new | show | ask | jobs Github

runako 18 hours ago

> these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states

Is this true at the city level?

> Sinking together isn't a great pitch.

Surely it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?

▲

JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?

It’s also worse to murder kittens. That isn’t the choice at hand.

The difference is between states adapting with a regulatory framework and those sticking with economic incumbents.

(Also, when the taxi medallion industry was at its peak, lenders did run roughshod over the law.)

▲

runako 17 hours ago | parent [-]

In context, your comment reads as a defense of companies ignoring laws:

>> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us

> Not if they’re stupid laws!

States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism.

▲

JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism

…how are you missing this.

I’m saying the states failing to adapt need to do so or have their governments replaced. That all of these states are also facing multi-party insurgencies doesn’t strike me as a coïncidence. Pretending the corruption in e.g. New York around this is fine is just such a weird take.

	▲	lokar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The desire to slow down and consider the fate of cab drivers (very hard working, low income people) is not automatically corruption.