I’ve always thought of “ride-sharing” as carpooling. Using Uber or Lyft is hiring a car not sharing a car. It’s not like the drivers were going to drive from point A to point B anyway, thus relieving road congestion.
Also, I know it’s anecdotal but I know people who stopped taking busses and turned to Uber or Lyft. I’d imagine that there are others who have done this too.
Yep:
The study also finds easy access to ride-sharing discourages commuters from taking greener alternatives, such as walking or public transportation.
The original intent for Lyft was to be exactly that, a means to monetize carpooling. If you were going from A to B anyway, why not make a few bucks giving someone else a ride?
Of course it very quickly pivoted into an unlicensed taxi service.
You know how it is- you can’t do important things. Which are things that effect me - but not people not like me. Those can be de-prioritized. Because even if they’re killing them - they’re not me! And we need to focus only on the important things that we can’t do that effect me.
And you can never do more than the things that affect me. That’s just crazy talk and asking too much of people.
Read that, and while there are some good points in it, it still feels a lot like both-sidesing. I may not be reading deeply enough, or just not be smart enough to get it, but the “we are doomed no matter who wins” just doesn’t sit well with me.
I got the impression that Lessig’s message was the opposite of bothsiderism; that we need to reject conservatism globally or face immediate local consequences and long-term global consequences.
One of the great side effects of all the Trump indictments is that he’s spent almost every penny his PACs have brought in on legal fees. Not such a big problem for him yet since he doesn’t have any serious competition in the primaries but it’s really hard to run a national campaign when you can’t afford advertisements or rallies.
