I'd wager that just by the virtue of being commenters on HN, we're already outliers.
If you frame it as a negative thing with no downsides for agreeing with you, of course people will agree. But that's not the reality.
That's your quote as I read it in case some editing happens. There's no caveat in your original post that you are claiming now. You've moved the goal posts. As you originally stated, I agree with all of the follow up comments to it that you are now trying to expand on your original comment. Maybe that's what you always meant but just left out of the original. It happens. But now you're being obstinate about it in a way that doesn't look good.
Anyway, the devil is in the implementation details here, but this doesn't strike me as a common case.
So now, to justify removing someone from your pool of advertisees, they don't just need to pay what could be made by advertising to them; they need to pay for what could be made to advertise to them and (unwittingly) several poorer people.
I'm not paying crave anymore.
That technically is also competition. And if the market offers garbage for money, but the illegal market is free and better, go with the illegal choice.
You'll be treated like a criminal either way with DRM. So... Yeah.
And if you are paying… you’re still the product as well.
In an ideal world, you'd instead have drivers assigned to either particular neighborhoods or particular restaurants, allowing for order-stacking and predictable routes. Bonus for set-time daily deliveries (get your order in before 6 or have to wait until 9). Bigger bonus for set neighborhood drop-off points (like those consolidated mailboxes, but warming compartments). Anything more bespoke would cost extra.
Unfortunately, the balance of inefficient operations, decreasing competition, and "line go up" is that prices have to increase.
At the same time you have processes like increasing suburbanization and development of even more car-centric infrastructure, which makes houses and restaurants even further from each other, and makes cheaper delivery vehicles like motorbikes infeasible.
HBO was the first offering that didn't have ads during the show.
They have also advertised for the Starbucks in thr Target stores long before when you go to pickup something.
I would be more surprised if they kept peoples privacy, as even your credit card company sells the purchase data. =3
Seriously you want people to use your travel and movement and choice data to make a suggestion list of restaurants for you to order from? How helpless are you?
I like good recommendations better than bad recommendations. The value I get is better recommendations.
Like, I literally update the categories of things I'm interested in, in my Google profile, so I get less useless ads.
People complain about bad and useless recommendations and irrelevant ads all the time. Personalization is how you get better ones.
How many combinations of the restaurants around you do you think exist and are needed to provide that information? Certainly need Uber guzzling down Terabytes of data to rank the local Chiles over the local Applebees.
Lets be honest, restaurant suggestions aren’t a real problem anyone has.
I suspect you don't live in New York City, or another city with a thriving restaurant scene where new places open and old places close all the time and you can't keep track of them all in your head.
I've never heard any complaint about that except from people who work in adtech.
In contrast to high-quality ads that are e.g. for a movie you actually want to see.
It's going to be a conflict of interest like most ads. It's not optimized for you but toward you
Are people suddenly moving more between corp A and corp B? Must be something going on, let's buy the stock.
Suddenly multiple Ubers are dropping off people at a residential building during the night? They probably know each other. Let's flag that as a potential risk.
> New York City has released data of 173m individual taxi trips – but inadvertently made it "trivial" to find the personally identifiable information of every driver in the dataset.
Pretty amazing really. They'll even uturn if they are on the other side of the road.
Thankfully corporations have proven themselves so trustworthy and benevolent, we don't think twice about giving them the data they used to have to torture out of us. Likewise the governments, that we know are among the buyers [1], are just as beloved and uncontroversial, unlike in the old days.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/14/23759585/odni-spy-report-...
- Ascension
- solve problem
- proof of concept / MVP
- investment
- roll-out in home market
- polished product
- more investment, global roll-out
- disruption of existing industry
- non-autonomous growth by acquisition of other players
- land-grab growth
- lots of hiring
- fancy offices, founders and stockholders make out like bandits
- market domination
- data hoarding as part of the 'moat'
- continued innovation: go to 'step 1', otherwise...
- Milk the cow
- eventual competition
- market share reduction
- eroding margins
- first reorganizations, lay-offs
- founders replaced with financial managers
- Data hoarding phase ends, data is sold *<- you are here*
- Decline
- reduced sales
- shrinking profits
- downsizing
- terminal phase
- lawsuits
- patent portfolio and other IP used as strategic weapon
- brand and IP acquisition by other players, not necessarily the same party
acquiring bothIs this accurate? If so, where can I buy it? Or do they just mean targeted ads?
Edit: I see this is just an editorialized headline. It should probably be adjusted to match the original article's headline in a more faithful way.
lwhi•1h ago
I can't imagine any depth they wouldn't dive to, in order to get a morsel to feed on.
andsoitis•1h ago
malshe•1h ago
squigz•1h ago
crazygringo•55m ago
pavel_lishin•53m ago
squigz•51m ago
Privacy is very important. That's why I think sharing of customer data - individual or aggregate - is bad.
crazygringo•19m ago
Aggregating protects privacy when done properly.
It seems pretty obvious to me that sharing individual data is orders of magnitude worse than sharing aggregated data.
If you think they're the same, then you don't seem to value the privacy that aggregation provides.
So what am I misrepresenting about what you said?
I'm tired of false equivalences. One thing that's maybe slightly bad, and another thing that's super-super-bad, aren't equally bad.
kotaKat•1h ago
I’ve got it on less than 6 months.
code_for_monkey•59m ago
schnable•58m ago
snapcaster•41m ago
indymike•54m ago
DennisP•1h ago
> Uber Intelligence will let advertisers securely combine their customer data with Uber's to help surface insights about their audiences, based on what they eat and where they travel.
So the companies have the identities. It sounds like they're going to be learning something about their customers, the question is just how much detail they'll get.
zx8080•51m ago
baggachipz•41m ago
morkalork•50m ago
1) Hook new drivers with better than average rates before tapering off 2) Take into account the age/model/value of the vehicle and what payments for it would look like in the market and dole out enough to cover costs but not "too much" that they're getting ahead of other drivers
Totally baseless and sourceless hearsay tho. Still, if true, really plays into the image of "there's no depth they won't go".
underlipton•43m ago
gruez•25m ago