[EdHominem]

> By using the words honest and dishonest you're saying you believe in an objective morality. I already mentioned I don't believe in that.

I'm referring to facts, which you also said you don't believe in.

I agree that there is subjectivity in everything - is it an elephant, or a tree, etc.. But if you think tree and say tiger, you're lying.

> The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter.

Uh, yes it does. An upfront person should never negotiate with someone they feel is duplicitous. They'll take every olive branch from and offer you nothing real in return.

> You can always find somewhere to agree

Not with someone playing a game, you won't. They won't give you the time of day unless they can manipulate it.

> even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing.

Obviously it doesn't. And even if it did, it's not Uber or Lyft's job to provide it if it's not also in their best interests.

> U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city.

They don't at all. There's no middle-ground in the fundamental issues at all.

There's probably a low enough price where it wouldn't be worth arguing, but there's a world full of other cities so that price is pretty low.

> At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

> We haven't talked about Fasten much.

Right, it's almost irrelevant. The issue is the dishonest city driving out businesses that won't pay graft.

> What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable?

Because of this interference? No. They'll pass the costs on to the consumers. Consumers will be paying for worthless security measures designed to mitigate imaginary risks.

Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

> But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same.

And it'll still be worthless when others did it, but yes I imagine they'd be emboldened to try. There's literally no downside for the politicians to try to take everything they can.

That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

> If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public.

Your only carrot is less stick. Talk to us now or talk to us when after a year of being trashed in the media.

It would be a scary threat except that this is the only reception they get.

> Politicians are elected the same way products are sold.

No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

> approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship

Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

> They have many options.

Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

[studentrob]

> Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

> Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

> That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

Yes. I don't know how you perceive the world. In my view, it's mostly good.

> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

There was a vote..

> The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

People make up their own minds. Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information. At the end of the day, people decide for themselves. In America we're lucky to have the freedom to seek out other news sources. As buried as the other side of the story may be, it's better than only being allowed to read one side.

> Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

That's not what I meant. I meant, any negotiation first requires treating the other person like a person. You're a person, I'm a person, we can shake hands and even agree to disagree without even raising voices. We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts, are what drive votes. People interpret facts depending on the context. That's something on which we can agree.

> Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

They had a vote. Some voted for U/L, some voted against it. Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way. Politicians told voters they're intelligent enough to vote, and U/L implies that they're not. Who do you think wins that vote, even before it starts, regardless of the facts? Beginning with the intent to offend people, or thinking that you're smarter than they are, wins zero votes.

Again thanks for the discussion! I'm continuing because you seem cool with it. I'm also fine if you want to drop it, as it's been quite a number of responses and I understand if it is getting tiresome. I won't consider it a forfeit, and I respect your opinion.

I'm surprised you had no comments about the negotiations in China in the 70s. That example may not be the best since it depends on your familiarity with history of that time & place. But if anti-communists and communists working together doesn't convince you that anything's possible, I've no idea what will.

Who do you look up to? Who do you admire?

I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is. Even if a cold medicine's ingredients are the same, people are most likely to buy the one whose package says "guaranteed cure!". That's their perception acting when interpreting facts, or, as you might put it, warping facts. Either way the perception is the driving force.

[EdHominem]

> That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

> You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

I'm saying the decision is wrong because it's a bad strategy predicated on a mistaken risk analysis used because of lies. That's inefficient and will, almost by definition, be the consolation prize. Something designed as a negotiation with taxi companies who were asked "How much competition do you want?"

>> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

> There was a vote..

On a heavily propagandized and scaremongered issue which make it essentially meaningless as an indicator of the people's true feelings.

> Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information.

No, not really.

And the main issue is that they used the taxpayers own money to advertise and justify the city's side - which was actually mostly lies.

> People make up their own minds.

So no, they really don't. Not when the government itself is selling them messages of rape and terrorism.

> Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way.

That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

My contention is that the facts are hidden, and worse, are lies from people they should be able to trust.

You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

> We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

> You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts

In this context (hah), context means additional facts. Yes, a bullet hole, but also IN a person.

> People interpret facts depending on the context.

And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

> I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is.

No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

> Either way the perception is the driving force.

Yes, and in this case the very experts we elect to help us reason about this are lying to us, intentionally shaping these all-important perceptions. Then they're polling us right after the 10-minute hate and using those results to drive decision by consensus.

It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.

[studentrob]

> It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

Could be!

> It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything.

>> People make up their own minds.

> So no, they really don't.

On this, I cannot agree, unless you want to argue for determinism and against free will, in which case I'd reconsider it. You feel people are puppets. I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.

> That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

Eh, I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument. I'm actually neutral here, and don't favor U/L or the city. Believe it or not, I'm just arguing for what I think constitutes the most effective strategy and methods. I think the city happens to have a better bead on good strategy than U/L in some ways.

> You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

Actually, I don't believe that. All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.

> Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal. I'm not privy to the financials of U/L so I really couldn't say what's reasonable. Plus as you note it's complicated since there could be a ripple effect. Again, I'm just speaking in support of tactics and strategy that I think are likely to be effective. I'm not necessarily siding with the city. I think the ripple effect could happen in either direction, and that by not discussing things with Austin, U/L are allowing that city to create their own version of a ripple. That ripply could go in a direction that U/L likes even less than one in which U/L were more directly involved. U/L could be more a part of the collective stone that's tossed into the water along with the residents and city officials. By disengaging, they lose some of their influence. If they want to come back they'd be best served working on the relationship first, however corrupt the officials are perceived to be, so long as it's legal. City officials cannot compel U/L to break the law.

I don't doubt there's shady stuff happening in Texas in regards to tech companies. The situation with patents there is horrid for many entrepeneurs. That said, it is what it is, and everyone needs to either work with the law as it is written, risk a bit of civil disobedience, campaign for some changes, or walk away from it like you say. In the case of software patents, they're tough to walk away from in the US. Walking away from the US is difficult from an investor perspective. I'd applaud anyone who does so to diversify their efforts. Personally, I'm in Taiwan. I think most people agree that the US is about as good as it gets.

> And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable? What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names? I believe that's considered bad form on HN. Feel free to let the crap fly if you prefer. I'm not offended by any of it. You can call me spiritual, hand wavy, factless, ignorant, or whatever suits you. Names would not change my feeling about how effective campaigns are run. I'll do my best to listen to arguments despite name calling. Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.

> No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

> If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

I agree with that. You've changed my mind here. That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security". Even far right republicans who want small government will spend a boat load on defense. The far-far right want a giant metaphorical wall inside which they can operate freely. In practice, for better or for worse, that doesn't happen in a democratic republic, or any other society I've seen. There are always internal regulations that some people hate and some people love.

> It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.

It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers they're not ideologues. It's tough. Even elected officials can't be certain of supreme court nominees. Nominees' entire lives are examined and it can still take weeks or months for officials to confirm them. I do think, on the whole, our democratic republic is better than the alternatives that exist elsewhere. What do you think?

[EdHominem]

> How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything.

No, you keep appealing to objective morality, and/or the lack of it. Facts are facts. They're what doesn't go away when you close your eyes. That's all.

It's not an appeal to an objective morality to predict that the coyote will fall when he walks off the cliff.

> On this, I cannot agree, [...] You feel people are puppets.

Oh? People pay for advertising because it doesn't work? That's news.

Ditto propaganda. It plainly works. We decry posting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion not because it's right, but because it doesn't matter if it's right for it to have a very-clear effect in driving violence against innocent people.

Being easily led is the default state and takes constant work to avoid. It's not unreasonable to predict that at any time most everyone involved in a decision is phoning it it - especially in heavily propagandized scenarios.

> I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.

Sure, without electrodes implanted, anything that happens in their head is "their own mind" by definition.

But you won't get a useful answer to anything from a group of people who've already heard a lopsided view of an issue. Not even representative of their broader opinions.

> All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.

And yet you've repeatedly put derogatory words in my mouth for the people of Austin, as if I must believe them to be mindless to think that they've decided wrongly.

You're dehumanizing me, as a way of combatting the dehumanization and disrespect you assume I must have for others. It's funny to watch.

> I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument.

Oh okay.

> Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable?

Ahh yes, you do care.

You're moving the goalposts. The issue is that the city made the wrong decision because the elected officials spent taxpayer money to lie to the people. You suggest that now I'm failing to win the hearts of the voters.

I'm not trying to "win" with the voters. That would take propaganda and lots of money. I'm showing why their decision was wrong, and how it was manipulated, and why people spent time and money (but not their own) to make it happen.

> What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names?

Again, an argument by appeal to offense - and offense that you've gone out of your way to create.

I'm not trying to win you over so I frankly don't care, but I haven't called you or the residents of Austin any names. All the slights are actually yours, that you're suggesting I try out. (Puppets, etc.)

> > Concessions are as good as cash.

> Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal.

Why don't you ask what I feel as opposed to telling me? Does that win you any arguments with friends and family? :P

No, I'm saying that being wrongly forced to concede anything is the same, ultimately, as being forced to make a cash payment. You act as if non-financial concessions wouldn't be damaging to their business, etc. "Oh, it's a non-financial concession, whatever." Like a non-financial concession to fingerprint drivers, for example.

You keep coming back to the fallacy of the middle-ground, implying that the right thing to do is seek consensus with all viewpoints, and that some amount of concessions must always be closer to correct than any starting point.

> By disengaging, they lose some of their influence.

The decision was made in the propaganda phase - a game they could play just as well from outside if they choose to. FWIW, their influence comes from providing a better service in more areas. A lack of Uber is more damning to Austin than a lack of Austin is to Uber, and Uber(/Lyft) makes their best argument for helping Austin simply by providing the best service in SF.

By disengaging they simply refuse to validate the elected officials and waste time in a rigged process.

> Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.

Respect, respect, respect. You sound like Cartman on an authority trip. "Respect Mah Intelligence!" But you don't have any disrespect to point to; it's a demonization tactic not real advice.

You've put words in my mouth, told me what I though, and slighted the people of Austin for me. Please don't.

> That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security".

No, 'easy' is pushing the button you've been told to push by the advertising. It's absolutely unrelated to the actual outcome picked because the point is that the easy solution is to bypass even considering the issues, let alone choosing something.

If security sold then people would have enough smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

> It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers

The "it's always been this way" defense. I don't understand your need to pull that out or what you think it accomplishes.

"But throughout history we've always mugged and killed people, your Honor. I don't see how this is any worse."

It's meaningless when dealing with specifics. It doesn't matter if Nixon wasn't that unusual, he was still a crook... It doesn't matter if many cities have corrupt officials, it matters that we can point them out when it happens without hand-waving and denials.

[studentrob]

I think there's some miscommunication over the meaning of our words due to the limitations of communicating by text. Maybe we can condense the topic.

I suggest distilling it into 4 general areas. Things about which we agree, don't agree, things that bug us, and things we don't know

I believe we agree that,

(1) People make decisions based on how they feel about something

(2) People are influenced by emotion, propaganda, and facts

(3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting

We don't agree on,

(1) Whether facts are facts. You feel this way, I don't. I feel facts aren't meaningful on their own because they're always viewed through a lens, that is, by a person.

(2) Whether I care that U/L is in Austin or not. You feel I do, I feel I don't. I'm interested in this discussion as a means of getting to know how people work, particularly, myself.

Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are,

(1) Putting words in each other's mouths

I don't know,

(1) Why you care about U/L vs. Austin. I've been making the wrong assumptions. Can you describe your interest? Do you care about both the principle of fingerprinting and the money equally? Why? I want to stop putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry if these sound like dumb questions.

Is the above fair to say? How would you define where we agree and disagree? The discussion doesn't need to end, I'm just trying to think of a way to tone it down. I did not set out to dehumanize you. I am sorry for doing that. Obviously you are thoughtful.

[EdHominem]

> I don't know, (1) Why you care about

The points stand on their own or they don't.

> Things which perhaps bother us both to a tiny degree are, (1) Putting words in each other's mouths

You just discovered that?

But seriously, it's more that you're shooting in the dark when you guess that I'm anti so-and-so. You're looking for an easy win. Ditto the "Respect" angle. Since when did emotion make 2+2 = 5? And if you say it does, you're right that I will disrespect you, but falling back on that in an argument is dishonesty.

> (3) You care about Austin, its riders, U/L, and fingerprinting

I must need to write more clearly. The part I care to discuss is that the people who we elect and pay to guide us are knowingly lying, and spending our money to propagandize to us, then claiming a victory at the polls represents the people's broader will.

Fingerprinting is a non-solution. It's like homeopathic medicine or faith healing. Largely irrelevant in theory, but in practice it prevents real solutions from being tried.

What would make people safer? Well, if there was an actual risk, then logging which vehicle was dispatched to each person would. And having the app phone-home GPS data from the vehicle in realtime. And that's all stuff Uber and Lyft already do.

If rape really was a threat in taxis, etc, then the elected officials have decided to keep subjecting their people to this by forcing out the actual safer option.

By denying actual solutions they're increasing the chance of rape. Why? Because they don't have their name on it. Better ten rapes, one of which the mayor is involved in rescuing, than no rapes at all. You can't claim responsibility for there not being any rapes unless you freak everyone out and are seen doing something, loudly.

The only saving grace is that the threat isn't actually real.