41–50 of 500 posts
I wish people would stop posting twitter links, they're a coin toss if they're even viewable
I don't like that these get submitted either, but unfortunately people do post worthwhile stuff there and only there, and I don't want to just categorically forbid those posts.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/news/local/why-longtime-...
[flagged]
The point is it doesn't have to be life. We can make things so that you don't need a smartphone, but we choose not to. That's a choice, not some immutable reality of the universe.
Having a non-exfiltratable bearer token is really really hard. In order to present a zero-knowledge proof of the possession of a token you need to have some sort of challenge-response protocol. The simplest one, and the one in most common use (such as this) is a time-based method, where the shared knowledge of the current time represents the challenge.
The other method is to use civil identity as the challenge, and use government-issued IDs as the bearer token that the ticket is tied to. This doesn't scale well to larger events, and presents real challenges involved centralization of ticket exchange.
You can argue whether or not forgery is a significant enough problem to be worth this trouble, but that's a business decision, and as live events like this get more expensive forgery and resale become more and more of a problem, which end up locking out people like this who have legally and legitimately bought tickets but can't gain access to events because someone has stolen and resold their ticket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is it doesn't have to be life. We can make things so that you don't need a smartphone, but we choose not to. That's a choice, not some immutable reality of the universe.
We can, but why should we?
Parking in my town can now only be paid via smartphone. Yes, almost everyone has one, but: there are still people who do not.
super frustrating that i needed to sit in my car and download an app and set up an account just to park for an hour in a town i'm never going back to
We need to extend the ADA to protect people who are not technologically-abled.
This is a really good point. I'm surprised the box office cannot print it for him for a fee at Will Call, which might be the solution here.
Being a luddite is not a protected class.
We need to extend the ADA to protect people who are not technologically-abled.
This is a really good point. I'm surprised the box office cannot print it for him for a fee at Will Call, which might be the solution here.
I noticed the barcodes on the reporter's printed tickets in that video. I hope a nefarious actor doesn't freeze-frame it and reprint them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really good point. I'm surprised the box office cannot print it for him for a fee at Will Call, which might be the solution here.
No, it's not. If you are physically incapable of operating a piece of technology, the ADA covers reasonable accommodations for that. If you are simply unwilling to learn how to use a piece of technology, it doesn't and shouldn't cover that. Being a luddite is not a protected class.
Are Amish and Mennonites religiously protected luddites?