> Yeah, but when I get into a car it's not Uber Maps on the phone, it's Google Maps. So I'm not very concerned about a guy who worked at Uber for less than two years.

Navigation might be Google Maps or Waze, but everything else is Uber. My point is that Uber is 100% serious about mapping and they are investing a ton of resources into it. They're likely one of the few players who are doing this at scale, internationally.

> I'm sure he is, which is why he got the hell out of there.

Now you're projecting. He left Uber so that he can run for office in his hometown of Kansas City. I think he has a lot to contribute outside of technology. I got to know him because I went to a talk he gave once. And no I don't work for any of these companies.

> Taxes & Roads

Ultimately, everyone pays for roads. Not just drivers. And we pay for them because they're for the benefit of everyone. They enable services like GrubHub/Uber/UPS/Dominoes as well as commerce more generally - which in turn makes our lives better. It's a complex system, and I suspect that the tax revenue the government gets for roads is higher after the introduction of Uber/Lyft. With that being said, if you feel a tax is necessary then I respect that opinion. Even with a tax like you're suggesting, it won't change the demand curve meaningfully or affect Uber's profitability. It's likely serve to further entrench them if anything at this point.

With respect to your point about Airports, they're not even close to being paid for by the airlines in any meaningfully fair way. First of all, the government subsidizes it up front with billions of dollars, expensive zoning, planning resources etc. That's a huge capital risk that society takes on for the long-term benefit of everyone (you can't opt-out if you don't fly on planes). Yes, airlines pay usage taxes and some other fees that help pay for the airport but it stands to reason that the government won't recoup that kind of money in even a single decade. The government props up the airlines industry in large part because we demand it and it makes our lives better.

> Uber's success is basically because they were able to push all of the legacy costs of public transit onto taxpayers and claiming that they're more efficient. It's VC-funded bus routes but using a phone. DISRUPTION.

Absolutely wrong. I use Uber/Lyft every day. I don't have a car. Uber/Lyft are nothing like a bus route - not even close. To even suggest that they're similar to a traditional bus service route is to reveal that you haven't used the services in any meaningful way.

They are absolutely 100% disruptive (even more so if you're a woman and safety is important to you). I'm telling you, ride sharing has changed how I get around in cities, period. There's a reason drivers drive for these services. Ride sharing is creating a whole class of jobs that have a very important role to play in society. Stay-at-home moms that use Uber/Lyft to supplement their income while being able to have flexible work. Students that are just getting started in their career and are using Uber/Lyft to sustain themselves in the interim. Retired veterans who don't have any other way to earn a steady income. Deaf people who can't find jobs otherwise. Immigrants who are trying to build up a support base for themselves. The list goes on. Talk to the drivers, this kind of work is a big boon to a lot of people.

Now, should these be the only career options for people? Obviously not. I think that's where most people's concerns are valid. We can't create a society where this is the only type of work available. But can this type of work exist alongside other meaningful options? Of course!