https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/...alifornia-bill.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
More info in the link but all I can say is wow!
More info in the link but all I can say is wow!
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Uber says drivers not core to its businesses to combat CA law
- Thread starter Socivol
- Start date
If they're not core to their business then who will be driving these cars if you don't need these people?
Pretty soon the cars will drive themselves, so Uber just needs to fight this out until then.
That tech is not ready for what their "digital marketplaces" are demanding so nope that ain't gonna save them, not any time soon.
The tech will be ready in 3-5 years, but ...
can't disagree here.
The technology to find riders, and autonomously drive them is their core goal. They see the drivers as current plebs to reach that goal, and therfore are not apart of their envisioned core.
However, currently the human driver is part of their business. Autonomous diving isn't completely done, yet.
Basically, drivers are their core right now. But Uber plans ditching them as soon as possible.
there's no way we're in full driverless nationwide in 3-5 years, which is what these companies would need to fully be in "human drivers aren't core to our business"
OP
OP
Fuck these companies. Also fuck the whole autonomous car dream too. Give me massive, public transportation systems.
Not so sure about "soon", also pissing off the systems that you're going to need approval from to be driverless seems pretty moronic.
OP
OP
My friend sent me a screenshot of her NYT alert with the headline and I thought she was full of shit. I went to their Twitter and that was the headline. Then I read the article and just wow. I'm not surprised though, Uber isn't a company I hold in high regard. To basically be so dismissive of the work that the majority of your workforce is doing completely disgusted me.
Last edited:
Time will tell if people will trust self driving tech to at the very least not kill them, but also figure out weird corner cases that happen with pickups/dropoffs.
Also is a self-driving car gonna walk the Uber Eats deliveries up those apartments and office buildings?
He's right. It's like when you go into a McDonald's. The employees there aren't a core part of the business. After all, you're eating a Big Mac not the people working there, right?
(/s if that isn't obvious)
(/s if that isn't obvious)
Pretty sure every single person who actually uses Uber would disagree with this
Yup.
Imagine going on the record and saying this. Seriously.
their entire business model is ignoring laws that specifically go against their interests so they can undercut unionized labor, this is the least surprising thing they've ever done
More like 30-50 years. Driverless AI has a long, looooong way to go, and getting them legally on the road in significant numbers is even further out. And that's not even factoring in the morality and ethics questions of how the AIs are programmed to manage risk and fatalities. I will be mildly surprised if there are a significant number of driverless cars on the road regularly in my lifetime.
McDonald's is not a hamburger company, they are in the cash register and menu screen business.
McDonald's is a brick-and-mortar platform that allows farmers and cattle ranchers access to a marketplace that motorized food consumers also access.
Not sure why anyone would honestly think food is the core of the fast food business.
Sometimes people who access Uber's technology platform to access marketplaces are accessing McDonald's marketplace.
I feel like a lot of people here want to nationalize any business that takes off as very popular.
Didn't Yelp try or do something super shitty like this? They tried to classify themselves as an internet service provider (as in, a provider of a service on the internet) so their "data" would be protected when businesses wanted them to disclose their algorithm for why/how/when Yelp would hide good reviews and boost bad ones?
If you try to pretend your employees aren't your employees and you ignore taxi laws then yes. You shouldn't exist as a legal corporation
That's because "very popular" quickly leads to a monopoly. In which case, better it be under the US Gov with at least SOME oversight than corporate assholes who only care about $$$
If drivers aren't a core partner of Uber's business, I guess they won't have to stress about having any drivers in California now. Should be easy for them.
3-5 is super optimistic considering the scale involved here. Maybe if it's workable in a small area but they'll still be relying on a human workforce if they want to even think of being sustainable.
Absolute joke company.
Last edited:
But people here often claim stuff is a monopoly when it isn't. Uber is nowhere close to a monopoly. Just because a service or product is very popular or clearly the dominant one in the market doesn't mean it's a monopoly.
Lol of course they are and Uber knows it. I imagine this is how they're going to get out of this if/when they take it to court. "You see your honor we're not a transportation service, we're a technology company!" Hopefully that argument gets thrown out.
Cars in general? Sure. But I doubt Uber's self driving cars will be given how far behind they were from their competitors when they got that woman killed.
Its not, denying gay people rights is their core business model
I was reading about this and AB5 on CityLabs.
Wonder how Uber is going to worm their way out of this one. "Drivers not core our business" is a very bold lie.
Wonder how Uber is going to worm their way out of this one. "Drivers not core our business" is a very bold lie.
If a restaurant has a liquor license, it actually isn't the core of their business!
Checkmate