memmcgee

No that's still private ownership. Amazon, for example, is not collectively owned, even though it's owned by more than just Jeff Bezos.

Doesn't Go already download packages from GitHub?

That would make sense as a worst case scenario but I'm not sure the evidence suggests that's the route they're going. If they wanted to acquire a CI/CD product, they would've bought Travis when it was being shopped around for a buyout.

What track record do ANY unions have in the last 50 years?

The solution to this is the solution to many problems in tech: unionization.

Many tech workers think unions cap the maximum achievement and result in people getting underpaid. In reality, we're _already_ underpaid when you look at how much the ownership of a company gets. Additionally, Hollywood's unionization hasn't hurt their pay.

The IWW's ideology is hardly extreme considering the prevailing ideology in the US. And the IWW is small, but their track record speaks for itself.

Then what would you do with all your capital? Sit on it? I highly doubt it. You'd either spend it (which is good) or invest it because 50% of more money is still more money.

The public believes in and supports climate change prevention. The problem is not so much that propaganda convinces public opinion that the people in power do not have an incentive to make any changes.

I highly doubt capitalism is going to save us from climate change considering it has largely driven the problem.

You're correct in that assumption. Plankton blooms are already damaging the climate in many ways.

All I can say is that the Star Trek: Discovery name drop will age extremely poorly.

You overestimate SpaceX's importance.

Not to mention the Solar City buyout was pretty explicitly a bailout. SC had already retained bankruptcy counsel.

Rich isn't even necessary part of it. Musk, as well as many other people in the news, exemplify white cis male privilege. If a female or non-white CEO did half the shit Musk has done, she'd be out. Look how Marissa Mayer was vilified online despite doing nothing really out of the ordinary.

That's because his PR team has pushed that narrative for years. He wasn't a founder however.

Yes, and they're not alone in that. Many car companies are above the minimum required for five stars.

>Can't they do both? I don't think they're going to be in short supply of prisoners anytime soon.

Except there should be a much smaller supply of prisoners because many laws are unjust as they are now. The drug war directly serves the prison industrial complex and private prisons are one of the biggest lobbying groups against decriminalization and legalization.

Now maybe Promise won't lobby for the war on drugs because it would shatter their illusion of social good, but if they grow they will end up lobbying in other ways that will directly oppose public interests.

>Why so much faith in non profits?

I don't have that much faith in non-profits. But I don't have any faith in a for-profit company for social good.

I don't see any indication of Promise being a non-profit. It seems to me that you're just trying to break into the prison-industrial complex. I am doubtful this is much better than current for-profit prisons considering you still require prisoners in order to make money. Come back as a non-profit or not-for-profit and then maybe you can change something.

By that logic all encryption is broken.

I think you're romanticizing Silicon Valley. There's plenty of startups all across the world and there will likely be even more since we have such an anti-innovation administration now.

Except they also penalize drivers for not accepting many rides. So if you want to continue driving for Uber, you have to "sell" your driving services at some point, even if the price isn't good for you.

Because they're not actually effective. Most brute forcing is done via dictionary attacks.

It's also unlikely a company will just switch over self driving tech. A lot of the technology all these companies have is proprietary and I highly doubt it will all be interchangeable.

Probably not. It's unlikely either party will want this to go to trial so it'll probably end in a settlement where the company buys a license on top of damages.

Because Wall Street executives caused the economy to collapse and only one of them got thrown in jail. Executives only end up in jail when they hurt the rich (see: Enron, Bernie Madoff)

Uber is still losing money though and fast. Their entire competitive advantage is that they have a shit ton of VC funding to subsidize rides with. They've been able to survive this long because they've always been able to raise more money on the promise that they might not lose money someday, presumably when they have self-driving cars. Now that the lawsuit has put their future in question they're going to have a lot more trouble getting another round of funding.

The despicable behavior at Uber is far from a few individuals. At the very least their entire HR division is negligent at best and malicious at worse. The problems with managers at Uber seem to apply to most of them. I'd advise anyone working at Uber to GTFO ASAP and hope the stigma doesn't follow them around for the rest of their career. I can hardly see anyone who worked in HR at Uber ever working in HR again.

Uber did nothing for public transportation. They gave another way for people with money to disregard public transportation. It's just another "innovation" that provides another service to the rich at the expense of the common good.

Uber is not at all the "little guy".

Well they did get "anonymized" email data from UnRoll.Me.