> The primary purpose of surge pricing isn't to maximize profit, it's to increase supply.

Hm. This doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

If say 500 people take an Uber to a venue or need an Uber from the airport, increasing the price more often than not is just going to increase revenue. The price increase doesn't force you into an alternative choice if there are no alternatives.

Many places don't have substantial taxi or similar services, and public transit doesn't meet that same need with people in suburbs / ex-urbs / rural.

the price increase can incentivize more drivers thus increasing supply. conversely driving the price to zero would certain increase demand and eliminate supply.

i mean, if you posit inelastic demand, you dont get you pretend you derived it as a conclusion right?

Also it decrease demand. Someone who is feeling ”eh maybe I’ll take an uber or the train” will be more likely to take the train.

Not an option in much of the US. I'd argue it's mostly a Bay Area and DC corridor thing.

> the price increase can incentivize more drivers thus increasing supply

But never high enough to meaningfully dilute or really in any way change demand, and by raising the number of drivers, the parent company ultimately still makes more profit.

This seems self reinforcing.

> i mean, if you posit inelastic demand, you dont get you pretend you derived it as a conclusion right?

I'm not pretending anything, I'm considering the reality on the ground when I travel across the US.

Lots of those these days. Zacaler has a fair amount of enterprise market penetration.

> And hasn't had any cultural relevance aside from this stunt for just about the last decade.

You're right! Their own claim is that it's insane they're still around, because they find it hard to match the absurdity of the last 10 years.

> and Chrome

Works fine here Version 147.0.7727.101 (Official Build) (64-bit) (.102 is the Mac version)

Edit: Based on a comment below, you may have cookies disabled.

> Can anyone explain why on earth VC's are making actual investment decisions based on imaginary internet points?

I have personally seen several company CEOs (that were billionaires!) do this in different ways. Sometimes hiring people because of it.

> They can automate but they are not reliable.

This is why I won't use them for anything externally facing or with high or even moderate damage potential.

Which basically means they don't get used at all.

This is my point ... it is a change of perspective. They are best suited for cooperation for now.

> Not to be a narc or anything, but is OpenClaw liable to just perform illegal acts on your behalf just because it seemed like that's what you meant for it to do?

There's at least a couple of dozen instances right now, somewhere, getting very close to designing boutique chemical weapons.

> The number one goal of AI should be to eliminate human exploitation.

I have some bad news.

100%

- US democracy rating is way down.

- Pardons way up.

- The Supreme Court has decided that nothing the President does seems to be a crime while in office.

> We need a different hosting model.

There really isn't an option here, IMO.

1. Somebody does it

2. You do it

Much happier doing it myself tbh.

There's a lot of wiggle room on how you define "it". At the ends of the spectrum it's obvious, but in the middle it gets a bit sticky.