Uber CEO Plays with Fire
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"They spent much of their energy one-upping rivals like Lyft. Uber devoted teams to so-called competitive intelligence, purchasing data from an analytics service called Slice Intelligence. Using an email digest service it owns named Unroll.me, Slice collected its customers’ emailed Lyft receipts from their inboxes and sold the anonymized data to Uber. Uber used the data as a proxy for the health of Lyft’s business. (Lyft, too, operates a competitive intelligence team.)"
I am an unroll.me user, but had no idea they sell user data to companies this way.
Their whole value proposition is to help people control their own privacy and now I kind of feel betrayed..
The founders of unroll.me were pretty dishonest, which is a large part of why the company I worked for declined to purchase the company. As an example, one of the problems was how the founders had valued and then diluted equity shares that employees held. To make a long story short, there weren't any circumstances in which employees who held options or an equity stake would see any money.
I hope you weren't emailed any legal documents or passwords written in the clear.
although every day someone would still email with a question "why you are not free like unroll.me".. sigh.
https://unrollme.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200243036-If-...
> we don't store any of your emails on our servers.
Either way, I just deleted my Unroll.me account and revoked access to my Gmail account. I don't think there's anything the company can do to ever get me back as a user.
Granted, I tend to think the people who run Gmail are more honest than that, but if someday the wrong people retired and others took over or what have you, I wonder just how suddenly that could change?
It's ok that we pay you sub market salary because you get great ipo and equity.
Yeaaaah no.
Also spreading unfounded rumors about data storage practices you know zero about is really irresponsible.
The irony is that Rakuten also owns a significant (12 percent?) stake in Lyft. Pretty funny that one Rakuten property was selling data to Uber who used it to hurt a second Rakuten property.
If it's free for you, you're the product.
So hypothetically, if you paid $5 a month for this service, you would be confident they were NOT selling your information?
Since the answer is obviously no (and in fact, purchasing behavior is the juiciest stuff to sell, be it Comcast, Target, etc), then this tired trope is meaningless.
I just disconnected from one or two services which had access to my gmail (reasonably so).
Paribus is another of such services that I am aware that require you open your inbox access to them (the pull model).
There is nothing wrong with reading your emails with your explicit consent but I believe a push model like TripIt/Kayak's previous push model (send email receipts to trips@tripit/kayak.com) is a safer way to avoid privacy being violated and abused.
> [...] Mixmax may securely access or store your name, your Gmail email address, your Gmail emails and other conversations, and your Gmail contact list [...] We may anonymize your Personal Information so that you are not individually identified, and provide that information to our partners.
https://mixmax.com/privacy.html https://mixpanel.com/privacy/
Just another reminder that nothing is free =)
Really? I never got that. While I'm also a little unsettled by the selling data part, the value prop was always pretty clearly simplifying unsubscribing en masse, which necessarily involved handing over access to the contents of your emails.
If unrollme made it clear they were making their money by selling every one of your emails in plaintext they'd never have signed up anyone.
How is it a scandal? Competitive intel is a normal and widespread thing and it's not a scandal that people don't read a privacy policy that says, "We may collect, use, transfer, sell, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."
That companies are allowed to have such a non-privacy policy damned well should be. The number of privacy policies I'd have to read on a daily basis to function on the Internet is ludicrous and it is only because of my job working for companies like that that I know that those privacy policies exist in the first place.
Clean up your inbox
Instantly see a list of all your subscription emails.
Unsubscribe easily from whatever you don’t want.
We may collect and use your commercial transactional messages and associated data to build anonymous market research products and services with trusted business partners. If we combine non-personal information with personal information, the combined information will be treated as personal information for as long as it remains combined.
Aggregated data is considered non-personal information for the purposes of this Privacy Notice."
That just happen, at last.
Slide deck 1 of 44: "Learn how your competitors are doing."
They don't think it's any of the customer's business to know that, and it's counter to the company's interests to publicize it.
[1]: https://unrollme.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200165526-How...
It would be much bigger news if they were selling data that could be used against the consumers on an individual basis.
Now we know what they are doing it and how. I hope they get shutdown within the aftermath of this story.
> 'consenting adults'
Are you consenting if you don't know what you're consenting to.
> anonymized data
Widely understood that anonymized data is bullshit, which is why the term "de-anonymized" exists. It's especially bullshit when there are no 'standards' as to what constitutes it.
> shared in a compliant way
What does that even mean.
That headline "Your inbox security is our top priority" sure seems hilarious now. Also, I wonder why the article refers to it as Slice Intelligence? Is that their official company name on the paperwork? Is it to portray this shadowy intelligence gathering agency for hire? Both?
It may be of interest to you, but it isn't the lede of the story. The lede is a pattern of behavior by the CEO, of which that is one element.
OP is implying the "real story" (i.e. the most important part of the article) is not what the article begins with
Please delete my account and all my data.
I have a few simple rules I follow to hit inbox zero...works quite well:
1. Unsubscribe Relentlessly 2. Use Keyboard Shortcuts or Gestures 3. Snooze Important Emails 4. Use a To-Do App
(I wrote it up in more detail here: https://shift.infinite.red/how-i-achieve-inbox-zero-every-da...)
At the time, Uber was dealing with widespread account fraud in places like China, where tricksters bought stolen iPhones that were erased of their memory and resold. Some Uber drivers there would then create dozens of fake email addresses to sign up for new Uber rider accounts attached to each phone, and request rides from those phones, which they would then accept. Since Uber was handing out incentives to drivers to take more rides, the drivers could earn more money this way.
To halt the activity, Uber engineers assigned a persistent identity to iPhones with a small piece of code, a practice called “fingerprinting.” Uber could then identify an iPhone and prevent itself from being fooled even after the device was erased of its contents.
See for example this Tweet, with hundreds of retweets and lots of verified replies:
https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/856166875511894016
"This is like a holy trinity of privacy disaster: 1) secret tracking that 2) persists after users delete app 3) in knowing violation of rules"
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/01/503...
C.H. Spurgeon, Gems from Spurgeon (1859)
The problem for Uber is that they /are/ scummy. They proudly bend every possible rule to their advantage. It's easy to believe the worst about them.
Basically, they created a unique 'fingerprint' of the iPhone. It was unique enough that even if you reinstalled the app, the fingerprint would still be the same. This was done, ostensibly, to prevent people from scamming them by reinstalling the app and coming over as new users? But they already have the phone number, so I don't understand the point.
In the article this is in the context of fraudsters buying used phones to fake rides in China and take advantage of incentive programs to make money. So they want to track these devices as they change hands.
could it be because the article intentionally glosses over complex details in order to pump a specific narrative ... hmm. \s
Here's the change in question: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1383350/1383404/https%3A/www.nytim...
changing "tracking" to "identifying and tagging" and changing "even after its app had been deleted from the devices, violating Apple's..." to "even after its app had been deleted and the devices erased — a fraud detection maneuver that violated Apple's..."
In a really long article like this which is probably under some time pressure to publish, there's almost always things that seem clear to the author aren't to the reader. This is a standard clarification bug fix, and tweets were over an hour after the article was published - enough time to gather feedback and realize the need for clarification.
At least in this instance, the only specific narrative being pumped is the one that journalists are always pumping a specific narrative on touchy subjects.
The tweet responses:
> @MikeIsaac 32 minutes ago > Since the line about fingerprinting is being misinterpreted(though it is explained later in piece) adding language up top to better explain.
> @MikeIsaac 31 minutes ago > appreciate Technical community's concerns about how It is presented. Uber was not tracking location after device wipe (which I never said).
> @dangillmor 30 minutes ago > What exactly were they tracking? Not entirely clear (at least to me).
> @MikeIsaac 29 minutes ago > ID-ing devices. so if I steal a phone and wipe it, they can still determine I had that phone and used it to defraud uber, using other data
Clever, but it's disappointing that even NYT is turning into this madness.
To halt the activity, Uber engineers assigned a persistent identity to iPhones with a small piece of code, a practice called “fingerprinting.” Uber could then identify an iPhone and prevent itself from being fooled even after the device was erased of its contents.
I also interpreted "track" as "report geolocation data," but that's not what the reporter means, and honestly the reporter's meaning is more consistent with, e.g., "this website is tracking users" or "Do-Not-Track".
Could someone explain the logic behind how a driver requesting rides benefited them? Did the drivers fake the ride and pay for it themselves? Was there a cash incentive where they were reaping enough to offset paying for the fake rides themselves and profit hanseomely? Is that correct?
Interesting and somewhat ironic to think that Uber had to put countermeasures in place against drivers engaging in their own questionable version of "growth hacking."
It's not clear if such code would work today on the latest iOS version but maybe. They probably used a private API to do so, and that itself was obfuscated in the compiled binary such that apples automatic analysis would fail to catch it.
My understanding was that Apple made those APIs return garbage anyway, so more hacky methods were required.
Unique settings, apps installed etc.
Very hard to have a non-unique set up with enough data points.
Rider and drivers are randomly assigned. I am not sure if you can choose your driver. Not sure if all these drivers in China made a huge group to benefit each other
I imagine that they wouldn't really have much difficulty tracking you through ad tech, another APP, or some other Cult Of Free system that is willing to sell database access.
I just hope Lyft plays the game with a social conscious and makes positive decisions and continues to treat drivers well (most Lyft drivers I talk to say they like driving for Lyft way better than Uber).
I'm not so sure that as a society we should be rewarding people with drive like this "Mr. Kalanick, 40, is driven to the point that he must win at whatever he puts his mind to and at whatever cost".
The idea that the taxis are corrupt and despicable is 100% Uber/Lyft propaganda.
The idea that a bunch of immigrants driving 12 hours a day to support a meager income for their families are a cabal of special interests is ridiculous.
Uber and Lyft are better than taxis because of the on demand nature and they are cheaper because of better utilization. But there is no need to make taxi drivers out to be evil.
This happened so much that Bloomberg said screw it and was basically turned a blind eye to what they were doing and let them operate. The NYC Taxi Union got pissed and complained. But while complaining they still basically said in so many words that they still weren't going to service the area. They just didn't want anyone else to.
I had a cab driver pick up my ex girlfriend and her coworkers and pull something shady along the lines of this. They were being dropped in mid town. She was being dropped off uptown. When he dropped her coworkers off, he drove a few more blocks and stopped the cab and told her she had to get out. He wasn't going to drive all the way to Uptown.
So yeah I was glad when Uber gave them competition. Now when I go to NYC I have no problems out of the cab drivers like I used to.
I just can't see how that could be said with any seriousness unless you've never used a taxi. I'm not saying Uber/Lyft are without their own faults. I've never really had /that/ much experience with taxis, but on my few interactions encountered in the US:
* (after arriving at the destination) Sorry, my credit card machine is broken. I can drive you to an ATM if you'd like? This is a common taxi scam and many places have laws to protect against it. After arguing they pull out the old slide machine.
* When traveling only the minimum fare distance, "These trips really aren't allowed."
* Use their website to schedule a few days before my flight--nobody shows. Call their dispatch phone number, "Oh, the website never really works. Someone will be there in 40 minutes." A taxi shows up over an hour later.
Here's links to stories of investigations into taxi bureaus and dispatchers for bribery and other schemes in 3 states:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/06/federal_investig... http://astoriapost.com/taxi-dispatchers-arrested-for-alleged... https://nypost.com/2014/03/19/16-jfk-taxi-dispatchers-busted...
Perhaps there's a city where Taxis are a good, clean business, but there are enough bad ones to support the generalization.
> The idea that a bunch of immigrants driving 12 hours a day to support a meager income for their families are a cabal of special interests is ridiculous.
There's a distinction between the drivers and the taxi regulatory agencies and dispatchers in the above stories. In this case, Uber/Lyft are replacing the agencies and dispatchers that are the bad actors, not the drivers. Your point about not making drivers out to be evil is well taken, but I don't think that's what anyone refers when they talk about "the evil taxi industry."
There's a difference between saying taxi drivers are evil, and saying that the taxi system is a corrupt special interest.
The 'system' is not just drivers, in most large US Cities it's a few concentrated medallion owners, strongly motivated to lobby against diluting their share of the taxi market. Dilution could come from regulatory changes, or just allowing more medallions.
What is a 'special interest' anyway? Medallion owners represented a concentrated minority of the population with strong motivation to push for policies that are neutral or harmful to the majority. But since the harm is spread among the many, and the benefit is concentrated in the few, the few are more organized and willing to expend time and money to achieve their goal. And yup now ride sharing apps are a new special interest.
That's just the political economy. There's also the fact that in many cities the cab titans were operating like corrupt slumlords, while local law enforcement long seemed willfully ignorant.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/03/fallen-taxi-kin...
And the taxi drivers can't get out of a crappy taxi company and start their own because of the expensive taxi medallions, so they're stuck with it as much as we are.
Maybe not 'evil', but I'm curious about these amazing experiences people have with cabs (US-centric here).
In NYC, cab drivers would refuse to drive to areas they deemed undesirable. I'm not even talking someone taking non-Manhattan rides, I would occasionally have cab drivers refuse to take me to Harlem from lower Manhattan. Cabs refusing to pick up non-white passengers is a common thing. Hell, even basic things like trying to get a dispatched cab to pick one up for an airport could be a disaster (during my time in Portland, I think I tried getting a Radio Cab to the airport three times, they never showed up).
> Uber and Lyft are better than taxis because of the on demand nature and they are cheaper because of better utilization.
Hell, I would pay more for an Uber of Lyft just because of the reliability of the service.
Have you ever actually used a taxi?
It's incredibly common for taxi drivers to refuse to pick you up because you don't look desirable, or aren't going to the right place, or want to use a credit card, or any other reason (all of which are totally illegal). They flout the rules regularly, it's by no means propaganda.
I've been kicked out of cabs more than once when the driver learned I'm deaf and I would give them the address of my destination on paper. Got kicked out because I was signing with my friend in the back. Etc.
Add to that the issue that every taxi ride I've taken in recent memory involved the driver spending the entire ride complaining about the low fare (which is 2x the UberX fare). The first time it was an interesting conversation but by the 10th it's just annoying and one more reason to dread taking a yellow cab.
You can ignore that distinction, but you're just going to be arguing against a straw man, which might feel satisfying, but will get you nowhere.
And on the consumer side, consumers are afraid of being cheated, they deal with more payment uncertainty, and the prices are inflated.
You have a different kind of safety with Uber. There are always tradeoffs.
I don't understand why not. I have a total of five friends who have each chosen to drive for various ridesharing companies, and in the conversations I've had with them, it seems pretty clear that none of them would be drivers if they couldn't set their own schedules, or if they were otherwise treated as actual employees.
To be fair, only one of them is driving as their main source of income; the other four are driving to supplement their day jobs for side money. The flexible schedule is crucial to that. The fifth prefers flexible scheduling as well. Though he might otherwise be considered a 'full time' employee, he working a schedule around a non-standard custodial agreement with his ex-wife, which means he might drive for 14-15 hours in one day, and none in another.
Whether the drivers are employees, contractors, or volunteers is an implementation detail. If laws, public opinion, or economics change, the fundamental business still seems reasonable and useful.
I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Can you explain?
Seems to me the opposite is the case - as a contractor the driver has full control, but as an employee how hard he works has little to do with how much he gets paid.
You state that like it's a proven fact, when it's anything but. I personally think it's farcical to treat Uber drivers as employees. They have no set schedule, location, or expectations. They're constantly making ad-hoc decisions on which rides to accept.
The closest analogue is traditional taxi drivers, who also aren't employees.
I hope he loses big. Losing everything because of a sociopathic drive to win? That's the stuff of classical tragedy.
Lyft would never have existed without Uber. Now that Uber broke through the path (and is getting destroyed for it) the way is open for lots of other companies.
It happens all the time that the company that invents or creates something new, does not actually reap the rewards because the cost of creating it was so high they die in the process - but leave the way open for other companies.
It's always easy to point out the things they did and criticize them, but it is harder to realize the work that they put in and the choices they make to keep their company (and most of the time, the industry they're in prosper). If he would've played by all the rules, Uber would've had to put up a Goodbye page on their homepage a while ago. Taxi industry would've tried to decimate it, and what ever would've happened, wouldn't be good for the transportation ecosystem as a whole. Self driving taxis are even being talked about because of Uber. I think Uber moved the arrival of self driving taxis from the concept to the street a decade earlier (although I have to say it might've taken longer if Levandowski was never at Uber; lets wait for the outcome of the lawsuit)
Makes me think of Steve Jobs in the same way. Steve Jobs was (and still is in parts of the internet) intensely hated for his contributions. But he made a change in the computing industry which made computers (electronics in general) much more beautiful and a pleasure to use. Bringing about that kind of change is very difficult in my opinion, and we need brazen people like Jobs and Kalanick. They are sometimes immoral with their choices, but people tend to forget the world we live in often is too.
How can you be so sure of this? The person who came up with the concept behind Uber was not Kalanick, it was Garrett Camp.
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-travis-kalanick-bio-2014...
Lyft rolled out in many cities before Uber. It certainly can / did exist without Uber's aggressive approach in several cities.
Why single out Uber when all the companies in this space are doing the exact same?
Uber's innovation was financial (fleecing investors), not technical.
One consistent feature of Kalanick's tactics appears to be a proclivity for gaslighting on an industrial scale - geofencing Apple, regulators, etc.
Among (many) other things, I would never trust any data sourced solely to anything under his control.
See, for instance, Mike Pence's behavior during the VP debate, saying with a straight face that certain things never happened that did happen (it's a very different experience watching it once you understand that gaslighting is a thing that exists), or Hillary Clinton talking approvingly of Abe Lincoln having a public and private position - duplicity is good leadership. If you want to get something done, and you have two constituencies that disagree about how to do it, go to each constituency and say that you agree with them. Anyone who thinks of calling you out on it is going to doubt their own recollection of events.
I think it's good for our culture that people are starting to question that, but it will be a very long and difficult battle.
Clinton wasn't gaslighting; she was just espousing the (correct, as far as I can tell) idea that in order to be a successful leader, you have to convince different sides that you believe different things, even if those sides are talking to each other to figure out what you believe. That seems at least a little bit gaslighty if you never admit your duplicity. (In Clinton's favor, the speech in question was effectively admitting the duplicity - and the backlash made it clear how bad an idea that is if you want to remain in positions of leadership.)
I think it's certainly possible to tell everyone you meet, "In an ideal world, I'd support X, but for the following reasons I think only X' is achievable right now; these are the ways in which I'd be convinced that X is in fact achievable." And you could be effective doing that. But probably you'd not be as effective in the American value system as someone who says "No, I genuinely support X and will fight for X" to one person and "Of course I don't support X, that's unrealistic" to another.
The thing you leave out is that inflicting the inconvenience on the users would have increased the chances of the users understanding what Uber had been doing.
That's the one rule. For everyone.
A good amount of people would stop using / buying iphones if their device stopped using facebook, uber, or some other central app in their lives. It would also disuade a bunch more customers from buying from that platform again, because they don't know what else would be yanked from them.
Platforms live and die on what they can provide, if one platform is missing a bunch of central apps, it's not going to succeed as one.
Read plainly, I'd call my comment a criticism of Apple and people that might be congratulating them for working the issue out behind the scenes.
Spine implants are hard to get, even for Tim Cook.
It look more like an hack more than "a lack of boundaries" to me...
Uber engineers assigned a persistent identity to iPhones with a small piece of code, a practice called “fingerprinting.” Uber could then identify an iPhone and prevent itself from being fooled even after the device was erased of its contents.
There was one problem: Fingerprinting iPhones broke Apple’s rules. Mr. Cook believed that wiping an iPhone should ensure customers that no trace of the owner’s identity remained on the device.
I expect what they do is fingerprint the device to detect fraudulent use later. Typically this is done by combining a bunch of identifiers and details on the device and then hashing the result. The output is a unique identifier for that specific device.
While technically this doesn't store any "identity" information on the device itself, if done correctly, the device could be identified and tracked across wipes (hence Cook's comment).
Of course, the article does a piss poor job explaining this, but for many readers the nuance doesn't matter... They capture the spirit well enough, even if the details are pretty misleading.
To halt the activity, Uber engineers assigned a persistent identity to iPhones with a small piece of code, a practice called “fingerprinting.” Uber could then identify an iPhone and prevent itself from being fooled even after the device was erased of its contents.
There was one problem: Fingerprinting iPhones broke Apple’s rules. Mr. Cook believed that wiping an iPhone should ensure customers that no trace of the owner’s identity remained on the device.
Furthermore, that code wasn't triggered, somehow, in devices near Cupertino, indicating that they were trying to hide the code from App Store reviwers.
I think I feel that this is very qualitatively different from gathering location data on users who have deleted the app (if such a thing were possible), but nevertheless a serious ethical lapse.
this article is talking about something else it seems.
In my opinion Apple should have suspended their app from the iTunes App Store until they fixed the app. Because isn't that what they do to other small players? I would say there is a bit of hypocrisy on Apple's part here.
Can someone explain to me the mechanics of how this happens? I use Lyft, which emails me a receipt. How does Slice get a hold of this? Does Lyft sell it to Slice?
It purports to be a convenient tool for end users. But sells them out for revenue.
Edit: I'm sure it's in the terms somewhere. But to me, something this intrusive should be stated up front if it's not obvious.
Honest question (not trolling, I swear), is Gmail any different? I guess (I'm guessing though?) google doesn't sell users' info to third parties? (But I guess it does use the info within alphabet companies??) Does anyone know this for sure?
Instantly see a list of all your subscription emails. Unsubscribe easily from whatever you don’t want.
Unroll.Me is a free service
So they analyse an inbox, and siphon the data in the process.
[1] quote from article: Using an email digest service it owns named Unroll.me, Slice collected its customers’ emailed Lyft receipts from their inboxes and sold the anonymized data to Uber
So they had access to the inboxes of people who happened to be Lyft customers, without any business relationship with Lyft.
From their privacy policy at https://unroll.me/legal/privacy/ :
We also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, sell, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose. For example, when you use our services, we may collect data from and about the “commercial electronic mail messages” and “transactional or relationship messages” (as such terms are defined in the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. 7702 et. seq.) that are sent to your email accounts. We collect such commercial transactional messages so that we can better understand the behavior of the senders of such messages, and better understand our customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising. We may disclose, distribute, transfer, and sell such messages and the data that we collect from or in connection with such messages; provided, however, if we do disclose such messages or data, all personal information contained in such messages will be removed prior to any such disclosure.
We may collect and use your commercial transactional messages and associated data to build anonymous market research products and services with trusted business partners. If we combine non-personal information with personal information, the combined information will be treated as personal information for as long as it remains combined.
Aggregated data is considered non-personal information for the purposes of this Privacy Notice.
Apparently, if you're not paying for it, you're, yet again, the product.
I've also left Uber for Lyft.
Tons of apps use their platform to identify unique devices, and I'm curious what makes it legal and what makes it not.
https://dev.branch.io/getting-started/matching-accuracy/over...
That's kind of surprising.
can somebody explain this?
McDonalds fits those criteria as well.
Not by me. No affiliation. Found it after this news.
[edit: typo]
Uber is pushing back on the allegations, saying that the
tracking is a common industry practice used to prevent fraud
and account compromise.
Truly blind justice.
Not just Uber, but every app... any idea how I can do a true clean uninstall when I remove an app from my iPhone?
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/23/new-york-times-digital-uberas...
If the answer is they need to raise prices and/or reduce the drivers' cut, how will they be better than the taxi services they're replacing? Many taxi services up here in Canada already have apps that are close to on par with what Uber offers.
pssst!! it's not a 'angelic ride sharing' service period. it's hiring taxi drivers and in this case mostly entrepreneurial taxi drivers having multiple cars and running it as a business.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/22/business/24travis...
If so, I don't see how anyone can get any serious work done there.
I work on one of these two floors, and have worked at all three SF engineering offices on three different teams since joining 3 years ago. I would say those are not typical conditions for most engineering teams, but are more common if you work on a team that needs to be close to the non-technical areas in the company.
That all said, you can work wherever you want. Sometimes I work at my desk with headphones and sometimes I find a quiet place on that floor or one of the other floors. There are no lack of quiet spaces. It's also easy to work from home one to two days a week if you want. My team has our own no meetings day and some team members work from home that day (but typically do so to save themselves the commute).
I won't go into any details on what I work to maintain my anonymity but I have no problem getting serious work done and I work on one of the largest scale and most critical pieces of infrastructure.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/19/technology/24trav...
I chuckled a little bit reading this.
"Savant" is very specific term. "Some" is very unusual reference to describe sources for good journalism.
For a moment I wondered why Travis Kalanick playing with matches was on the front page.
I also find the fact that their new logo looks like an asshole very fitting
Did they laugh at him to his face, cause if it was just the two of them...
Maybe you meant they knowingly allowed Uber to do on iOS what any app can commonly do on Android? Apple works very hard to protect users privacy, it doesn't guarantee it. Android doesn't guarantee it either, and doesn't try very hard to protect it.
Keep truckin, Travis.
This is classic malignant narcissism[1]. The irony of the story is that it describes a confrontation with Apple, which became successful through the machinations of another malignant narcissist, Steve Jobs.
But: Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM-5 301.81
Also mentioned but not properly defined in ICD (F60.8)