gauravjain13

True, but absolute bank angle would also matter (say endpoint of roll when roll acceleration is zero) because now there's a component of gravity pulling you sideways.

Don't knock exponential growth!

Doing it “free” is impossible, hence the ad-tech shitshow.

This is somewhat paradoxical, but I think leadership requires some level of delusion. If one truly sees things as they are, it’s hard to create narratives and mythologies requires to motivate/lead people.

Steve Jobs’ “reality distortion field” comes to mind.

Relevant according to whom? You’ve explained _why_ Google returns those results, but that doesn’t make the answers relevant. Especially not when Google presents them so authoritatively as knowledge cards (or whatever they’re calling it these days).

Sure, if you’re a someone trying to reverse-engineer the algorithm, then they’re probably pretty “relevant”. But that’s not how most people use Google. I’ll bet most of HN doesn’t use Google this way.

Maybe it’s a UI issue. It’d be nice if Google attached a little disclaimer that said: “These results are “relevant” to the way our algorithm produces these results, but there’s a chance they’re laughably incorrect, so please take with a bucket of salt.” Or better still, just show the search results, instead of being clever and pretending to understand what I’m looking for. Y’know, like back in the day, when it was such a delight switching from AltaVista/Yahoo! to Google. Good times.

WAI. They recognized you, and wanted to you spend more time in the store. /s

Thank you.

Yes, exactly this. It’s useful to understand biases: cognitive diversions from the truth.

Echoing OP’s sentiment: How one uses/weaponizes such knowledge depends on one’s goals: to win petty ego battles in debate or seek the truth?

Not so sure about the prevalence of longer route tactic. I’m sure it happens, but with the route plainly visible on the map, it’s hard to cheat here unless the driver is being a bully, which is a different class of problem.

As others have also mentioned below:

- Uber is global, and has a standard interface. I don’t have to fiddle with credit cards and the payment dance. It’s the de-facto global “taxi”. Kind of like the warm homey fuzz one feels at a Starbucks in a foreign land after enduring burnt coffee served in a styrofoam cup on a long flight. (Granted, a bourgeois American-centric view, but I hope it’s illustrative.)

- If you pay a premium (Uber Comfort and higher), the cars are better, the drivers are better (higher rated too), and one can communicate preferences such as temperature and conversation (no, thanks).

- Other long-tail uses: 7 passenger SUVs for large groups, lots of luggage, etc.

- I’ve tried using the taxi apps (Flywheel, etc.), and they’re atrocious/geographically limited. In some places the Uber app can now call taxis. Even then, I’ve never voluntarily wanted to call a taxi for the last decade or so. I especially like the Black Mirror vibe of drivers and passengers having a “rating”. ;)

If we suspend the Uber/taxi comparison, and assume Uber is a new taxi-like service but better, therefore deserves a premium? I know I’d pay for that premium. Not everyone will, but I can’t be alone?

So that means the addressable market shrinks. Think premium black-car-only service; Uber’s roots). Why can’t such a service find demand/price equilibrium? I think it can, but not in a manner that can justify Uber’s “unicorn” valuation. And I think that’s at the core of Uber’s conundrum/identity crisis: it provides value, but with tech-company cost structures. However, it doesn’t deserve tech-company valuations because it’s just not as scalable — it’s tied to operating in the physical world, with physical constraints.

If the strategy is to burn cash, continue entrenchment, and eventually leapfrog to self-driving Ubers (mitigating the scaling/cost problem to an extent), then that’s a war of attrition. Fingers crossed.