In the real world, though, 99% of the time, we DO know. And even if we don't know exactly, we can narrow it very closely. We either shit, take a bath, masturebate or whatever. We still want privacy of any of those things.
At the end of the day, they're all just humans making bad decisions
But it seems like it would honestly be the opposite (i.e., government bankruptcy being bad). The more people that are involved, the higher chance there is of a tragedy of the commons
This is not true anymore. It was at one point but now it's a static fare to take a person from x to y. That static fare is based on the route generated by Uber at the time that the trip is requested. Naturally, the static price is based on a minutes and miles estimation but it doesn't change in cases of unexpected delays or altered routes. The driver does maintain their ability to choose a different route, but it won't alter the cost to the rider or the driver's compensation. Passengers are shown the exact amount that a ride will cost at the time that they book.
I recently took a ride in SF where I asked the driver if we could stock for fast food along the way (I had just had a 6 hour flight and I can't eat on planes for fear of motion sickness). He said that a few months back he would have said yes but now that Uber has an upfront ride cost he wouldn't make any money while were were sitting in the driver through line. I had to eat so I offered $15 on top of the fare, great results, would ride again.
edit: It occurs to me that while users are offered a static fare, drivers could still be paid based on miles and minutes. That's obviously not how the driver in my example understood his compensation but it _could_ be the case.
Drivers have no obligation to stick to a particular route. The ride can be refunded if the route is egregiously long or indirect. Even then, if there is a valid reason (traffic, road closure) the ride can be upheld.
If riders are quoted a longer than optimal route, then that appears to be deceptive to me.
If they can take someone from A to B and then not get paid for it because of that kind of rule in how the task is preformed that's highly directed work of the kind you would give an employee.
If you contracted me to install cabinets in your kitchen, I couldn't defensibly take 1 year to install them, if I estimated 3 days. This doesn't make all cabinet installers employees.
3 days or 4 days and you still pay. Uber can't offord a 33% increase in trip length when paying per mile so defacto they are going to have very tight tolerances.
Further the scoring is separately done by the customer. So the conversation is "Can you take the scenic trip? Sorry can't." Further it goes that way because Uber drivers are employed by Uber not independent contractors connected by Uber to customers.
I think you interpret "egregious" differently than I do. You appear to be responding to a set of points I never made, while not addressing the one I did.
Basically if you want a sink replaced you can define what the sink will look like and function etc but not which tools they use to fix it. When someone is providing core business functions for a year+ receiving constant directions for short term tasks has direct customer interactions thus representing your business etc they just don't have much wiggle room.
It might very well be overprices (I sold because I think it is) but they got $7B in revenue in 2016 which is hardly no earnings. They make money on every car they sell so it would be pretty straightforward for them to decide to become profitable at the expense of growth and R&D. Now, their stock price assumes they're going to conquer the world rather than settle down to become a profitable small car manufacturer and solar/battery provider so lots of investors would lose their shirts if that happened. But it's an option for the company which makes them very different from the pets.coms of the world.
Revenue is nice, but earnings are all that matters when you have debts to pay. Just look over to the recently IPOed Snap, Inc. for a company with less revenue and more eyeballs!
What "job" is that? There is no reason for these companies to exist. Incentivizing drug companies to raise prices in lockstep... to keep the middlemen happy? That is a very perverse incentive
I agree in that I think startup is a vague term. I think what is important is that it's a young company funded by external investment, not organic growth. Why don't investors care about such issues enough to be proactive?
