$5 per month would be perfect, IMHO. Worth getting rid of the ads...
Free without ads would be 'perfect' but it doesn't mean it is a viable business model.
If they roughly half the cost, then they would need to more than double the number of paying customers just to stay where they are. I'm sure if they thought they could make more money by lowering the price they would.
It would be better if they played along and actually tried to hide as best as they could so they could IMPROVE on being incognito.
Arguably that's the worst thing they could do: Provide insights into how they try and remain undetected when amongst people who are trying to develop strategies and insights to detect them when there's nothing of value to gain. They'd be better off intentionally fitting stereotypes and doing a poor job of hiding at DefCon, then it might lure people into a false sense of security.
Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.
There's nothing to stop a taxi firm from accepting feedback from customers on individual drivers, the government is simply requiring that they do background checks prior to sending them to pick up members of the public.
Normal car insurances in Europe cover commercial use.
Not in either of the EU nations I've had insurance in. In both cases it was normal to be able to choose from personal, personal & commuting, and personal & business. Some companies would automatically allow commuting within personal, but certainly not all. Additionally business cover is very restrictive in terms of what is covered; delivering pizza is likely to be fine (I am not a lawyer or expert) but carrying people, anything hazardous or high value etc would certainly not be covered by standard insurance.
At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?
There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.
the laws themselves are out of place and incompatible with the future as they cling to the past.
What exactly about asking pseudo-taxi drivers to have a background check and insurance is out of place and incompatible with the future? Because those are exactly the things that Kansas is requiring here...
Just because the rules Uber happily ignore are often are antiquated certainly doesn't mean they all are.
A threat by itself shouldn't be illegal, but it may subject you to scrutiny.
Yes it should, with certain limitations. If making threats was always entirely legal, then it would be trivial for an individual, or small group, to shut down things like air travel nationwide, the school network of a major city indefinitely etc. For example, I could say that I have planted a timed release device containing a neurotoxin in a water source somewhere in New York state. I could even drive around near various locations, park up, leave some weird equipment around etc to ensure it is a credible enough threat (perhaps even plan to get caught looking like I was about to break into a site). I could refuse to cooperate with the investigation. How long would it take to ensure that I hadn't done it, how much would it cost, and how many thousands of peoples would be inconvenienced by it? Then after it all, when they finally feel confident in saying that I hadn't actually done it, there's no consequences what so ever for me.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.