An element working against Uber is its pathological aversion to customer support.
The only way I’ve found to contact a human when a ride goes awry is to say an accident happened. (In truth, it often involves a concern around safety.) That connects you with humans who can actually, sometimes, address or at least recognize your problem in a way the chatbot never can.
Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have criminals on their rolls. But I wonder how many cases of rudeness by the driver got upgraded to sexual assault (which, to be clear, is a matter of personal discretion) because Uber went all in on bots.
From the article: “Uber has said it is one of the safest ways to get around, with the vast majority of its trips in the United States — 99.9 percent — occurring without an incident of any kind”
The best way to reduce your incident count is by not collecting incident data.
There’s a whole weird underground economy around uber. The guys I get in my area in Upstate NY are often migrating up from NYC. They are like a cloud labor force and follow the rates around. It’s cool in some ways, as the friction of getting a job makes it hard to move, but that type of arrangement is a great operating environment for predators.
>>The only way I’ve found to contact a human when a ride goes awry is to basically say an accident happened. That connects you with humans who can actually, sometimes, address your problem in a way the chatbot never can.
>The best way to reduce your incident count is by not collecting incident data.
The guy you're replying to is actually claiming the opposite, ie. that rude drivers complaints are getting upgraded to "accident" or "driver was threatening" complaints to get past the chatbot, and Uber is actually safer than their statistics claim.
> and Uber is actually safer than their statistics claim
I’m not sure I’m reaching that conclusion. (Possibly because I don’t want to.)
I was once in an accident due to a New York cabbie being on their phone. Blew through a stop sign and got T-boned. When I’m in a car with a distracted driver, now, I tend to report it after the trip.
Uber sometimes lets me do this. And sometimes it does not. When it does not, when I escalate to a safety issue (Uber will sometimes call the sheriff before putting anyone on the thread, they’re that cheap and dismissive), I am making the record reflect louder than a chat with support would. But the underlying jeopardy is both real and unchanged.
So are Uber rides safer than the figures reflect? Or was their lack of safety controls previously mollified by customer service? I’m not drawing a conclusion on that delineation. Just pointing out the effect.
> From the article: “Uber has said it is one of the safest ways to get around, with the vast majority of its trips in the United States — 99.9 percent — occurring without an incident of any kind”
Another way of phrasing this is that if you take Uber to and from work, you'll likely have an incident within 2 years.
I would like to know what incident entails too. Knowing the very minor things that would also happen to you while driving would really narrow down if Uber is a murder wagon or if it's about the same as driving yourself.
> Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls.
Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? It would be seen as an incredible overreach here. Then again, so would a drug test. Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.
Depends on context. In finance or anything concerning children, yes. You’re given autonomy where others are vulnerable. On a construction site, on a factory floor, or in an office, where you’re constantly supervised, no.
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group
I'm more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints, than drivers are 'forced' to accept it, I suppose. Although I can't identify a clear harm or form of exploitation that would arise from Uber collecting prints, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe a better middle ground is the licensure part of the government does the fingerprinting. Although not all cities regulate Uber in this way.
> more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints
Every job and volunteer role at which I’ve needed to get fingerprinted outsources it. When I’ve collected fingerprints for a job, my firm never got a copy, just the report.
In roles where you're trusted with a lot of power over other people, absolutely. You won't get fingerprinted in a restaurant or store, but everyone in a hospital or a school should be.
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.
You seem to be redefining the word “vulnerable” to mean the opposite. Uber drivers disproportionately are men without full time jobs. That pool of people almost certainly has a higher likelihood of criminal behavior than the population as a whole. Assuming finger printing actually works (which I’m not sure), they’re exactly the people who should have more scrutiny.
I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
>The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
This is how the vast majority of compliance regulations work. You the law abiding person don't want to file bank paperwork, or whatever, yet you do because some smaller portion of the population would fraudulently rob the population blind if we didn't.
Well yes, that is how many things work, but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good. With banking, for example, I'd much prefer a low-touch technological solution. You could argue fingerprinting _is_ a low-touch technological solution, although I'm not sure it's particularly good at enforcing who is who at driving time.
>but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good
Then step up and deeply think about the situation at hand and all it's ramifications.
When you see Chesterton's Fence don't rip it out of the ground before you understand why it was built in the first place. Think of how you would make a system with the least problems (you can't solve all problems without infinite costs or infinite loss of freedom).
In many countries, taxi licensing requires an ID/criminal background check, to ensure people with rape convictions don’t end up alone with drunk vulnerable people.
It may not require fingerprinting, but it’s certainly stricter than many jobs.
> I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
Driving for Uber isn't a job, it is a gig, which is different, and why Uber doesn't have to give benefits or pay like it is a job. Uber spent TONS of money lobbying and electioneering for this position.
Not just "upgrading rudeness to sexual assault", but their stance on absent customer support probably has them missing early warning signs, complaints about inappropriate behavior from drivers who's behavior may eventually escalate when they don't see any consequences.
Uber already requires driver licenses and (presumably) banking information for payouts. The drivers page for US implies the verification is done in-person as well. All of this makes it pretty easy for the police to identify the driver, and hard for the driver to wriggle out and claim his identity was stolen. I'm not sure how adding fingerprints helps here.
I'm not sure either, but it is standard practice in many areas of employment. Want to be a teacher? You're gonna be fingerprinted. Perhaps it is a legacy of the days when different databases didn't talk to one another, i.e., drivers licensure and criminal conviction were siloed off from one another.
Running a business where your employees are isolated with customers in often remote areas is not a standard business. Additional safety for both parties is certainly warranted.
Financial services, especially folks who touch capital markets, does fingerprints and drug testing, but agree a standard background check should be fit for purpose for this use case assuming an exception process with a human queue processor.
Just wait till there is more supply than demand in programmers/tech. Then you'll learn how much the rest of the world sucks.
A lot of us here are earning in the top few percent of our countries households and we don't have to deal with any of the bullshit that people making 1/4th we do or less.
> Just wait till there is more supply than demand in programmers/tech.
Will this happen though? There's still a lot of work to be done, but principally I wonder if AI hype hasn't actually reduced the top of the funnel significantly. If non-programmers (i.e. those who might become programmers) believe the job "won't exist in six months", they are probably not going to set themselves up for that direction. Plus juniors starting work now will suffer from leaning on AI too much as well.
Overall I think it's counterintuitive. When I was growing up, it seemed obvious that my generation knew technology better than the last, and of course the next generation would be even more familiar. In practice though, kids these days are mostly phone-only. The ability to produce technological artifacts remains uncommon.
From an article in 2021 regarding Lyft, 38% of sexual assault is passengers assaulting drivers. [1]
Rep. Dingell says, "There is no trade-off that should be acceptable to Uber, considering the devastating impact of sexual assault"
But apparently there is a trade-off for her, seeing as she only wants to focus on one direction of this crime by fingerprints and background checks for drivers and no safeguards protecting drivers. Seems she has chosen to ignore 38% of sexual assaults as well. I wonder why her trade-off is morally superior?
I mean, if you start using your thinking cap for a few minutes it makes sense.
1. The number of drivers is small. The number of passengers is large. This makes checks on drivers technically possible.
2. Drivers work in their own cars. Are you saying they should get bars installed between the back and front of the car?
3. The passengers are the random public, do you want to submit a criminal background check before riding in a car?
4. These are all things Uber can do themselves to protect their employees. These are not things the public can do to protect themselves from Uber employees.
There's anecdotal evidence that drivers can "rent" a clean identity, meaning that the person who is driving the car is not the person that Uber has on record as being the driver. Uber not looking into this and not being pickier about it, fits with other "I know nothing" corporate behaviors.
And it's not like there aren't a plethora of relatively accessible technical solutions to fix this problem like looking for inconsistency in nearby devices that accompany the driver and the usage behavior metrics in use within the advertising industry to de-anonymize users. Figuring out who someone is when they don't want you to know it's them is a scarily well solved problem at this point... figuring out if someone isn't the same person you thought they were yesterday is comparatively trivial.
Have you met a person and asked them what they do and they say "I am an attorney" and then you ask them, "Oh, what kind of attorney?" And they say, "I represent clients who sue Uber for sexual assault."
My wife and I went to a couple cities where Waymo operated and when we tried it were pleasantly surprised. Talked to a few people and did some research and it's clear women feel much safer and will pay the premium to have their type of experience vs basically a random gamble as to the type of person who will pick you up in an Uber.
Not to mention lately it seems like Ubers standards for the cars picking you up have gone way down the drain. That or maybe people are just lying or gaming the system about the state of their vehicles.
And on top of that there are plenty of drivers who probably shouldn't even have a license. As a man there have been plenty of rides where I've felt unsafe simply due to erratic driving.
See, I'm not sure I would feel safer that way. You can stop a Waymo with a couple traffic cones and then rob the occupants. I think busses and trains are way safer. They have transit police and drivers that are able to handle situations like assault. Also, in my experience, people tend to help out when someone is being a POS and you are less likely to be robbed on a bus than in a car.
Anecdotally, I've had the opposite experience. However, the raw data shows the difference. Scientific American did a great article on the data released by the DOT in the USA.
I closed my Uber account last month over issues like this. Uber has a bad corporate culture that seems incurable. They've had a series of immoral and even criminal scandals. I can't give them my money anymore. I vote with my wallet.
As a man, I never understood how bad this was. I have only felt unsafe in an Uber a few times, mostly because the driver should have had their license revoked due to their advanced age.
Without going into too much detail, I’ve learned just how bad it is. On the “less” vile end of things, my current parter had some desperate slime try to offer her money for sex. I made sure he reported him, but Silicon Valley loves to enable sex criminals, I imagine he’s still out there.
Uber does offer a similar setting in some markets. It took a while to roll out in the US because of legal uncertainties. So Uber waited until the feds gave them a promise that no action would be taken related to offering a “women only” or “women preferred” feature.
An element working against Uber is its pathological aversion to customer support.
The only way I’ve found to contact a human when a ride goes awry is to say an accident happened. (In truth, it often involves a concern around safety.) That connects you with humans who can actually, sometimes, address or at least recognize your problem in a way the chatbot never can.
Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have criminals on their rolls. But I wonder how many cases of rudeness by the driver got upgraded to sexual assault (which, to be clear, is a matter of personal discretion) because Uber went all in on bots.
From the article: “Uber has said it is one of the safest ways to get around, with the vast majority of its trips in the United States — 99.9 percent — occurring without an incident of any kind”
The best way to reduce your incident count is by not collecting incident data.
There’s a whole weird underground economy around uber. The guys I get in my area in Upstate NY are often migrating up from NYC. They are like a cloud labor force and follow the rates around. It’s cool in some ways, as the friction of getting a job makes it hard to move, but that type of arrangement is a great operating environment for predators.
>>The only way I’ve found to contact a human when a ride goes awry is to basically say an accident happened. That connects you with humans who can actually, sometimes, address your problem in a way the chatbot never can.
>The best way to reduce your incident count is by not collecting incident data.
The guy you're replying to is actually claiming the opposite, ie. that rude drivers complaints are getting upgraded to "accident" or "driver was threatening" complaints to get past the chatbot, and Uber is actually safer than their statistics claim.
> and Uber is actually safer than their statistics claim
I’m not sure I’m reaching that conclusion. (Possibly because I don’t want to.)
I was once in an accident due to a New York cabbie being on their phone. Blew through a stop sign and got T-boned. When I’m in a car with a distracted driver, now, I tend to report it after the trip.
Uber sometimes lets me do this. And sometimes it does not. When it does not, when I escalate to a safety issue (Uber will sometimes call the sheriff before putting anyone on the thread, they’re that cheap and dismissive), I am making the record reflect louder than a chat with support would. But the underlying jeopardy is both real and unchanged.
So are Uber rides safer than the figures reflect? Or was their lack of safety controls previously mollified by customer service? I’m not drawing a conclusion on that delineation. Just pointing out the effect.
> From the article: “Uber has said it is one of the safest ways to get around, with the vast majority of its trips in the United States — 99.9 percent — occurring without an incident of any kind”
Another way of phrasing this is that if you take Uber to and from work, you'll likely have an incident within 2 years.
I would like to know what incident entails too. Knowing the very minor things that would also happen to you while driving would really narrow down if Uber is a murder wagon or if it's about the same as driving yourself.
> Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls.
Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? It would be seen as an incredible overreach here. Then again, so would a drug test. Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.
> Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job?
Depends on context. In finance or anything concerning children, yes. You’re given autonomy where others are vulnerable. On a construction site, on a factory floor, or in an office, where you’re constantly supervised, no.
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group
So are their passengers.
I'm more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints, than drivers are 'forced' to accept it, I suppose. Although I can't identify a clear harm or form of exploitation that would arise from Uber collecting prints, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe a better middle ground is the licensure part of the government does the fingerprinting. Although not all cities regulate Uber in this way.
> more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints
Every job and volunteer role at which I’ve needed to get fingerprinted outsources it. When I’ve collected fingerprints for a job, my firm never got a copy, just the report.
In roles where you're trusted with a lot of power over other people, absolutely. You won't get fingerprinted in a restaurant or store, but everyone in a hospital or a school should be.
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.
You seem to be redefining the word “vulnerable” to mean the opposite. Uber drivers disproportionately are men without full time jobs. That pool of people almost certainly has a higher likelihood of criminal behavior than the population as a whole. Assuming finger printing actually works (which I’m not sure), they’re exactly the people who should have more scrutiny.
I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
>The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
This is how the vast majority of compliance regulations work. You the law abiding person don't want to file bank paperwork, or whatever, yet you do because some smaller portion of the population would fraudulently rob the population blind if we didn't.
Well yes, that is how many things work, but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good. With banking, for example, I'd much prefer a low-touch technological solution. You could argue fingerprinting _is_ a low-touch technological solution, although I'm not sure it's particularly good at enforcing who is who at driving time.
>but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good
Then step up and deeply think about the situation at hand and all it's ramifications.
When you see Chesterton's Fence don't rip it out of the ground before you understand why it was built in the first place. Think of how you would make a system with the least problems (you can't solve all problems without infinite costs or infinite loss of freedom).
In many countries, taxi licensing requires an ID/criminal background check, to ensure people with rape convictions don’t end up alone with drunk vulnerable people.
It may not require fingerprinting, but it’s certainly stricter than many jobs.
Yeah, but that's the government doing the sensitive parts, typically.
Being fingerprinted is required to obtain a law license.
Uber drivers have to verify their driver's license, so it should be pretty easy to keep track of abuse.
vulnerable how?
From my other reply:
> I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
Driving for Uber isn't a job, it is a gig, which is different, and why Uber doesn't have to give benefits or pay like it is a job. Uber spent TONS of money lobbying and electioneering for this position.
Not just "upgrading rudeness to sexual assault", but their stance on absent customer support probably has them missing early warning signs, complaints about inappropriate behavior from drivers who's behavior may eventually escalate when they don't see any consequences.
>Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls.
What's the point of fingerprinting when there's no way to ensure the person who registered for the account is the person actually driving?
there's no way to ensure the person who registered for the account is the person actually driving
The drivers all have smart-phones - shouldn't it be possible to use the face-id feature to verify the driver is the driver-of-record on the account?
> What's the point of fingerprinting when there's no way to ensure the person who registered for the account is the person actually driving?
There are plenty of ways to do that verification, or at least make it more difficult. Prints then finger who fucked up.
The person allowing his fingerprints to be used will have a lot of difficult questions to answer when being interviewed by law enforcement.
Uber already requires driver licenses and (presumably) banking information for payouts. The drivers page for US implies the verification is done in-person as well. All of this makes it pretty easy for the police to identify the driver, and hard for the driver to wriggle out and claim his identity was stolen. I'm not sure how adding fingerprints helps here.
I'm not sure either, but it is standard practice in many areas of employment. Want to be a teacher? You're gonna be fingerprinted. Perhaps it is a legacy of the days when different databases didn't talk to one another, i.e., drivers licensure and criminal conviction were siloed off from one another.
> One element that might be working against Uber is its pathological aversion to letting passengers contact support
It's more like prioritizing lower operational expenses over passenger safety. Sadly, safety and security only seem to matter when they are absent.
Fingerprint? No employer does that short of the government. Standard background checks should be sufficient.
Running a business where your employees are isolated with customers in often remote areas is not a standard business. Additional safety for both parties is certainly warranted.
Financial services, especially folks who touch capital markets, does fingerprints and drug testing, but agree a standard background check should be fit for purpose for this use case assuming an exception process with a human queue processor.
Is tech really that relatively cushy? Because I'd quit for either of these, and I don't have any reason to fear them.
>Is tech really that relatively cushy?
Just wait till there is more supply than demand in programmers/tech. Then you'll learn how much the rest of the world sucks.
A lot of us here are earning in the top few percent of our countries households and we don't have to deal with any of the bullshit that people making 1/4th we do or less.
> Just wait till there is more supply than demand in programmers/tech.
Will this happen though? There's still a lot of work to be done, but principally I wonder if AI hype hasn't actually reduced the top of the funnel significantly. If non-programmers (i.e. those who might become programmers) believe the job "won't exist in six months", they are probably not going to set themselves up for that direction. Plus juniors starting work now will suffer from leaning on AI too much as well.
Overall I think it's counterintuitive. When I was growing up, it seemed obvious that my generation knew technology better than the last, and of course the next generation would be even more familiar. In practice though, kids these days are mostly phone-only. The ability to produce technological artifacts remains uncommon.
>Will this happen though?
I mean, it will, but trying to time the market is a hard game :D
How do you feel about Palantir?
That the capabilities of its technology are greatly exaggerated.
From an article in 2021 regarding Lyft, 38% of sexual assault is passengers assaulting drivers. [1]
Rep. Dingell says, "There is no trade-off that should be acceptable to Uber, considering the devastating impact of sexual assault"
But apparently there is a trade-off for her, seeing as she only wants to focus on one direction of this crime by fingerprints and background checks for drivers and no safeguards protecting drivers. Seems she has chosen to ignore 38% of sexual assaults as well. I wonder why her trade-off is morally superior?
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59008000
>I wonder why her trade-off is morally superior?
I mean, if you start using your thinking cap for a few minutes it makes sense.
1. The number of drivers is small. The number of passengers is large. This makes checks on drivers technically possible.
2. Drivers work in their own cars. Are you saying they should get bars installed between the back and front of the car?
3. The passengers are the random public, do you want to submit a criminal background check before riding in a car?
4. These are all things Uber can do themselves to protect their employees. These are not things the public can do to protect themselves from Uber employees.
How about we arrest, convict with due process, and incarcerate criminals?
Pushing predators around from job to job doesn't solve the problem.
> How about we arrest, convict with due process, and incarcerate criminals?
Many of these assaults may not rise to the level of criminality, either in their deeds or the quality of evidence.
How about we take sexual assault serious first. I mean, by doing things like not electing presidents convicted of sexual assault?
How about we teach sexual assault dynamics in school so people actually recognize it to report in the first place.
How about we go after the groups with people in positions of power over others that commit assaults at a much higher rate than the general population.
Oh, yea, because those people in power don't want that, would make their trips to private islands a bit hard to explain.
Not all crimes get a life sentence, nor should they.
There's anecdotal evidence that drivers can "rent" a clean identity, meaning that the person who is driving the car is not the person that Uber has on record as being the driver. Uber not looking into this and not being pickier about it, fits with other "I know nothing" corporate behaviors.
And it's not like there aren't a plethora of relatively accessible technical solutions to fix this problem like looking for inconsistency in nearby devices that accompany the driver and the usage behavior metrics in use within the advertising industry to de-anonymize users. Figuring out who someone is when they don't want you to know it's them is a scarily well solved problem at this point... figuring out if someone isn't the same person you thought they were yesterday is comparatively trivial.
Have you met a person and asked them what they do and they say "I am an attorney" and then you ask them, "Oh, what kind of attorney?" And they say, "I represent clients who sue Uber for sexual assault."
This is exactly why I think Waymo will win.
My wife and I went to a couple cities where Waymo operated and when we tried it were pleasantly surprised. Talked to a few people and did some research and it's clear women feel much safer and will pay the premium to have their type of experience vs basically a random gamble as to the type of person who will pick you up in an Uber.
Not to mention lately it seems like Ubers standards for the cars picking you up have gone way down the drain. That or maybe people are just lying or gaming the system about the state of their vehicles.
And on top of that there are plenty of drivers who probably shouldn't even have a license. As a man there have been plenty of rides where I've felt unsafe simply due to erratic driving.
What were you surprised about though? My expectation was always that it would be better, for various reasons.
See, I'm not sure I would feel safer that way. You can stop a Waymo with a couple traffic cones and then rob the occupants. I think busses and trains are way safer. They have transit police and drivers that are able to handle situations like assault. Also, in my experience, people tend to help out when someone is being a POS and you are less likely to be robbed on a bus than in a car.
I think the traffic cone robbery threat model also exists for non-Waymos (e.g. car jacking).
For an Uber, you have more people in the car. Also, the driver can avoid a robbery better than a robot. More people is safer in general.
This is... just not my experience at all. Passengers and transit workers alike ignore assaults. Even cops sometimes.
Anecdotally, I've had the opposite experience. However, the raw data shows the difference. Scientific American did a great article on the data released by the DOT in the USA.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-public-transit...
I closed my Uber account last month over issues like this. Uber has a bad corporate culture that seems incurable. They've had a series of immoral and even criminal scandals. I can't give them my money anymore. I vote with my wallet.
Gift Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/business/uber-scrutiny-se...
[flagged]
As a man, I never understood how bad this was. I have only felt unsafe in an Uber a few times, mostly because the driver should have had their license revoked due to their advanced age.
Without going into too much detail, I’ve learned just how bad it is. On the “less” vile end of things, my current parter had some desperate slime try to offer her money for sex. I made sure he reported him, but Silicon Valley loves to enable sex criminals, I imagine he’s still out there.
This is why Lyft enables women to order a woman driven Lyft.
https://www.lyft.com/women+
Uber received 400,000 reports of sexual misconduct from 2017 to 2022 - https://web.archive.org/web/20251023145410/https://www.engad... - August 7th, 2025
> Uber only disclosed 12,522 serious sexual assaults during the same period.
Uber’s Festering Sexual Assault Problem - https://web.archive.org/web/20251023144648mp_/https://www.ny... - August 6th, 2025
Uber does offer a similar setting in some markets. It took a while to roll out in the US because of legal uncertainties. So Uber waited until the feds gave them a promise that no action would be taken related to offering a “women only” or “women preferred” feature.
Uber was a mistake. Shut it down.