We get the politicians we deserve.

Uber drivers aren't sharing a damned thing. They're charging for a service. That's called doing business, and if you want to do business, you need to follow certain rules, just like anything else in life. You can't just jump up and say "nuh-uh, this is sharing!" when you're really requiring people to pay you before you "share" anything.

If I open a gas station and call it a "fuel sharing service", does that mean that I get to bypass all those pesky rules and regulations for making sure my tanks don't leak into the ground? Or that I don't need to spend all that extraneous money to install safety cutoff switches (like anyone ever -uses- those, amirite?)

If y'all are still telling yourselves that services like Uber and Lyft are "rideshares", you're not paying attention, and haven't been for a long time.

Ridesharing suggests that people are sharing a ride from point A to point B--that is, they're both going that way, and thus are going to slug together to save gas/cost.

Uber and Lyft are effectively taxi services that uses an app instead of a dispatcher. The driver seeks out a fare, starts the timer, drives the fare to their destination, and then seeks out another fare.

The driver is not "sharing" anything, nor is the passenger. This is a taxi service.

Literally five seconds on Google gets you here:

http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/612/are-electric-cars-as-environmentally-friendly-as-we-think-they-are

Yes. EVs are a lot--a LOT--more efficient than internal combustion vehicles.

Cities are, by their very definition, massive engineering projects that do not have sufficient natural resources to sustain themselves. Name one city that could function on a daily basis without regular imports from hundreds of miles away.

We're both saying the same thing. You trust the wisdom of the market over your own judgement. Your core argument is that you should stay where the market says you belong, because you really can't be trusted to know how to handle more than what the market says you deserve.

Your argument boils down to:

"if you get paid more than you're worth, you might someday find yourself in a situation where that well-paying job goes away, and you'll need to re-adjust your standard of living back down to where you 'should' be. Wouldn't it be better for you to simply keep making less money and remain at that lower standard of living in the first place? You'd avoid all kinds of uncertainty and potential upheaval!"

Compensation is whatever your employer wants to give you. If you find what this guy is doing to be grating and wrong, that says a lot more about you than it does him.

This is why having good management matters.

Good management keeps this from happening.

Participants in research studies are already stupidly self-selected, and many drop out (and are thus invalidated) because it can be incredibly challenging for people to continue to routinely report over a period of time, especially if the participant has to deal with periods of instability in their lives..

Seeing as you can get an iPhone that supports ResearchKit included with a phone contract, I'm having trouble buying the "upper-class" angle here. The iPhone may have started its life as a Toy For The Rich, but today, it's just another "free phone with contract!", side by side with the likes of the HTC One, the Galaxy S4, and the Droid MAXX.

ResearchKit will provide sensor-driven data to researchers, in a readily-used format, on a far denser timescale than is currently practical, via a familiar user interface, across a considerably wider and more engaged sample. If you genuinely believe that the only outcome of this scenario is that it will degrade the quality of data in medical research, then I'm genuinely interested to hear your recommendations for improving the quality of said dataset. Given, of course, the same temporal and financial constraints as exist today.

The CEO of the company utters those very words, with his own mouth, in front of a live audience full of journalists. As part of a major marketing presentation. That is also being simultaneously watched by FSM knows how many random people and media organizations via webcast.

Or, to put it another way, you'd be a lot happier if they did exactly what they said they were doing.

The single biggest thing to come out of this was the announcement of ResearchKit. I don't think people fully appreciate just how...sparse and brittle medical research data can be, even today.

Even in situations where there do exist tracking devices, they tend to be clunky, cobbed-together, user-unfriendly things that are built using generations-old, heavily-used devices--generally by dint of the fact that researchers have so little money to spend on this sort of thing.

Having an open-source platform that'll open the data floodgates? THAT is going to have some real and lasting consequences for medical research.

Back up--you honestly think that Apple hasn't found an answer to this question?

Reeeeeally?

1. Reddit cannot, in any way, stop you from expressing your opinion. The most they can do is refuse to facilitate said expression.

2. I find it amusing that such a staunch, unyielding proponent of True Free Speech would use such a tremendously wiggly, pro-oversight qualifier as legal In defining what they consider acceptable. Legal implies a level of trust in the state that is entirely at odds with the rest of your post.