upvote

points

by NitpickLawyer3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby anjel2 hours ago|
next
[-]
1st example was the progenitor of what eveolved into strict liability. (If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages. 2nd example is an illustration of that longheld legal precedent's being curiously ignored (nevermind the cost savings was a bum rush and livery costs are now higher than before the innovative advent) 3rd is a call to at least litigate who bears the downstream effects. Or perhaps we should just cancel public health measures and employ pestilence to solve the problem *organically.*
reply
upvoteby ahepp1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> If you make money putting stuff into the stream of commerce, you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages

So if you’re a business offering poor quality services, and I come along and start offering higher quality services, I owe you damages for the impact I have on your business?

reply
upvoteby NitpickLawyer2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> you're liable for unintended and evenunforseeable downstream damages.

so the people vs. otis, the people vs. IBM608, and so on? Has it ever worked?

reply
upvoteby ses19843 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
People especially wanted uber because uber charged below market rates by subsidizing rides with vc money.
reply
upvoteby NitpickLawyer3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Maybe. But the fact that they're still in business shows that different people value different things. Be it rating schemes, payment alternatives, choosing their music, choosing their cars, one click hailing and so on. The people have spoken, the social contract has changed.
reply
upvoteby KPGv22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
that's just goalpost shifting

The argument was "governments restricted taxi availability so Uber won" and now you've mott-and-bailied yourself down to "people want to pick music they listen to on the ride"

reply
upvoteby KPGv22 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> over the imposed limitation of their municipalities

This was really just a few cities in the US. There's no artificial taxi scarcity in Houston or London or Tokyo.

You might reflexively say London has strict regulations, but it regulates safety not imposing an artificial cap. That's a NY/Boston/Chicago/Philly thing.

Uber won because:

1. on-demand app

2. VCs subsidized rides to destroy taxi companies by driving the customer cost to well below provider cost.

reply
upvoteby steveBK1231 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> 2. VCs subsidized rides to destroy taxi companies by driving the customer cost to well below provider cost.

Not sure about other regions but in NYC this is 100% the case. Ubers used to be nicer cleaner newer cars, better drivers.. for less than a taxi. Now they are about 4x what they cost in the 2010s, with cars about as dirty as a taxi and equally surly drivers.

reply