going to happen.
Yeah that's nonsense. Uber/Lyft "won" because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty experience. The cab industry was unapologetically exploitative and I will Not. Shed. One. Tear. for it.
> because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty experience
Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive!
> unapologetically exploitative
As opposed to Uber, who categorizes all their employees as "gig" so they don't have to pay out benefits. And they don't take on any risk with the capital, the employees bring their own capital.
Uber is extremely exploitative both to you, the consumer, and to workers. For you, you're not offered a fix rate. Your rate per mile varies by the minute and by who you are - not unlike a scammy Taxi. The difference is the Taxi's at least would sometimes not be scams and advertise a rate, this is not the case with Uber.
| Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive!
You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and take a shitty route, charged them an exploitative fee to return their cellphone, had their credit card machine "break" until you insisted you didn't have any cash and it was either a CC card or you are getting out right now... etc. There was absolutely no accountability for them at all and Uber fixed this problem- getting a ride is now actually pleasurable and everything is negotiated up front with no haggling and a full paper trail.
Your whole argument is ridiculous, not sure what your axe to grind against Uber is, but its clear you are not being objective here.
I am very much being objective here. Uber won despite having an objectively worse economic model, because they cheated via venture capital. It happens all the time in the tech world.
Tech company comes in, "innovates" by providing a product that's 2x as convenient for 10x the cost, and undercuts competitors by cheating.
To be very clear, Uber IS absolutely a better experience than taking a cab, and I've noted this multiple times. I believe, however, it's not convenient ENOUGH to justify the extreme infrastructure costs.
From an economic standpoint, Uber does not make sense. If you wanted to run an Uber service at that scale, it would be beyond expensive. Customers don't want to pay 20 bucks to go a few blocks down. So if that was the case from the beginning, Uber would have been dead in the water.
You're greatly underestimating how cost sensitive consumers are. Most people will willingly take a less convenient and shittier option if it's cheaper.
We are just in opinion territory here, but Uber was originally more expensive generally than NYC taxis, but it took off anyway. If everyone was so cost sensitive, why isn't everyone taking the subway?
Well first off people do take the subway. Lots and lots of people. But if subway doesn't go where you need it to and you're in a time crunch, you take a taxi or uber.
Second off, even if Uber is more expensive that's still not it's true cost. You, or anyone, would be happy to take an uber if it was 1.15x the cost of a taxi. Because that's worth it for you.
But this is the big idea here:
"Tech company moves in a provides a product that's 2x as convenient for 10x the cost"
There's a point where it makes no sense to get an Uber, and we're well past that point. Uber made it only because they could hide the true cost.
Uber IS a better experience. But would you pay, say, twice as much for a better experience? I would say for most people the answer is no. Not for a transportation service.
When you're making a product it doesn't matter how amazing it is if it's too expensive to produce. There's some exceptions for some product categories, but ultimately operating inefficiency will bite you. From an economic standpoint, Uber does not make sense and has never made sense. Point blank, it's a stupid idea. As time goes on and Uber prices go up and up to try to make up their billions of dollars of losses, you will see this first-hand.
The world is bigger than NYC, and even New York is bigger than NYC.
you are right about Uber bringing accountability, but Europe solved that through regulation. NYC could have done that-- the right to run a cab is linked to owning a government-issued medallion-- but regulation is not the US way.
Medallions only apply to yellow cabs and the green outer borough taxis. Any New Yorker will tell you stories of hail (yellow) cabs not stopping, not driving minorities, not driving to locations in the service area or not being present outside Manhattan. Calling for a cab, van, car service or limo does not require a medallion.
>You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and take a shitty route
I've had Uber try to go through the Throggs Neck Bridge, over to the Triboro in order to take me to LIC from eastern Queens. Of course the Uber driver, who only spoke Chinese had no way of understanding why this was incredibly and obviously stupid.
Yeah, maybe to people from out of town. I didn't say cabs were perfect, but people are acting like Uber is beyond reproach and I don't think it is and I find taxis incredibly convenient and are almost always a better deal, and I lament how few of them there are now which is due entirely to Uber. The experience in an uber is not really that much better, people used them because they were much cheaper.
Consumers like knowing the price for a trip before taking it so they can decide if it's worth it or not.
I have no problem with variable pricing, provided it's stated before I agree to pay, not after. It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree.
> It can't be a scam if customers have full information before they agree
It absolutely can be, if customers don't know how that price is generated, which you don't. You agree but you don't have the full facts. Your friend could be paying half and you're getting ripped off.
And, to be clear, many taxis before Uber did actually advertise their rates. This is the same situation then, but even better, because you know your rate isn't for you, it's for everyone.
Speaking of cab companies/Lyft/Uber, etc now similar to striking unions, those companies have a vested interest to block public transit expansion because it's a direct competitor. It's always been like this; we have to balance things out and not give into regulatory capture.
Longshoreman unions are some of the most powerful and corrupt.
Even if you are pro-union, they have a history of attacking or undercutting other unions. The port of Portland Oregon was bankrupted because of a slowdown that was organized over two jobs they wanted to take from the electricians union.
The former president of the ILWU refused to recognize the AFL-CIO. The ILA president has mob connections.
"The Jobs Bank, established by GM in the mid-80s and adopted by Ford and Chrysler due to pattern bargaining, generally prohibited the Detroit automakers from laying off employees," the automaker said. "By the 2000s, Chrysler had over 2,000 employees in the Jobs Bank at a staggering cost. These employees were on active payroll, but were not allowed to perform any production work."
The Jobs Bank was set up by mutual agreement between U.S. automakers and the United Auto Workers union to protect workers from layoffs. Begun in the mid-1980s, the program is being tapped by thousands of workers. Many of those receiving checks do community service work or take courses. Others sit around, watching movies or doing crossword puzzles -- all while making $26 an hour or more.
On the other hand, layoffs shouldn’t be free for companies. These are people who have specialized skills, have setup their families in these areas, have mortgages etc.
What’s the alternative here? An alternative I can think of is a much stronger unemployment program on the federal level so layoffs don’t hurt the community. But this scheme not existing would’ve been devastating for the middle class.
People in greater society are not really an elastic resource.
A great alternative is to tax corporates on the increased productivity that they achieved through layoffs and then distribute the proceeds as UBI to the affected.
It bothers me that UBI is conflated with social support and welfare.
The term carries a bunch of connotation and implications which are material to the sprit of the statement.
Well call what you may but UBI will be as necessary as oxygen is to life . Specially when most of white and even blue collared jobs will be automated. Without UBI most people will not be able to survive , forget about thriving.
That's a fairly thin article. The one note about how much these laid off workers are making is just an allegation aimed at less than 3% of the total number of laid off workers, not a value with any citations. It would help a lot if there were actual figures on how much the container royalties are.
And while ongoing payments are unusual, it's still basically a severance package. Those dock workers no longer work at the docks because they were let go due to automation. Do they have other jobs? Probably. The article doesn't provide any info about that either.
It is the NY Post though. So I'm not super surprised by the lack of substance, just allegations.
Do they ever work? The article notes that “as container ships have gotten larger, container volumes have often gotten less steady, with more peaks and troughs. Highly varying volumes might be more easily handled by a human labor force that can be scaled up and down as needed.”
No, it seems like the comment you are responding to is specifically arguing that a "bench" may be needed (with workers getting paid) so that they are available during spikes in shipping volume.
Automation can be scaled up and down much more effectively than labor. You just turn off the machines when you don't need them and turn them back on when you do.
There's a social sense in which you're correct - the machine wasn't counting on that wage, didn't cancel plans to be available, etc...
But from a financial perspective, most of the cost for the machines is probably in buying the machines, where most of the cost of the worker is probably hourly wage (or similar). Turning off the machines probably saves less money than sending the people home.
Scaling past existing max capacity at a port is a massive project whether or not they use human labor. It's not like those human laborers are taking the containers off the ships by hand...
Do you have a citation for this? The article makes a fairly compelling argument that the automation in ports is not flexible in its utilization and costs, and that humans actually are more scalable in this regard.
True in that container royalties is a thing, but stated so sensationally as to make it lying.
You don't get royalties for nothing. All the references I have been able to find, say you have to work some amount based on Union agreements but somewhere between 700 and 1500 hours per year, and you have to have worked at the port for at least 6 years. They seem to mostly be paid out as an end of year bonus. I haven't found anything that ballparks the amount so I have no clue how much money we are talking about.
.. watching two City workers having a meeting at a property right now.. it took more than two months to do three small repairs on the City owned lot.. one right now.. This same City is quite wealthy from property taxes and other sources here in western US coastal town.. Do these two City employees "sit home and collect money" ? Does orchestrated, planned and persistent foot-dragging with extra benefits, fall into the same outrage category as "these so-called dock workers" ? Both sets are employees.. the names are different but the outcome seems similar somehow? difficult to reconcile that one is publicly shamed, while the other gets stronger and more entrenched over time.
I agree, we and the union workers should vote in a government that helps people who lose their jobs to progress. After all, it's the job of a government, not a company, to serve the needs of the people.
> I agree, we and the union workers should vote in a government that helps people who lose their jobs to progress.
You have an incorrect, oversimple model of politics (e.g. business interests have shown much more capability in influencing government on economic policy to suit their own goals than pretty much every other group, and there are a lot of reasons for that).
You use "progress" in a really suspect way, like it's a line pointing one way. It's really about whose progress it is.
etc.
> After all, it's the job of a government, not a company, to serve the needs of the people.
I disagree, and I think that idea is actually at the root of a lot of problems.
> You have an incorrect, oversimple model of politics
I disagree, I believe I have a correct, appropriately complex model of politics. I guess our opinions cancel each other out, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, friend.
> business interests have shown much more capability in influencing government on economic policy to suit their own goals
I actually agree here: business is great at influencing policy in a way that suits their goals, but not necessarily in a way that suits the goals of society or individuals. The 2 goals are different, that's why we can't rely upon the former to achieve the goals of the latter.
It's the goal of business to make money, it's the goal of unions and people to make sure people are taken care of, so unions and people should vote for a government that takes care of people.
>> After all, it's the job of a government, not a company, to serve the needs of the people.
> I disagree, and I think that idea is actually at the root of a lot of problems.
That is a valid viewpoint. Another valid viewpoint is, thinking that idea is at the root of a lot of problems, is itself at the root of a lot of problems. Unfortunately, without any detail provided either way, all we have now is 2 conflicting, equally-valid viewpoints.
> These people are nothing more than glorified Amazon workers.
And what's that supposed to mean? It sounds like you feel they're low status and therefore undeserving.
> This isn't the hill to die on. People viscerally feel this isn't a job which can justify itself—because it can't.
But somehow, the job of just owning a bunch of shit and living off the proceeds doesn't seem offend people the same way, when it's literally the same thing.
> Besides, royalties are an artificial construction enforced by governments through courts and obedient police force that will kill you if you don't go along with what they say.
You know what else is like that? Private property.
> These people are nothing more than glorified Amazon workers
Yes, with one key difference: They were smart enough to recognize the value of their labor in the market, and have joined together to have better leverage.
If they were the International Longshoremen Company, nobody would find anything objectionable about that. They just negotiated a good contract. Good for them.
Making purchase decisions based on a company executive’s personal political opinions is dumb. It’s a self own to buy an inferior product for political reasons.
5 years ago Tesla was a no-brainer if you wanted a EV. In 2024 it seems like competition has caught up and every year their lead grows shorter. Why pay extra to fuel their CEOs crusade about whatever culture war issue pops into his head next?
I wouldn’t say they have caught up. The self driving features alone are in a league of their own. Supercharger network is also unmatched for reach and reliability.
It's a rhetorical wedge trying to establish value without actually doing so. I'd assume they're a stakeholder of some measure.
People and their choices attribute that value. Not snide people judging the decisions of others.
Tesla or anyone will sell you a golf cart. Most of the decision is personal style, categorically subjective.
Nearly all of the people I know don't buy new cars or lease. They're at least five or more years from ever seeing an EV because of used car affordability.
Case in point: the boots theory. The car they have is better than the one they could maybe get.
I edited it endlessly lol, not sure how much makes sense to be fair. I actually deleted this post and sent it again, realizing I was making the same mistake.
The 'self own' depends on the idea that one is selecting against their interests due to distaste for a given CEO.
First, who are they to say this? Something not objectively the best must be evaluated to find where it lands. Merits aren't universal, this falls to the individual. You did well to get to this point in your post.
Second, let's pause for a minute and think of how contrived this is. Outside of social media, how often does this happen? I get the feeling this is a distinctly Elon+Tesla problem. However, we can't completely separate the man from the companies.
The "boots theory" talks about how it costs more to be poor, many cheap boots instead of a more expensive pair. This tries to explain some counter-intuitive decisions people have to make.
In this light, maybe people rank their opinions over dubious features in an overpriced appliance.
Knowing it's a loose attempt, I'll try to say something equally silly: anyone wearing a belt clearly can't buy pants or is trying too hard to impress.
Does anyone have any tips for debugging EFI_STUB kernels when they fail to boot? I've run into BIOS before that I can't get EFI_STUB to work on but grub works fine and I'm not sure why or even how to go about getting any debug info since the bios/firmware is a block box. Is the only option to get in touch for the motherboard vendor and how they care to look into it? It's rare but happens.
was going to ask the same thing, "thermodynamic computing," was what I interpreted as an ASIC for training models, and then once you can train and run models on it, what do you need classical compute for.
The notion that rich people aren’t concerned with long term outcomes seems like one of those things that isn’t true. In fact the reverse is often said the poor have, “nothing to lose”. Many wealthy people have gotten where they are by focusing on the longer term. The promise of your comment just doesn’t seem true.
I largely agree with you, but there's a kernel of truth in the OP's comment. Many of the very rich got to be very rich because they are very good at optimizing for money. They understand economics, business, and the financial system extremely well. And that's a weakness in a post-collapse world because it is very likely that money will be worthless and we won't have much of a financial system to speak of. They probably also pissed a lot of people off on the way up, or simply by virtue of being filthy stinking rich. And that sort of wealth is hard to hide, painting a target on them for millions of people.
The folks who will do the best in a collapse scenario are likely the next social class down; the folks who perhaps sold a company for 8-figures (but not billions), or are in reasonably high-level managerial positions for 7-figure annual salaries. This class is pretty heavily networked and also knows how to work together. It's held together by social bonds of trust, geographic proximity, and mutual interest as much as by money. So when money goes away, those bonds remain, and you have a class of people who are long-term oriented, highly-skilled, but also communicate and cooperate with others. They are also relatively invisible (could you name a bunch of directors at major corporations, or solopreneurs with successful bootstrapped businesses?), so they can blend in and avoid becoming a target until defense systems can be established.
After WW2 in Germany, society had a total collapse. At one point, the occupying Allies decided to "zero out" the existing Mark (German dollar) and replace it with a new Mark. To bootstrap the economy, everyone was issued 50 Marks.
Within two weeks, the folks who had had money before the war had money again, and the people who had no money before the war had no money again.
Unsurprisingly, the people who knew how to make money made money, and those that didn't, didn't.
It's really sad that the American public school system does not teach how to make money.
In 1948 the accounts in Reichsmark, Rentenmark and Besatzungsmark were converted into Deutsche Mark accounts, although in different proportions. Cash was 100 RM to 6,50 DM, stocks in 1:1, other stuff in 10:1.
The core of your urban legend is the Kopfgeld, a cash starter kit like the Euro 50 years later. It consisted of 40 DM in cash and later an additional 20 DM. Those 60 DM were not free but calculated into the converted accounts.
What did happen was that shopkeepers were hoarding goods, especially luxury goods, and only suddenly started selling them after the Währungsreform.
That is simply not true. The same families that were wealthy before the Nazi time (say Quandt, Flick, Krupp, ...) made a killing during the Nazi time and retained and expanded their fortune after Nazi Germany was no more.
It is absolutely not the case that everyone started with 50 Marks and quickly the people who are good with money came back to the top. The same people simply stayed on top throughout.
I've heard this before, and I don't know your background so for sure will not judge. But I think it is best to consider this story that you have been told as propaganda.
I was told this by Germans who lived through the war and the aftermath. I didn't have reason to believe it was propaganda.
A year ago I met a local Afghanistan refugee, and we got to talking. He was a wealthy businessman in Afghanistan, and escaped with nothing but his skin during the American pullout. He immediately went into business again in the US and was thriving.
Making money is a skill that can be learned. One is not doomed to circumstance.
My argument is based on the revealed internal memos from Exxon regarding their awareness of CO2 and its effect on climate change, the number of world leaders who have been revealed to have aggressively pursued strike-first policies for nuclear war, anyone involved in environmental degradation, pollution, dumping chemicals into water supply, etc. All horrible long-term and even short term policies for the masses but provide short term profit to a class insulated from the worst effects. Of course it's not all rich people but there are enough of them with disproportionate influence that their influence is a sizable negative factor on overall human welfare.
On the topic, stupid people in the military are a much greater threat. Groupthink in a strategic command force for example, or any similar mob psychology, could be catastrophic.
Neither party has provided empirical data, so it’s hard to say if I should agree with parent comment or grand-parent comment.
I think it’s likely that a third variable like stress level, political affiliation, or time spent outside more greatly correlates with long term environmental concern. Both of your pure-theory discussions don’t feel convincing.
He said, "flashy American individualism," so he was talking about a specific brand of individualism that covets fame and notoriety, not individualism in its broader meaning.
