Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 500 posts

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#301

Post by ryandrake »

Lammy wrote: post #296
tim-tday wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a special ring of hell reserved for people who abuse the ADA. Such abuse is an insult to everyone who needs it, everyone who engages with it in good faith, everyone who spends gobs of money to make events and services accessible to those with genuine need. I don’t rule the world but if I did abusers of protective rules would be summarily executed. (Don’t vote for me. I’ve got a short but significant list of…

I don't agree that using the ADA in this way would be abuse.

The ADA was a rare "great" law, in that it is sweeping, applies broadly to many different forms of disability, and it provides companies very little leeway to weasel their way out of complying. It also provides us with a very, very good generic framework for consumer protections, should we ever get an administration who cared about consumer freedom over corporate interests. I'd love to see other (not disability related) ADA-like laws that compel companies to make other reasonable accommodations to be inclusive of reasonable consumers. All kinds of amazing "consumer bill of rights" regulation could be modeled after the ADA.

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#302

Post by tracker1 »

pc86 wrote: post #293
tracker1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... I mean, who says I should have to put in wheelchair ramps for my ballpark that seats tens of thousands? I mean, so few people use/need them, I should just be able to refuse service to those people. Right? /sarc

I don't want to blow your mind but choosing not to have a smartphone and being in a wheelchair are not remotely comparable.

So, you want to force people to give money to specific, monopolistic, corporations? Why would I want a smart phone if I'm blind... how am I expected to use a smart phone when I am blind, exactly?

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#303

Post by TeMPOraL »

butlike wrote: post #286
TeMPOraL wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Share" is one of the worst inventions of all. What it does in phones is random across apps and platforms, and usually has nothing to do with what the word "share" means in any other context.

You're sharing data between apps. It's an app->app API, essentially. You can easily send an app store listing to your Reminders "Wishlist" section if you want, for example. It's definitely not only social sharing.

I wasn't even thinking social. Problem is, the actual operation being done is one of:

- Give the other app a temporary/transient copy of a document or a file

- Give the other app the actual file (R/W)

- Give the other app the actual file but some other way (there's at least two in Android now, I believe?)

- Give the other app some weird-ass read-only lens into the actual file

- Re-encode the thing into something else and somehow stream it to the other app

- Re-encode the thing into something else and give it that (that's a lossy variant of transient copy case - example, contact info being encoded into textual "[Name] Blah\n[Mobile] +55 555 555 555" text/plain message).

- Upload it to cloud, give the other app a link

- Upload it to cloud, download it back, and give the other app a transient downloaded copy (?! pretty sure Microsoft apps do that, or at least that's what it feels when I try to "Share" stuff from that; totally WTF)

- Probably something else I'm missing.

You never really know which of these mechanisms will be used by a given app, until you try to "Share" something from it for the first time.

Now, I'm not saying the UI needs to expose the exact details of the process involved. But what it should do is to distinguish between:

1. Giving the other app access to the resource

2. Giving the other app an independent copy of the resource (and spell out if it's exact or mangled copy)

3. Giving the other app a pointer to the resource

In desktop terminology, this is the difference between Save As, Export and copying the file path/URL.

Also, desktop software usually gives you all three options. Mobile apps usually implement only one of them as "Share", so when you need one of the not chosen options, you're SOL.

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#304

Post by whyenot »

crazygringo wrote: post #52

From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification. You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anym…

So what you are saying is, it's ok to exclude the Amish, and others who chose not to use a cell phone for religious (or other) reasons, from buying a season ticket. That sounds like discrimination on the basis of religion ;)

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#305

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

9rx wrote: post #267
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cheap undubsidized Android phone is $40 on Amazon

Amazon also only sells digitally. So now he has to buy a smartphone in order to get a smartphone from Amazon in order to get tickets? The guy doesn't even want one smartphone let alone two.

Okay or Walmart are you now suggesting that the world should never move on from anything analog?

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#306

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #276
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s often just stubbornness. My dad is 85 and he can take the time to learn anything he wants to learn. But refuses to change when he doesn’t. My mom is 83, a retired school teacher and she has been using computers since 1986 and has an entire networked computer setup in her office with multiple computers and printers. She went from the original Apple //e version of AppleWorks to Office now.

> My dad is 85 and he can take the time to learn anything he wants to learn. But refuses to change when he doesn’t. I think that's natural and reasonable. I'm certainly less tolerant of drains on my time as I get older. I can imagine that, at 85, I would be making a lot of calculations about ROI on my time. Edit: For those seeing an argument in my statement above re: forcing people to use technology or forcing busine…

And then that’s a you problem no one should be forced to make affordances for things you can do and are unwilling to do

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#307

Post by charcircuit »

ryandrake wrote: post #270
crazygringo wrote: post #52

From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification. You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anym…

> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone. This logic justifies buying any other unrelated product as a condition of being allowed to buy baseball tickets. Does this mean that the Dodgers should be able to make "owning a car" also a condition of being allowed to buy baseball tickets? After all, if you can afford season tickets, you should be able to afford a car payment. Mayb…

Even before computers there were companies that required you to pay for a phone (call) in order to transact with a business. Or interact with a mail carrier to order something by mail order.

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#308

Post by Tangurena2 »

ryandrake wrote: post #270
crazygringo wrote: post #52

From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification. You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anym…

> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone. This logic justifies buying any other unrelated product as a condition of being allowed to buy baseball tickets. Does this mean that the Dodgers should be able to make "owning a car" also a condition of being allowed to buy baseball tickets? After all, if you can afford season tickets, you should be able to afford a car payment. Mayb…

In some stadiums, the seat and the ticket are sold separately (example: Levi's Stadium [0]). You have to buy the seat and if you want to see a game, then buy a ticket to sit in the seat you own to watch that game (or rock concert).

Notes:

0 - https://levisstadium.com/tickets-suites/

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#309

Post by incanus77 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #202
Raed667 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can get a smartphone dedicated to the ticket app if it is such a huge piece of his life/hobby

"Cheap android phone" on Google Shopping shows options for $30. Didn't even know they get that cheap.

Is then logging into your Google account (if you have one) also without cost and tradeoffs?

Re: 81yo Dodgers fan can no longer get tickets because he doesn't have a smartphone

#310

Post by scoofy »

joquarky wrote: post #264
scoofy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. Maybe he doesn't then get any of the benefits of having a smartphone. I don't understand why we need to bend over backwards for folks who have chosen to ignore modernity. There was a woman in my neighborhood association at one point who would throw a fit about us using email for communication be…

If it's so important to modernity then it shouldn't be handled by private companies.

Your idealism is fine, and I think regulation of this is completely reasonable, but this isn't much different than private automobile or bicycle companies for transportation. The biggest issue here is an anti-trust concern about two app stores, which should not be allowed. That has nothing to do, however, with having a portable computer to help you with high-end exchanges of goods and services.
Post reply on HN