[dead]
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by okareaman on Friday October 23, 2020 @03:19AM
(#24866823)
I did 2000 rides in a year. That works out to be about 8 rides a day. That doesn't seem so far fetched. You've already made up your mind so I don't know why you bother making comments to me.
[dead]
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by alickz on Friday October 23, 2020 @05:12AM
(#24867420)
Accusing people of being shills is against the HackerNews guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by okareaman on Friday October 23, 2020 @05:12AM
(#24867423)
I'm a retired programmer working in Silicon Valley. I'm like a kid in a candy store in some regards, such as I picked up one of the top VR developers in the world at the San Jose Convention Center and gave him a long ride. He was excited to talk about VR and convinced me to buy what he was working on. I did! I wouldn't be a shill if Uber/Lyft paid me. There's no fun in that. As I mentioned elsewhere, I really like messing around with their algorithms to see how they work. You can't subvert real enthusiasm, but nice try!
[dead]
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by viridian on Friday October 23, 2020 @01:26PM
(#24871794)
Don't be a passive aggressive asshole.
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by Cederfjard on Friday October 23, 2020 @03:16AM
(#24866807)
Why is that an unbelievable number? Uber has been around for a decade now, surely there’s been ample time?
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by jonathan-neil on Friday October 23, 2020 @03:54AM
(#24867017)
The number of rides isn't unbelievable. What is unbelievable is that 2000 rides by 1 person would render a data set that would scientifically support even a fraction of the claims in his original post.
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by Cederfjard on Friday October 23, 2020 @06:21AM
(#24867879)
OK, but we were always talking about anecdotal data in casual conversation right, not hardcore scientific analysis? I think even the original poster acknowledged that.
Re:California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify...
by jonathan-neil on Friday October 23, 2020 @08:13AM
(#24868601)
No he did not acknowledge that, please quote him if I missed it somehow. He presented a long list, as fact, and when questioned for a source he dodged the question, then when asked again he claimed he drove a lot one year. But the claims he's making are about other drivers and factors he simply could not determine as a single driver in a limited region. The original post, as it was written is absolute useless ignorance at best and active disinformation at worst.