Yeah. Their motto seems to be 'easier to ask forgiveness/pay fines instead of asking for permission'.

Irrespective of the ethics, the plan "worked" in that they managed to pressure local governments to change rules or otherwise let Uber operate

They did manage to get some local governments to do that, yes. I’m not sure how to interpret your comment other than as an apology/excuse for their illegal and unethical behavior.

If there’s more to your thought than “the ends justify the means,” I’m curious what it is.

Uber has been rewarded for employing schticks that GP called "unethical and poorly-run." Is it unethical? Yes, and I strongly believe that "Move fast and break things" is wholly inappropriate when people's lives are involved. Is it poorly-run? I think Uber is actually well-run if you accept that "ends justify the means" is in their DNA.

What would compel me to accept that an ethical standard that can be used to justify any amount of immoral and unethical behavior is “in a company’s DNA?” Why would I grade them on that curve?

This is like saying the Duterte is a very effective anti-drug crusader if you accept that murdering innocents and drug dealers is in his DNA.

comma ai must be so jealous

It's no less immoral in programming languages than in real life, precisely because it tends to slip from the former into the latter.

Not intentionally programming them to run red lights, just intentionally or unintentionally not taking necessary precautions to prevent it from happening. They can get it right, or have it right now, and it's pretty clear which side they've chosen.

Nobody is suggesting they're doing that. They're saying Uber cuts corners to save a dime among other unethical practices (like stealing research from competitors).

Uber is embodiment of its employees. It is a flame that the unethical moths are drawn to, so they can realize their vision by the means that delight them. Uber is the Phoenix of Enron.

Its employees operate within the culture and norms established by its owners and investors.

[deleted]

[sorry, dang. you're right.]

Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. That just makes this place worse for everybody.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You're right. Thanks for calling me out.

They stand to gain by being quicker to market by failing to instantiate adequate safeguards.

Criminal negligence, not direct malicious criminality.

Not a bad business plan. The market rewards risk. I’ll use Uber as an example.

This is why unregulated growth makes cancer the perfect metaphor for corporations.

The art of being cheap and the virtue of being lazy oft end with someone getting hurt, and Uber embodies both of those quite well.

Not intentionally doing that, but, intentionally ignoring bugs.

"Sir, we have several bugs, one of them would cause the car to run a red in the following conditions... [fictional made-up condition: in case it sees a clown car with Brad Pitt wearing a pink dress in it]".

"What are the chances of that ever happening? Ship it!".

I somewhat doubt they even know or care that there might be bugs before they do something awful. It's like they're using the public highway as their simulator.

I don't know if this job ad for a self-driving simulation software engineer is still current, but it is somewhat worrying given the broad scope of the role they appear to be advertising for.

[0] https://www.uber.com/en-US/careers/list/27029/

I think it's more what Uber stands to gain from not ensuring that their cars are programmed to not run red lights. Which is first-to-market advantage.

No one said that this was their intention.

I don't think anyone thinks it's intentional, just that they're a poorly run company and have been less diligent in fixing bugs and ensuring safety.

Which I'm thankful for since I now have access to taxis because of them.

This comment is in spectacularly poor taste given the subject of this news story.