this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
4136 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Lyft and Uber say they will leave Minneapolis if the mayor signs a minimum wage bill for drivers::Lyft and Uber threatened to stop doing business in Minneapolis after the city council adopted a new rule Thursday that would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh no! Businesses whose 'innovation' is doing end runs around labour law, leaving? How sad.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "labor laws" you reference only exist to give taxi companies monopolies and provide worse experiences for everyone involved

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Still better than the 'gig economy'. If making worker's lives more precarious makes your life better, fuck your life.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The gig economy is less precarious for the people that choose it because it fits their schedule. That's why they choose it. Jobs aren't exactly hard to get right now - they'd do something else if they wanted to.

Also uber drivers don't make less money than taxi drivers. On average, they make about the same.

Taxi: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-TAXI-CAB-Driver-Salary-by-State

Uber: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-UBER-Taxi-Driver-Salary-by-State

[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

That just compares salary, what about benefits?

[–] Gazumi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Bye bye Lyft. Bye bye Uber.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uber was notorious for moving into and operating in certain cities illegally.

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

*all cities

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Probably a very unpopular thing to say: It would be interesting to see a middleman-free, decentralized version of Lyft/Uber where payments and ride-hailing are done with crypto and blockchain/smart contracts, driver ID's using using DID's, anonymized on-chain using homomorphic encryption. The hardest problem that I forsee with that tech is with dispute resolution. The idea stems from the opinion that the gig economy is great but the real problem (in matters not related to conflict resolution) is that the middleman takes a huge cut of the fare in exchange for doing almost nothing.

[–] DudePluto@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd be curious to see which would be more practical: a decentralized version of Lyft/Uber powered by blockchain, or an employee-owned version of Lyft/Uber where workers keep all their earnings and pay a small portion for administrative fees to keep the app running.

Admittedly I'm always skeptical of blockchain's ability to actually solve problems. But maybe it would have fewer infrastructural costs? Who knows

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago

Great points!

The reason I jump to recommending crypto rather than a co-op (I'm actually a libertarian-socialist and am a big fan of co-ops) is that, unless you make it impossible for people to be corrupt through public ledgers and DAO's, they eventually WILL take the opportunity to be corrupt.

If implemented correctly, crypto can be harnessed as a technology that makes corruption IMPOSSIBLE.

IMO, it gets a bad rap because of bad actors and the public's misinterpretation of the power structures of sketchy, centralized implementations of the tech (like Luna and FTX). However, a truly decentralized, open source chain could definitely be the backbone to a truly trust-less, truly decentralized version of this. If you really look into it, the more decentralized a crypto project, the more it can be trusted.

For me, the best trust metric that seems to hold strong over the years is initial token allocation.

[–] Buffalobuffalo@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is just a cab, with extra steps. You get a cab, you pay the driver no middle man.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really! What about reputation score, etc?

You could actually say that about any business that accepts credit cards or digital payment at the point of sale. Try it.

Two points:

  • cash-on-hand is a huge security vulnerability
  • reputation is something that REQUIRES a tamper-proof network (virtually impossible without blockchain) and some sort of identity. If you attempt to centralize reputation (which would inescapably involve putting it in the hands of a for-profit corporation or trusted party(s)), you get gamification and a company that extorts people to get them to pay for positive reviews or to remove negative reviews like we see with Yelp!