[p4wnc6]

No that's what knee-jerk Uber defenders are writing who refuse to grant taxis any credit for being good, useful services.

These responses aren't reporting average case experiences with level headed analysis.

They are just one-sidedly saying everything is bad about taxis, including "corruption" even, and how thankful they are Uber "disrupted" them, etc.

It all reads very much like paid social engineering by Uber. I'm sure that's not it, and they are just strong fans defending a company they like.

But the fact that it's all written just like social engineering spam us a good indication that it's not describing realistic, average-case experiences of most taxi users.

[eropple]

I'm not a fan--I use them because the alternatives are terrible. I use Uber, and I use Lyft, and I use Fasten the most (because they're still trying to establish market share and so the deals are great). But I use them primarily because Boston taxis are straight garbage that cannot be trusted to get you where you want to go on time and without hassles, and they want a price premium for the experience. This isn't the case in many other cities I've gone to (aside from the price premium part, which is universal in America), but it is in Boston.

But we're the "social engineering commenters" because we're rolling eyes at the idea that dealing with cabs is pleasant. We're shills. I don't think I've ever said this here, but: good grief, dude, get a grip, reality is slipping you.

[p4wnc6]

Boston taxis have always done a good job in getting my friends, family, coworkers, and myself where we needed to go, on time, and without issue or hassle.

> But we're the "social engineering commenters" because we're rolling eyes at the idea that dealing with cabs is pleasant.

Yes! Rolling one's eyes at a plain and simple fact, like the simple fact that most taxi experiences are just normal, uneventful rides inside of cars, is derivative from Uber's attempts to social engineer against the culture of using taxis. I don't see why that would merit such a sardonic and rude reply from you.

[eropple]

I can't imagine why you're getting a sardonic and rude response. Maybe it's because insulting, silly, ad hominem nonsense that you're throwing at me?

Most taxi experiences I've had are strictly worse than the equivalent in any of the ride-sharing systems available in Boston. Strictly worse. They're more expensive, the supply is more variable, the drivers are at best a push, and events that cannot happen in Uber/Lyft/Fasten, the fucking around with credit cards and the end-around routes to pump the meter, can't happen. And you know what? I wish this weren't the case, because Uber is a bad company run by bad people. I'd rather use a cab because I don't want to give Uber money. But cabs are that much worse.

But that's "social engineering" commenting, sure, that's meriting backhanded accusations of shilling (and don't dissemble, that is exactly what you are doing even when you try to fig-leaf it). You want to talk shills while you're caping for the cab company? Look inward, brofessor, but it might hurt a little when you do.

[p4wnc6]

I'm really at a loss as to seeing any reply to you that I've made that is insulting, silly, or ad hominem. In re-reading them all, I don't see that.

The claims made in the thread were that something like 80% of taxis in Boston have defective card readers, and that literally only a single taxi used was clean (the rest were not of acceptable cleanliness).

These are ridiculous, exceptional claims that should be completely disregarded without evidence. When I said so, adding that my experience has been that taxis are just perfectly normal cars with functional parts, everyone tries to take my head off for it.

I even freely admitted many of the benefits to Uber you already pointed out.

Nowhere did I ever claim that taxis are better than Uber, nor that anyone should avoid Uber, nor that they should use taxis. I even stopped to reiterate that several times.

I only said that the outrageous, over-the-top degree to which people were describing the poor condition and service of taxis, in Boston, was flat out wrong and hyperbolic. That's all! Even if taxis are clean and have functioning card readers (they are and they do), someone may still feel Uber, or whatever other service, is a better value. That's 100% consistent with everything I've said in this thread.

Yet your response is basically a straw man setting it up as if I claimed that taxis were superior to other ride sharing services, or that my claims about taxis just being pretty normal cars with working parts is somehow a claim of their superiority over Uber? I really don't know why you're inferring that into what I am saying, but it's not related.

[abritinthebay]

> I'm really at a loss as to seeing any reply to you that I've made that is insulting, silly, or ad hominem

I say this with kindness: then you don't understand that you're doing it. That's ok... but you are.

[abritinthebay]

> that's what knee-jerk Uber defenders are writing who refuse to grant taxis any credit for being good, useful services.

No, you're missing the point: they understand that it's a useful service. They are just pointing out that the service they provide is now being done better with Uber/Lyft/etc.

> These responses aren't reporting average case experiences with level headed analysis.

They really are. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it not true. You're basically going "I'm not crazy! It's *everyone else that's wrong!"

> It all reads very much like paid social engineering by Uber.

"I'm not crazy! It's a conspiracy I tell you! They're all shills!". Not helping, especially with the half-hearted hedge afterwards that you then back away from instantly with the next line...