lesstenseflow

Now you’re just making things up? Why not either link to the source of your claim? I’m willing to believe what you’re saying is true but you’ve got to link to something, not just make up “models” (using the term very loosely here) out of whole cloth.

Also: how is “restaurant has no customers and has to close” Ubers fault? I guess restaurants never closed before Uber eats existed, or is Uber to blame for those business failures as well?

There’s plenty to criticize Uber for but blaming them for the closure of a restaurant that can’t attract customers is simply ridiculous and makes clear some people simply in this thread will blame anything on Uber regardless of whether the accusation even makes sense.

> I lived in a "not quite wrong, not quite right" neighborhood where there was plenty of wealthy young people but it was also close to the "wrong" part of town...and when I tried using the service, it'd be 20 minutes to get a ride and usually at least one cancellation. In the "right" part of town? A quarter of the wait, and never a canceled pickup.

Is it possible fewer people were calling Ubers from that part of town, so there were fewer drivers there? Whereas the wealthier part of town was busier? Drivers go where they are called more frequently, hence the shorter wait time in the other part of town. What do you propose Uber do differently here, force drivers to idle in less busy parts of town?

“I had to wait twenty minutes for a ride” what’s your complaint here, that Uber is evil and transphobic, or that you’re upset a livery servant doesn’t show up the moment you snap your fingers? This “I had to wait 20 minutes for a ride” complaint shows a really entitled and self centered attitude.

I’m really curious what you think Uber should do differently in that case, and why you were calling Ubers at all if they’re so evil and taxis are just as good. The last point really makes me scratch my head.

> Know what else is in the docks?

No, I can’t name a single thing in “the docks” because I don’t live in your city and you haven’t said where it is, so there’s no way for me to find out.

In fact airports do not have “scary signs” at the entrance, they have signs directing you to departures and arrivals by airline or terminal.

In the end, not a single drive could navigate to you successfully, taxi or Uber, I don’t see how your takeaway here is “Uber is bad”

You couldn’t be bothered to walk outside a “restricted access” area with what you call “scary warning signs” at the entrances, and you blame the Uber drivers for not wanting to take their chances driving past that sign to pick up you and your companion? Oh and the taxi driver also failed to pick you up there, and you finally move your butts to go meet the taxi.

The Uber drivers probably thought the pickup location was a mistake- they get there and say “I can’t pickup here, this is a wrong location” and cancel the job.

So three drivers can’t find you, including a taxi, and this is Ubers fault somehow, not yours for making unreasonable demands of drivers. I suppose it was Ubers fault that the cab couldn’t find you either? It amazes me how people rationalize blaming others in situations like this.

I read the article you are referring to and it actually came to the opposite conclusion from what you’re saying: net-positive jobs, more spent and more earned.

(If you’re wondering how I am rebutting runarberg when neither he nor I cited a source, that’s a darn good question. But let the record show I offer just as much evidence as he.)

From elsewhere in this thread:

- Part of the deal with being an executive is no job security. It's part of the trade you make for gigantic compensation.

- What would be preferred, firing him the first day he's back?

My point is there's never a "good time" to get fired from a job you don't want to leave. GP doesn't like that this guy was fired on parental leave. OK so fire him on his first day back? There's never a time that won't "suck."

When does getting fired not suck?

Why would firing someone who's on paternity leave be an issue at all? We're talking multi-millionaires who will get multi-million dollar severance.

It's pretty hilarious to see the pearl clutching of techno-bourgeoisie over something like this, pretending other tech-lords are getting mistreated over some supposed breach of decorum. The mere fact that he gets to take parental leave puts him head and shoulders above most workers in the country.

Parental leave, high salary, severance... where do I sign up for some of this "truly awful" treatment?

The simplest answer is to segregate by sex, it's not clear why gender identity should require moving to another facility.

Regarding the supposed issue of safety of trans identifying male prisoners in male prisons (I haven't seen data around this but let's assume it's an issue), it's still not clear the answer is housing with women. If a gay man is more likely to be abused in a male prison, or a small or young man, does that mean men with any of these characteristics should be put in women's prison to improve their safety conditions? This doesn't scan.

Its notable to me that as concerned as you are about prisoner safety, I don't see you or other advocates of males in womens prisons mention the safety of the female prisoners should men be added to their cells. Does their safety not rate?

> what is the term for people with penises regardless of gender? Is there a term that won’t result in someone being called a transphobe?

No, there is no universally accepted term that won't get you called a transphobe by anyone (correct me if I'm wrong). If terms of the discussion are set by the most extreme genderist views, it's becomes literally impossible to discuss things like male violence against women or sexism in the workplace, because there's no permissible language to describe the groups involved.

I just go with "male" and "female" which are objective, observable facts. If people object to these terms, they are really objecting to having a discussion at all.

> “sex assigned at birth”

Sex is not "assigned" at birth it is observed, frequently well before birth via ultrasound or some other technology. Midwives and doctors don't go round flipping coins that say "boy" on one side and "girl" on the other, this whole concept of "assigned" sex is silly.

> And I believe pretty strongly that putting a trans woman in a cell with a cis male is more likely to result in assault than putting a trans woman with a cis woman.

Why do you believe this?

Anyway, I believe women have a right to dignity and privacy and to set some boundaries against males in refuges & places they are especially vulnerable. Female prisoners should absolutely be allowed to refuse to share sleeping quarters with males. Frankly think it's nuts that this should be considered a controversial stance.

This is nonsense that serves only to obfuscate. Normally this sort of stuff is put forward by people trying to confuse and befuddle the reader.

We segregate prisons by sex. Primary and secondary sex characteristics are observable characteristics that indicate one's sex.

Your argument is like saying "You don't buy a Mazda. You go to the Mazda dealership and buy a car that says Mazda on the back, interior, and on the manual. You don't actually know the car is a Mazda."

> Your claim appears to be that one prisoner having a penis and the other having a vagina is a strong predictor of an increased odds of sexual assault.

If you don't think this is an issue, can you explain why we should have any sex segregation in prisons at all?

It sounds like you're arguing for mixed sex prisons, even within individual cells.