Wrong. The whole point of surge pricing is to only offer taxis to those who can afford it, screw the non-rich folks. That's gouging.
But for some reason, you haven't broken into an art gallery and stolen a Picasso to give it to some of those non-rich folks. And before you tell me that a taxi is different because it's a basic necessity, 1) there is already a federal almost-ban on surge pricing during disaster events, 2) Uber isn't a monopoly, 3) there is a difference between limited surge pricing and absolutely no surge pricing, which you have failed to address, 4) did I mention Uber isn't monopoly, which is typically a pretty damn important component of price gauging?
And look, I can link to articles too. Here's one:
Hey, look at that, even the NYC council isn't considering completely banning surge pricing, only limiting it:
And even that seems to be dead in the water:
Doesn't that kinda prove that religion - or lack of it - is an irrelevant detail to the issue of people doing horrible things to other people they consider expendable in the name of their cause?
I don't think anybody's saying religion is what makes people capable of doing bad things. I think they're just saying it's been one hell of a motivator. So no, it doesn't prove anything of the sort.
The purpose of surge pricing is to gouge customers who want the service desperately
It's funny how you can say literally the same idea as the person you responded to, but make it sound bad by using negative words like "gouge" and "desperately". Without any sort of explanation as to why his characterization is invalid.
In practice, the result is that the provider is strongly encouraged to under-provision their network so they can charge extreme rates for normal use, citing "high" utilization as an excuse. So you end up with a poor experience at all times, rather than just during disasters.
How is that any different from charging more for their service, which they are already free to do? It might give them a tiny sliver of a PR defense, but that won't stop people from switching providers. Phone service, unlike wired internet, is actually a competitive market.
It's a land-grab for esteem by having something named after the researcher.
The person doing the naming that way is never the researcher who came up with the concept, it's other people who quote the concept and refer it by the original author's name. If the concept is sufficiently useful and gets cited that way a couple of times, the name sticks.
Fun fact -- experienced researchers know their field sufficiently well that they can refer to papers by naming the authors (disambiguating by context). If you can't even remember a couple of the most important concepts by non-descriptive names, you have no hope of making it in any field anyway.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.