Readit NewsThe cost of these services is artificially suppressed to drive adoption, at the cost of our environment.
> The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong
When I lived in SF. Uber and Lyft cost between free and $5 to go anywhere in the city. Yes, $5 is more than the $2.75. But for price of a cup of coffee more, Uber would pick you up and drop you off exactly where you needed. Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking.
Exactly.
Uber makes a lot of money these days. The price is not suppressed. And yet... it is more popular than ever. Prices were artificially low for awhile in order to bootstrap the market, and that worked, and now that the market has been established, prices are at a level that is sustainable. Your whole premise is wrong.
Its the same as when Uber launched. VCs suppress prices, to create demand ($5 Uber rides anywhere in the city) which generates more transactions, which generates more pollution. Instead of a alternative lower cost transportation (like BART or muni), SF residents chose the highest environmental impact and lowest cost option.
Uber hasn’t raised from VCs in years, and their business is far bigger than it was back when they were losing money.
The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong - Uber is much more expensive than BART, and with some notable exceptions for shared rides, that was true during the VC funded growth period as well.
1. Consent to be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous and as easy to withdraw as to give 2. High penalties for failure to comply (€20 million or 4 % of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher)
Compliance is tricky and mistakes are costly. A pop-up banner is the easiest off-the-shelf solution, and most site operators care about focusing on their actual business rather than compliance, so it's not surprising that they took this easy path.
If your model of the world or "image of humanity" can't predict an outcome like this, then maybe it's wrong.
Companies did that and thoughtless website owners, small and large, who decided that it is better to collect arbitrary data, even if they have no capacity to convert it into information.
The solution to get rid of cookie banners, as it was intended, is super simple: only use cookies if absolutely necessary.
It was and is a blatant misuse. The website owners all have a choice: shift the responsibility from themselves to the users and bugger them with endless pop ups, collect the data and don’t give a shit about user experience. Or, just don’t use cookies for a change.
And look which decision they all made.
A few notable examples do exist: https://fabiensanglard.net/ No popups, no banner, nothing. He just don’t collect anything, thus, no need for a cookie banner.
The mistake the EU made was to not foresee the madness used to make these decisions.
I’ll give you that it was an ugly, ugly outcome. :(
It's not madness, it's a totally predictable response, and all web users pay the price for the EC's lack of foresight every day. That they didn't foresee it should cause us to question their ability to foresee the downstream effects of all their other planned regulations.
that sounds rough; hopefully they're OK! did the car drive into them from the side or from behind?
where did it happen? googling "Tesla ditch self-driving accident" turns up nothing, but I would have thought it would have made the news.