This seems like a potentially stupid question, but the link only shows how to do it on an android device. The terms sprung up on me in the iOS app (I have yet to update it) and thankfully I found the hidden toggle button. There does not seem to be an equivalent way to turn off the sharing of data on my iOS device, so if anyone has found a way, please tell me about it.
I think that coursera is moving away from quizzes with feedback. I'm currently doing the ML course by Andrew Ng and the quizzes do not have feedback when you answered correctly or incorrectly. The archived ML course (with the old coursera interface) still shows the feedback for quizzes.
Thank you so much for this! The way Uber cherry picks the laws in the countries or even US states just disgusts me to no end. It would indeed be a scary future if multinational corporations get to infringe on countries' sovereign rights.
YES thanks for this! I've seen too many people justify something that could be considered immoral by invoking this "but it satisfies user needs" pseudo-argument.
I've seen a heck of a lot more people justify things by claiming to have objective moral knowledge. Throughout history, the most atrocious acts imaginable have been justified this way. I am much less worried about invoking the satisfaction of people's needs.
You can't convince people to go kill and die for you by saying they're just satisfying your needs. So you have to invent something people will actually buy, and this tends to be something about morality, religion or politics.
Capitalist morality merely poses as amoral. The moment you propose a more sensible alternative, you're hit by moral arguments about terrible things happening when you interfere with the invisible hand (of Providence).
When we mention "satisfying people's needs", those with more money get more satisfaction. That's how markets work. Like advertisers (corporations paying other corporations to spread propaganda), nation-states (which must control their populaces pretty much by definition), etc.
You can't look at it in a binary way. Of course it's a bad idea to prescribe people their needs. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I am to have for dinner. But there are also needs that are obviously better left unmet. For instance I may feel a need to take possession of your property. It's not a kind of freedom you'd want to grant to me.
I think it is rather binary, but I think your example in this case demonstrates a different principle.
Having my "needs" defined separately from my "wants" denies me my freedom. But that's different from you say, deciding to confiscate my things without due process.
> I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them.
I'm equally terrified of others convincing you that what they have to offer is the best for you, with minor tweaks to "cover your needs"; yet that's the basis of profit-based marketing.
I respect your concern (I'm trying to be non-specific in terms of pronouns here, but it's hard), but that's a fear we have to live with, no? The notion that someone else's argument might be more persuasive than our own, that someone else's message might be accepted instead. Surely, there's something perverse about it, underhanded, or perhaps I'm just not enlightened enough, otherwise I wouldn't accept such a false pretense. Surely, if I'd been shown the light, and not doused in such propaganda, I'd make a better choice!
The problem with that of course, is that a lot of people can make that argument. And regardless of who's making the argument, be they weak or strong, they all rely on the premise that the person needs convincing of something, because to imagine that they might come to a conclusion that's not your own /by themselves/ is a terrifying thought.
I'm sorry, but I really can't condone the notion that some messages should be feared in that way, and that someone else knows what's best because they presume I do not.
It is great fun, when any previous authority is replaced by the logic of the market. What thrives, they say, deserves to thrive, what fails, deserves to fail.
Their argument is, if people really wanted a better world, they would have it already.
Which is of course foolish, the market doesn't care about good or evil.
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.
I believe this is not a very fair comparison to connecting things to the Internet. When people in the 90s question whether they needed a phone all the time, they were questioning the usefulness of doing so. In contrast, connecting things to the Internet exposes the user to an additional vector of attack and exploitation (crappy or non-existent security from manufacturers, adtech companies selling your data etc). So the question changes from "what convenience is there" to "why would you put yourself to such a risk?"
How about you calm down instead of spewing nothing but toxic comments at almost every single reply this post has? I fail to see how OP is in any sense blackmailing his boss. All he is doing is asking for a pay raise. Regarding your point about making his boss look bad, may I remind you that never has once did the OP mention the name of his boss or the place he works at? If OP really wanted to make his boss look bad, would he have gone through the trouble of hiding his identity?
I take great offense at "try to understand why your boss only wanted to give you $45k and work on yourself". You're pushing the blame squarely on the OP. He has clarified that this salary is even LOWER than his intern pay. Now, wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask the boss why the pay is even lower than his previous salary?
You have made yourself look like the very kind of obnoxious boss that OP is talking about.
The title would be better if it were "Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio's plan to block them from doing business". I think we really need to fight the notion that Uber promotes "ride sharing", whatever that even means now. Uber has shown that its service is anything but sharing - it is plain old taxi with a spiffy app and no labour protection, and where their "employees" are merely treated as another replaceable contractor. The media also needs to stop quoting meaningless buzzwords like "sharing", but I guess this goes to show the successful PR of Uber.
We've changed the title of this submission to be that of the article. Submitted title was 'Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to block ride sharing'.
Submitters: please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait.
And yet people choose to use them and pay them money. But no, we must protect those willing customers from the dangers of doing business freely and having an actuall choice, instead of paying extra to a violent monopoly of taxi drivers who'd rather crash other's cars than compete honestly.
People would pay for taxis too if they were priced competitively and as reliable/convenient as Uber. I don't think treatment of drivers/employees is high on anyone's priority list.
Just because some people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it's right. People in general are very happy to pay for things that have huge externalities not directly affecting them.
Maybe I could have phrased it better. I was making a wider point ("people in general...") than Uber here. Uber's externalities are mostly related to insurance, worker abuse and damage to the fabric of society (what example do they give by being able to get away with blatant disregard for law?). Some of that should (and probably eventually will) be handled by union.
But my point is - willingness of some people to pay for something in no way makes something worth existing. People do pay for kidnapping and murder.
Or more day-to-day, mundane examples - why do we have spam, both electronic and the shitton of leaflets that go to trash every day in every city? Because someone paid for it. The Internet as a useful resource of knowledge is in constant battle with people paying for SEO. I could write hundreds of such everyday examples.
The point is, people are optimizing extremely locally when it comes to their decisions. Sometimes because they simply don't care, often because they don't know better. But just because they're willing to pay for something doesn't make it good or validate its existence.
Uninsured Uber driver causes traffic accident. Pedestrian is severely injured. Uber driver cannot pay for the medical expenses and there is no insurance company involved who could.
Either the pedestrian is ruined for life, or society has to pick up the bill.
That's one of the clearest examples of externality you will ever see.
Our free choice evangelists try to frame the whole issue as "one Uber driver, one satified customer who only exercised a choice, and no one else exist in the world".
First of all, if that was true it would be a failure of the healthcare system ("society paying the bill" is just insurance with economies of scale). But that's not true. A lot of people are not aware of recent developments with uber. Uber offers commercial comprehensive insurance on all rides. When there is a passenger in the car, there is full commercial insurance.
When there are no pax, many insurance providers DO cover it under personal insurance. Some (like geico) don't, but I would wager that the majority of Uber are insured every second of the day.
Even if the healthcare system eats the cost (as it would in my country), it's not supposed to. That's akin to entering a health insurance contract and then demanding the insurer pays for the theft of your iPhone.
Road traffic is insured by car insurers. The Uber driver doesn't have any, the car insurer therefore doesn't pay, so someone else pays. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it with "oh, that someone else is also some insurer". It is someone not involved at all. Ergo an externality.
So, I'm from Russia. In Russia, there's a great variety of cheap taxis, great mobile apps with reviews, gps location of taxis and stuff like that. Very good infrastructure. All simply because government doesn't regulate that.
I am yet to meet a single person complaining that this is bad. There is no increase in road accidents. The service is great. The drivers are very polite and are always on time. One must wonder, how can you be so blind to an obvious example of free market at work?
You are intentionally leaving out the part where many of the people in danger don't have a choice, because they have no connection with Uber, other than the inconvenient fact that they were counterparts in a traffic accident.
Forgive me if I sound ignorant of America's laws because I'm not from this country, but I'm really puzzled as to why Uber is able to continue to operating in the country. Why is Uber exempt from all the taxi laws that are currently in place in the states, able to make itself sound like a legitimate business despite breaking regulations everywhere? Feels to me as if you can justify breaking regulations by "satisfying customer demands". I'm really curious.
Uber has "asked forgiveness rather than asking permission" - they've made themselves indispensable in the markets they serve, and it's politically risky to shut them down, because they are serving a very real need in the transportation industry, and people don't want to see them go away. I think that Uber correctly recognized that the taxi market was under regulatory capture, and that they weren't going to be able to break into the market through legal channels, so they took a ballsy risk and decided to give it a shot anyhow.
It seems to be paying off. Massachusetts, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia have all reversed decisions which banned Uber in their jurisdictions.
Not particularly "nifty", it's the standard way for centuries. You don't get to sue the Postal Service if someone sends an unlicensed copy of your work through it.
> You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law.
What are these moral laws you speak of? Your opinions on what is right and what is wrong?
The cases you present for firearm possession is simply a case of false dichotomy. Firearm possession is not inherently immoral. The armies of the country would definitely need them to protect the country against others, especially for Singapore who is surrounded by hostile neighbours.
Citizen ownership of firearms, on the other hand, is a highly impractical thing. It is illegal to own firearms in the country and that is just how the laws of the countries were set up in the first place. I would not go as far as to say that owning them is immoral, but by intentionally breaking the laws of the country, what are you trying to imply?
First, we weren't intentionally breaking any law. Second, arguing for or against firearms is beside the point. I'm arguing against people blindly obeying any law, if it comes at the expense of exercising sound personal judgment.
