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

401–410 of 500 posts

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

#401

Post by etc-hosts »

moondance wrote: post #67
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…

Have you had the pleasure of coaching a technologically illiterate grandparent through the process of learning how to use a smartphone? It’s a never-ending job and disheartening for all parties involved. Modern mobile UX is not designed with accessibility for the elderly in mind, and it is constantly changing in a way that demands constant re-learning. Not to mention the disabilities and neurological conditions often…

Whenever I click through the 10 screens I need to get through to pay at Target or the local large grocery store, and I'm not even talking about Self Checkout, I seethe thinking maybe the "YOU WILL EAT THE BUGS" guys have the right idea. There's no way my elderly mother would be able to deal.

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

#402

Post by etc-hosts »

mrweasel wrote: post #79
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…

There's an amusement park we like to go to. We get season passes, which normally means renewing the small plastic card we got the first year. They've switched to app only this year, with the option of getting a card, if for some reason you cannot or will not use the app. I believe there's a small fee for issuing the card. I believe their reasoning is much the same. They have some types of tickets, which can technical…

The app is also probably affecting the phone in some way when you're not trying to enter the park.

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

#403

Post by kube-system »

throwawaypath wrote: post #391
kube-system wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> multiple telcos have already entirely disabled MMS at the network level. Really? Are they just presuming all of their customer can use RCS now? Or am I missing something?

>Really? Yes, really! >Are they just presuming all of their customer can use RCS now? Or am I missing something? Vast majority presume customers are using WhatsApp or similar apps to share photos and such. RCS rollout has been slow, but picked up on the last few years. Countries with operators that have discontinued MMS include: India (BSNL; from 1 November 2015),[16] Philippines (Sun Cellular, Smart Communications,…

Ah I forgot most of the world stopped using the phone part of their phone.

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

#404

Post by kortilla »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #339
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there isn’t a good reason for the nanny state and giving the government more power over your life

1980 wants it's republican talking point back. It's 2026, we've seen that free speech absoluters don't actually care about protecting all speech. We've seen 'small government' and 'no government power over your life' supporters suddenly just fine with it when women's right to choose is taken away by the government. Or when the government wants to decide/legally enforce gender their gender definition. We've seen the '…

These are all great arguments against a big federal nanny state. You’re just finally recognizing why it’s bad when the federal government doesn’t vote your way

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

#405

Post by dghlsakjg »

tim-tday wrote: post #271
dghlsakjg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law that he can invoke in a weaponized way is the ADA. It’s vague enough about what a disability is, that something like “my hand tremor and farsightedness preclude using a touchscreen, I request a reasonable accommodation” is a valid request. If they deny admission and accommodation to somebody incapable of using a smartphone, there is a whole army of lawyers that will gladly take the case on contingency. As you…

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…

If his inability to access a ticket on a smartphone has anything to do with an illness, or physical/mental impairment - say, age related cognitive decline - it is exactly what the law is for. The tweet is vague but he says it is too difficult for him which sounds like a physical or mental issue. It doesn’t sound like he is asking for anything but to be able to use his tickets.

I’m actually not convinced that ADA “abuse” is a problem. I once had to do an urgent web redesign nbecause someone who was “abusing” the system with dozens of lawsuits. It’s actually dead easy to get out of an ADA lawsuit: you just provide a reasonable accommodation. In our case it forced the corporate decision makers to prioritize making the site accessible. We provided a temporary disability assistance hotline, and got the site compliant. The lawsuit was dropped, now EVERY disabled person is better served because one “abusive” litigant was trolling for settlements. It doesn’t really matter if the plaintiff actually had a disability that made it impossible to use the site, at the end of the day, it forced a change that needed to happen.

If this gentleman used the ADA inappropriately to get paper tickets, it would set up a process and precedent for other people who have disabilities that preclude smartphone use regardless of his own condition. Sounds like a win to me…

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

#406

Post by robocat »

dmitrygr wrote: post #319
tjohns wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could still get prohibitively expensive. Take the example from this article, where there's only one person still using the paper ticket option... I could see someone arguing you need a specially trained staff member or supervisor to verify your ID for anti-scalping, which they don't need to do for other e-tickets. Say only one person uses this option all season, they could be asked to pay for an entire employee'…

If the law had existed all along, it would not be a non-standard workflow. And there is precedent on the pricing. For example, FAA is not allowed to charge any more for any service than it costs to deliver said service, which is why if i lose my pilot's license, a replacement is $3.

There's no way that costs the FAA $3. It is a wealthy service for wealthy people, so they can afford to absorb some costs. Your knowledge and wording indicates you are likely part of the demographic that knows how to threaten with lawyers.

One cause for the cost-recovery rule was the case Asiana Airlines v. FAA: The court ruled that the FAA’s enabling statute required fees to be "directly related" to the agency's actual costs. They held that the FAA couldn't look at the value of the service to the airline; they could only look at the receipts for what it cost the FAA to "flip the switches and manage the radar".

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

#407

Post by kleiba »

bradlys wrote: post #347
kleiba wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't really use a lot of service that require 2FA and for the ones I have to (e.g. work), there's always been a workaround. But this might not really have been a 2FA case - I mean, I was physically sitting in the bank.

It’s setting up 2FA.

What for? It was a mandatory step but my wife and I will manage the credit through an app on her phone. Minimally, I should have the option to waive it.

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

#408

Post by bradlys »

kleiba wrote: post #407
bradlys wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s setting up 2FA.

What for? It was a mandatory step but my wife and I will manage the credit through an app on her phone. Minimally, I should have the option to waive it.

You’re both signing up and aren’t one singular entity. She might be the one actually using the app and whatever line of credit but you’re still signing up with the bank. They need a way to do 2FA for you and not just her. If you divorce, how are they going to do 2FA when you’re separated? If it was her phone number then she could imitate you and get more credit or do whatever.

Etc. etc.

Genuinely no idea why you’re not considering this.

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

#409

Post by bradlys »

ryandrake wrote: post #351
bradlys wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not ridiculous. It’s for you to verify. It’s setting up 2FA. How can you not understand that?

2FA presumes user-ownership of the second factor, and that possession of the second factor authenticates that the possessor is the account owner. It's ridiculous because in the OP's case, he literally had someone else temporarily hand him the second factor in front of the clerk: the 2FA didn't really authenticate anything, and the clerk could even see that.

Yes. It presumes things but it also allows the bank deniability. If you get completely hosed - it’s mostly on you for supplying a shit 2FA.

Come on guys. It’s obvious why banks have this. Everything identity related is stolen constantly.

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

#410

Post by bradlys »

kube-system wrote: post #367
bradlys wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not ridiculous. It’s for you to verify. It’s setting up 2FA. How can you not understand that?

Even if it was useful in OPs case -- which it wasn't -- SMS 2FA is frowned upon by all modern security standards because it has several severe security issues.

I agree it sucks. Sadly, the world we live in. It’s a stop gap. Most people aren’t special enough to have their shit scooped up by some foreign telco operator.
Post reply on HN