Live data from Hacker News

How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

maia.crimew.gay

91–100 of 677 posts

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#91
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I don't respect people's pronoun preferences because that would be creating reasons to hate people This has got to be peak hacker news

At least it got flagged! But since I can't reply to it and put some effort into typing a reply, I hope you don't mind me dropping it below.

---

What? I agree that for my tastes a lot of people take gender very seriously. But it seems wild to me to think this is somehow a new phenomenon.

For millennia in many societies one's society-assigned gender determined a great deal about one's status, including what work you could do, what work you could do, and what sort of violence against you was acceptable. And in a lot of times and places, misgendering somebody was used as a deliberate insult and could even be seen as "fighting words", legitimate legal cause for violence.

The only thing that has changed lately is a bit of individual freedom in picking that role for one's self. For those people, many consider it rude to ignore their choices, partly because of the history of gender, but partly because those people are targets of bigotry and violence. There's a whole list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_bein...

All moral codes have a "coercive" element to them, just like all legal codes do. If you're going to be rude, people may, gasp, say something about it. You trying to establish a different coercive moral code against that isn't somehow better. And getting all het up about it in this specific case, instead of all the other codes of politeness, suggests it's not really "coercive" morality you care about.

Personally, it seems to me that trans folks have a pretty hard role in life. They always did, but now at least they're getting to be open about it. I'm glad to support them in that; calling them how they want to be called seems like literally the least I could do. Indeed, as a thoroughgoing nerd, I spent a lot of my childhood getting shit on for being different, so I'm happy to help make space for different kinds of difference.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#92
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the nofly csv is almost 80mb in size and contains over 1.56 million rows of data. this HAS to be the real deal (we later get confirmation that it is indeed a copy of the nofly list from 2019).

CSV you say? Let's hope Bobby Droptable's cousin Bobby Double Quote Comma-Semicolon don't get in it...

Oh don’t. I spent several hours last week unfucking one of those.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#93
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish everyone was just named James. I had a good friend named James and it’s much easier to call everyone that than to learn a bunch of individual names.

It makes sense to me that individuals should have names. Pronouns tend to be much less information dense, and are used as shorthand. It doesn't make sense to me that pronouns should capture gender, as opposed to hair color, height, or age.

The property that pronouns capture is essentially arbitrary. That's why Romance languages assign gender to stuff like telephones and sandwiches.

The point of gendered pronouns is that sentences very often have two nouns: a subject and object. If you have only a single pronoun, then any sentence can only use a pronoun to unambiguously refer to one of those. If you have two pronouns and you randomly and evenly distribute them across various subjects, then it's fairly likely that the subject and object will get difference ones and you can now unambiguously use pronouns for both.

Since a very large fraction of human speech pertains to other humans and since human sex is a roughly 50/50 distribution, it makes some sense that we used gender as our mostly arbitrary thing to assign a pair of pronouns too. We could have used, say handedness instead, but with only ~10% of people being left-handed, the odds of a sentence being about a righty and a lefty is much smaller.

Pronouns are basically like special variables in a REPL that let you refer to the most recent expression. It's nice if you can refer back to a couple of them.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't disagree with you in principle, but this take ignores the boots-on-the-ground reality for trans and nonbinary people. Trans and nonbinary people are using this as a shibboleth to determine whether they can feel safe around you. You are not someone who wishes nonbinary or trans people harm, but unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population that does. The act of using someone's preferred pronouns is…

Yeah, I have trans friends and former colleagues, and can confirm all of this. I'd love to live in a world where it wasn't controversial or dangerous, but we are not in that world yet.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#95
post #40

Relatively off-topic, but I absolutely love the 90s/early 2000s vibes I get from this. I can't remember the last time I saw a webring, much less one with animated logos.

This whole thing has made me incredibly happy to see that somewhere, someone out there on the internet is pwning people for stupid vulnerabilities and posting about it on a site that looks like this one. I admit the flashing ACAB really did it for me.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious to learn: if “they” is being added to style guides as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender, is “it” the same or is there a somewhat different meaning behind the usage?

> if “they” is being added to style guides as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender Hasn’t it always been the case that you could use “they” as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender? I seem to recall that “they” has been in use in that manner long before non-binary arguments were something I’d heard about.

No, and it’s frustrating for people who had it hammered into their reading and writing habits all through school. I can’t read a singular “they” without mentally tripping on it.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#98

This is clearly on the darker side of gray-hat. Hate to be preachy but anyone seeking to emulate this sort of attack-finding should consider their ethical obligations as a computer scientist and follow best practices for responsible disclosure. It appears this was completely ignored here, including sharing stolen sensitive data of normal people with whoever can plead a case.

Seems to making it's prosecutors jobs really easy, by incriminating itself.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#99
post #91
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't respect people's pronoun preferences because that would be creating reasons to hate people This has got to be peak hacker news

At least it got flagged! But since I can't reply to it and put some effort into typing a reply, I hope you don't mind me dropping it below. --- What? I agree that for my tastes a lot of people take gender very seriously. But it seems wild to me to think this is somehow a new phenomenon. For millennia in many societies one's society-assigned gender determined a great deal about one's status, including what work you co…

Have a nice day.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#100

[flagged]

I’m curious to learn: if “they” is being added to style guides as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender, is “it” the same or is there a somewhat different meaning behind the usage?

I once saw someone who goes by “it” explain that it liked “it” because it has a sort of ungendered quality to it, whereas “they” is instead gender-neutral. It explained that we use “they” to refer to humans because we assume humans are gendered, and the implied gender is the quality that makes “they” (or for that matter “he” or “she”) implicitly refer to a human. But it rejects the notion humans must be gendered, or that humans without gender are not human.

I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but it got me to think. It blends the linguistic and the philosophical.

Post reply on HN