This is one of the most wildly off base things I've seen people say with regard to US vs China.
Many and there's a long list.
Almost every city had strict rules about passenger transportation, Uber obviously knew this and ignore them all. That's another reason they raised $25.2B in funding over 30 rounds, to become so big even big cities became small compared to them and they could use the "See you in court" tactic, by that point yeah they lose many cases, so what? They are so big cities and governments were pressured to change the laws to suit Uber.
Nothing is black and white, before Uber the business wasn't exactly fair and clean but Uber applied the scumbag business tactic to a whole new level and it was amplified by the billions of dollars in funding.
Edit: I'll take the down as a 'No' :P
"Uber’s business model is predicated on lawbreaking" [0]
"That Uber regularly broke laws to cement its frontrunner status is not a controversial statement, it’s a fact." [1]
[0] https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regu...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xwxyv/uber-became-big-by-ig...
You'll note I did actually then provide some actual references.
In conclusion, BobbyJo deserved it and it was a right thing to do. Disrespectful? Yes, that's the point.
This is absolutely against HN guidelines, general common decency, and just pure logic. You do not get to decide who "deserves it" and who doesn't.
Even in cases where the information is easily found, there are polite ways to say that, and you appear to have intentionally chosen an impolite manner.
Yes, EXACTLY so. Choosing to be polite or not is part of expression. Active choice of politeness (or not) adds layers to meaning and communication. In this case, part of choosing to be impolite is expressing that BobbyJo didn't deserve politeness here. Conversely, sometimes being polite is itself brutally insulting. In this case, it would have been passive-aggressively treating BobbyJo like a child; far more insulting.
You do not get to decide who "deserves it" and who doesn't.
Of course I can make that decision. Just did. You might subscribe to a set of rules in which I don't get to make that decision; I clearly do not subscribe to that. I note that I certainly won't be telling you who you should and should not be polite to, though.
Also, I did look it up. None of the articles I saw specifically called out laws Uber was guilty of breaking as a corporate entity, instead they all reference grey area behavior and use words like 'skirting' or 'undermining.'
Eg they can spy on foreigners all they like.
While collecting data like fingerprints etc is bad, collecting DNA is on whole another level. Imagine using it for immigration purposes for example. Or the govt makes you get a license to have kids (like marriage license today) based on DNA traits. These things might sound comical today, but the social score thing sounded comical too, until it became a reality
Well everything that's not approved by the FDA (yet), but already approved somewhere else would fall into this category.
That's hardly a black mark against those companies.
Just a note, the US doesn't need permission from the Netherlands to invade them, of course. However, as I understand it, usually the US president needs permission from Congress before deciding to invade another country. In this case, Congress has given permission in advance to invade the Netherlands if the ICC tries a US citizen.
Only for declaration of war. The US hasn't declared war on anyone in since WWII.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
Then the US expects the rest of the world to follow their rule based order, where no one knows what the freaking rules are except rules for thee but for me(US).