There are other uses too. Clearly they are not a must but if you can control some of the house functions from your phone then why not from outside of the house?
At one thing you are correct - having multiple house is not a must with this technology and probably not even most used albeit a summer house at the seaside is a multihome situation already.
As for the laws that are BS - would you be more specific? Which parts of insurance and safety requirements are wrong? The limit on taxis in some places - maybe? But that is not even the main issue in many of the places where Uber has legal problems and Uber still says 'fuck it'.
I do not like cabbies all that much but I do not care about Uber either. Yet I see Uber as a global monopolist in making and I dislike it even more. Uber owner and managers behave like UFC back in first half of previous century. Only difference now is that Marines get sent less and mostly to fight terrorism these days. Trade treaties and lawyers are used instead to ensure US corps are well. I guess if Uber were forced to obey the law in EU after EU and US signed the TTIP we in EU would have to pay Uber a nice sum of money for lost profits or?
... To say that any law that prevents maximal profits is good, because anyone who wants to maximize profits is automatically wrong, is kind of silly.
Does anybody say that actually? Maximizing profits is how companies do business. Maximizing profits in certain ways - not following rules like everbody else - maybe questionable. If violating existing laws provide a company economic advantage and disadvantage to everybody else then I'd say such maximizing of profits is not beneficial to society. It is arguably a question of values. I value society that prevents such a thing. Uber owner does not unless I suppose his property and well being is in question.
It is oversimplification to say that in case of Uber it is only other corporation that gets profits. The way Uber acts means that not only additional costs are incurred locally by somebody else than Uber but also the bigger profits are taken out of the local context too. Frankly I do not see how that benefits me as a citizen or customer.
From what I see Uber as providing global money skimming service over the taxi market. In some places that provides allegedly better service to customers. The technology Uber provides is not new either and apps hiring local cabbies are there for some years already. I can imagine however that some US businessmen see advantage in mcTaxi service and investors celebrate a company fighting 'red tape' and against 'workers rights'. Does not look like I should be celebrating anything unless I am Uber shareholder or live in jurisdiction where Uber profits arrive after long hard traveling all over world.
Assuming GP did wrong, how are you better?
We the people have a say only in minority of cases. Th civil rights era was bloody and its fight still did not end apparently. I do not see how people would raise in such case where worker's rights (oops sorry - freelancers working for Uber voluntarily on contract bases) or public safety or property rights (due to insufficient insurance for instance) of some individuals are/can be affected. This is not racial discrimination that made some substantial number of white people to sympathize with oppressed. In this case costs to society is spread and individualized while benefits are mostly concentrated in Uber.
Uber is attacking with the sun and down the hill on isolated enemy positions, the only thing better would be if enemy gave up.
It is somewhat entertaining watching all the sociopaths joining the ranks Uber. The good thing is that even if Uber wins it will be forced by forces in the business itself to comply with some laws and will be tamed this way. It happened to all big companies and it will happen to Uber too. The question is whether it is good for us all to wait till that happens or to tame Uber directly.
As for the contradictions: all males are like you say they are i.e. do not care for anything that is not competed for? If women are uncomfortable only when competing with men then it still does not prove they do not compete. I suppose many examples show they actually do only in ways that escapes some troglodytes (that is not a reference to you just to general male audience that populates this site, including me - that seems to be what people in IT usually are).
Feminazis are evil and are also counterproductive. So are randtards and right wing bigots. You could for instance solve part oft he problems inherent to the IT industry by enforcing simple labour rules of pay per hour spent and limits for overtime per year - but that would be communist tactics meant at destruction of capitalism or even universe as we know it. Similarly you could resolve big part of discrimination against blacks in US by working against poverty and exclusion that it causes (access to education and health care for instance). But that too would be a communist agenda at work. It is really tiring indeed to have the 'too few vaginas or whatever in X' articles but it is also tiring to have meaningless rants by bigots against anything that does not fit into their little minds.
I hope they have thought of all these things. It would be foolish if they did not..
Here I FTFY.