1569
We live in the future!
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
1569 points (97.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
30919 readers
1317 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In case someone needs help:
Uber/Lyft
Airbnb
Bitcoin/Crypotocurrency
ChatGPT/LLMs
Because you have 2/4 general terms:
Cryptocurrency not Cryptography to disambiguate again
https://www.cdc.gov/cryptosporidium/
Thanks, new anxiety unlocked
Cryptozoology? I KNEW IT WAS GONNA BE FUCKING BIGFOOT!!!
Sorry, at this point the term "crypto" has been thoroughly claimed by the shysters.
Tales from the Crypt
"Rideshare" is also the least accurate term used to dodge regulations. It is just a taxi/cab. You are paying someone to get you from one place to another. They aren't sharing their ride, they were never going where you are going before you told them to.
Taxis/cabs are legal. Also, perhaps because of age, I tend to view taxis and cabs as phone numbers you call for a car to show up (or go to a taxi stand), whereas I see rideshare as reserve via an app.
I think ride share really just means a vehicle that is used not solely for commercial purposes
They are legal if you follow the regulations. The problem with the "rideshare" companies is that they don't. I think just about every taxi company these days is on some app or another (often the same that call unregulated cabs in countries that actually got their shit together and banned the unregulated ones).
They literally changed the name of the company from UberCab to duck regulation.
It would have been cool if they'd renamed themselves "Calloway".
I'd like to point out this probably would have taken another 10-15 years to achieve had it not been for the disruption of said ridesharing apps.
Just because there's a inconvenience for consumers doesn't mean you make workers suffer instead of fixing the problem.
I'm assuming/ hoping you mean the taxi drivers when you say workers.
I empathize with anyone who's livelihood is affected by changes in society. But stagnating progress because someone somewhere will be negatively impacted only assures no progress will ever be made.
You can have progress without forcing people into starvation because "it's the system".
I mean we could build a better social safety net so this doesn't happen...
You telling me you think we should continue to endure a transportation system that is basically a monopoly, where the user has little transparency on what they get charged beforehand, where they can only use the service if they call or are lucky enough to be in a high traffic location, just so no one loses their job?
Cities have a medallion system to prevent congestion of taxis on the roads. If there was a problem, increasing the number of medallions and scheduling surge pricing (like NYC has done with all cars now) would have improved service.
Alternately, simply declaring Uber a taxi service and subject to employment laws would have fixed most everything.
I guess since flying is a hassle, I should buy a jet and land it in parking lots to make it convenient for consumers. So what if a few hundred die a year if tens of thousands have easier air travel.
So.. would NYC have done this if it wasn't influenced by the existence of Uber/Lyft?
Would the taxi companies that owned all the medallions have allowed this to happen if their existence wasn't threatened? Or would they lobby to stop this at all cost because it doesn't benefit them?
So hundreds are dying due to Uber?
If you need to make a bullshit theoretical to justify your stance, you might want to reconsider your stance.
If flying cars were possible and if benefited consumers, it should definitely be adopted and regulated properly like any other service.
No taxi lobby stopped Uber.
There is a sexual assault every 8 minutes caused by an Uber driver.
Googling says for example Uber has 400 assaults in San Francisco and the taxi industry had 14.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/uber-driver-murder-trial.html#%3A%7E%3Atext=Former+Uber+Driver+Pleads+Guilty%2CU.S.
I can't find any examples of taxi drivers murdering their passengers. All news is about taxi drivers being murdered by their customers.
Lmao as if the cab companies weren't a cartel making their own regulations.
I use a local cab company. They smartened up after getting crushed by uber in the first couple years of their existence. Now they have an app that’s similar to uber, but I just call and use the web link that shows me where the car is.
It’s literally the same service, but I have to give my info to Uber’s app to get it.
shouldnt 4 also include AI generated images?
Better term would probably be generative AI to also cover music, video and my grandmother's soul.
Llms generate those afaik
No, those are generally diffusion models, not large language models. Language models generate text.
Apart from the recently added surge pricing, what else is illegal about these 2?
They literally exist as a way for tech bro libertarian idiots to circumvent laws around Taxis and Hotels because "Its totally just people rending their own stuff/time bro."
Like, the idea of Uber where its "we go to work along the same route,lets share a ride" is vaguely admirable, ie "rideshare" where it startrd. But its become people's job and its literally just tsxis without the rules.
To be fair, they were popular at first because they were highly convenient. I remember Uber as the first to have a GPS map that told you where your taxi was. Most taxi companies and hotels were seriously lagging behind in terms of use of technology.
That being said, they were malicious companies from the start and the whole business angle was built on taking advantage of loopholes. I'd be fine with a lot of them if they were nationally owned companies though.
They were also presented as being cheaper and more ethical. You didn't risk being roped into paying a higher price because the cabbie deliberately took a long route, or be surprised by the price being different in person. You could order an Uber, and you'd pay only what was in the app.
Due to how much circumvention goes around here (India) anyway, Uber/Ola actually ends up being a better option overall.
And the map feature ends up being pretty useful.
dependent on where you are, they are textbook skirting the law. uber got crushed when they launched in sweden because taxi drivers need to do basically the same training as bus drivers. it's an extra letter on your license, with all that entails of age limits, theory and practical tests, x amount of time driven a year etc.
nowadays ubers in sweden are just taxis, which hilariously means that they by law have to have a price list on the cars. which basically kneecaps their entire business model.
Taxis and hotels used to be strongly regulated industries. For both, permits were required as well as regular checks. But Uber/Lyft/Airbnb created a system outside of the standard legal framework, allowing them to run an almost lawless business. So I wouldn’t say illegal but ethically grey.
oic, I guess it doesn't make much of a difference where relevant laws are either pretty lax or inadequately executed.