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

Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 457 posts

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#341

Post by martin_a »

arein3 wrote: post #328
jbstack wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll flip this around and say I've never understood why an airline is viewed as a special case. In the general case, if you enter into a contract and pay for a service, then don't receive that service, you're entitled to sue the service provider for your losses. For example, if I turn up to a hotel I booked only to find that the room isn't available, I'm entitled to sue the hotel for my cost in finding a reasonable l…

There are exceptional cases, detrimental to both you and the company. Company already swallowed a pretty serious loss, in that case arguably common sense is to let it go, sometimes sh*t happens.

I think that's exactly the case you would insure yourself against as an airline, so when shit hits the fan, you will not collapse.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#342

Post by wila »

gaudystead wrote: post #322
anonymars wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, that's only one-party consent

The operators of the phone system are consenting to the call being recorded by informing you that the call is being recorded. You are consenting to the call being recorded by continuing with the call. How is that not two party consent?

It's not a consent, because the options are "Yes" and "Yes", you cannot opt out unless you quit the call.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#344

Post by GuB-42 »

epolanski wrote: post #275
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They failed to uphold their end of the contract and caused OP to experience damages.

Poor op. /s This is the kind of attitude that puts pressure on airlines and thus pilots to fly even when situation is dubious.

The company has a lot more to lose from pilots taking risks than from angry passengers who missed their meetings.

Everything done to and in an airplane is recorded, there are standard procedures for emergency situations, which pilots are expected to follow, and if the pilot didn't, he needs a really good reason, and avoiding passengers suing the company for compensation is not a good reason. We may be taking criminal charges here, this is one of the few cases where high ranking officials can go to prison, in addition to fines big enough to bankrupt the company. This is serious business, and the reason why aviation is so safe despite the risks inherent to flying.

Safety, and in particular compliance with safety regulations is non-negotiable. And you will notice that even the shittiest airlines (including Spirit) have a safety record on par with the best. It is just too risky to try to save money here.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#345

Post by robotresearcher »

akersten wrote: post #284
missedthecue wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because airlines don't -and can't- promise incident free travel. They promise to get you to your destination. They don't like engine problems and the domino effect that has on their routing any more than you do. Saying this as someone with over a million miles flown, I've seen the worst sides of airlines. But let's be real, their slim margins cannot support bonusing out every passenger with a sob story about getting…

> They promise to get you to your destination. Critically they promise "by a certain time" as well. Surely with so many miles you are aware of the "significant disruption to my travel plans" aspect to getting compensated for a service that they failed to deliver. Plane crews timing out on the tarmac at midnight forcing everyone aboard to lose a day of travel is not a "sob story" it is a systemic and purposeful optimi…

Can you find language in the ticket contract that says “by a certain time"?

It would kinda surprise me if that’s true. There’s an enormous difference in cost to provide a best effort, usually fine service, and a contract to get you there by a deadline. I could be mistaken but I bet there is no such promise.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#346

Post by ncr100 »

xrd wrote: post #19

About twenty years ago, I was taking a flight back from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to the US. In the middle of the night the pilot got on the loudspeaker and said "hi! Having some engine trouble, so we are landing in Manaus." Manaus is in the middle of the Amazon. Needless to say, a bit scary to hear that, but we landed without issue. They told us we had two choices: the nice hotel with a shared room, or the lesser nice…

Manaus has a population of 2.2 million people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manaus

It's a major city.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#347

Post by ncr100 »

mcphage wrote: post #158
totallykvothe wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was only 3 myths. Hardly a brazilian

Not even a gorillion

Sadly it looks like that term in the modern vernacular is co-opted by white supremacists ! https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/six-gorillion

Beware, unless that's what was intended.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#348

Post by cube00 »

gspr wrote: post #83
embedding-shape wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but Google promised to remove PII they found in this deidentified dataset, so worry not. > If you’ve flown Spirit and worry that Google will soon know about a testy conversation you had with the airline’s call center, you’re being told not to worry. The court filing says the data was deidentified before being put on sale and Google has promised to scrub any PII it finds in the trove.

> Ah, but Google promised to remove PII they found in this deidentified dataset, so worry not. … and even if someone can prove that they didn't, the only consequences will be a teeny-tiny slap on the wrists. This kind of stuff needs to come with promises to pay the P in the PII big bucks if the I is indeed I.

> even if someone can prove that they didn't

Only a whistle-blower could, it'll all be locked down as trade secrets because it's (allegedly) giving their AI the edge over the competition.

Unfortunately the whistle-blower will never work in big tech again if they do so I don't see it happening.

Not that it really matters, data breaches are happening more then ever with no consequences and data brokers are legal companies.

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#349

Post by anonymars »

wila wrote: post #342
gaudystead wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operators of the phone system are consenting to the call being recorded by informing you that the call is being recorded. You are consenting to the call being recorded by continuing with the call. How is that not two party consent?

It's not a consent, because the options are "Yes" and "Yes", you cannot opt out unless you quit the call.

I mixed it up and GP is right. But you are also right (which illustrates the point GGP was making)

If you and I are in a phone call (the target of the phone call located in a one-party consent jurisdiction), I can record it or you can record it without telling the other: that's one-party consent, because one of the parties of the call consents to it

At first glance that may sound pointless, but it means a third party outside the call (e.g. phone company) could not record it without one of us consenting

By notifying that the call is being recorded, that now can create two-party consent because you are still on the line (and thus implicitly agree to the recording, but as you and GGP point out that's not always considered consent enough) -- one-party consent would have been if the company on the other side of the line simply recorded the call without telling you

Re: Google has acquired the data of failed US airline Spirit

#350

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

xrd wrote: post #19

About twenty years ago, I was taking a flight back from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to the US. In the middle of the night the pilot got on the loudspeaker and said "hi! Having some engine trouble, so we are landing in Manaus." Manaus is in the middle of the Amazon. Needless to say, a bit scary to hear that, but we landed without issue. They told us we had two choices: the nice hotel with a shared room, or the lesser nice…

>Isn't my poor writing style basically my signature? How do you wipe that?

Stylometry obfuscation is a surprisingly strong point in favor of using wholly LLM generated writing to rephrase your points. If someone sees a — and doesn't know you're intentionally trying to snuggle good points through blandly mellifluous prose, they'll just assume you're like every other boring dangerous professional out there. Nothing to worry about.

Post reply on HN