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

491–500 of 500 posts

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

#491

Post by orf »

antisol wrote: post #486
orf wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you’re focusing too much on the hospital receptionist part - in reality they deal with crazy people all the time. It’s ok to think that the average reaction to someone pronouncing that they are a ‘hazard to national security’ in otherwise normal interactions wouldn’t be ‘well that person is crazy’. You don’t need to take it so personally. I just hope you don’t go around saying awkward outlandish grandios…

Interesting, I didn't know goalposts could move quite so fast or often. Not sure why you made up a scenario involving a hospital receptionist, or why you chose to echo my point that they deal with all kinds of crazy shit. I challenged your assertion that it was an 'outlandish and obvious lie' for one to state that they don't have a smartphone due to a court determining they're a threat to national security, and that…

it's always good to ensure you read what you are replying to, just so everyone is on the same page.

> Not sure why you made up a scenario involving a hospital receptionist

from: "When I run into this (most recently at a hospital)"

> I challenged your assertion that it was an 'outlandish and obvious lie' for one to state that they don't have a smartphone due to a court determining they're a threat to national security

and we're back to "Is your point that because you can name one person who was banned from using a computer before the invention of the smart phone, a receptionist working at a hospital would therefore consider that a reasonable and common reason for someone to not possess a smart phone?"

i guess your long winded answer to that is "yes", and i guess we'll just leave this discussion at that because i don't believe there is much to add to that.

in the future, you could have just replied "yes" to that comment and saved us all some time. instead you derailed the discussion because you couldn't identify the outlandish part in the sentence "i'm banned from using a phone by court order because i'm a threat to national security", then continued to focus on what a specific receptionist might think rather than see that it's obviously a stand-in for someone else you're interacting with.

to summarise for you in clear language, because i think you perhaps you need to hear this:

- telling someone else that you are a threat to national security when you are, in fact, not a threat to national security is a strange, outlandish lie

- it is very obvious to people if you tell them strange, outlandish lies during a conversation

- the general reaction to you doing something abnormal like that during a otherwise normal situation is for the other person to consider you abnormal

- the colloquial, catch-all term for this is "crazy"

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

#492

Post by crazygringo »

nobody9999 wrote: post #466
crazygringo wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there's an option to unsubscribe from marketing emails. Did you try? It's highly illegal not to have that.

>Surely there's an option to unsubscribe from marketing emails. Did you try? It's highly illegal not to have that. IIRC, agreeing to receive marketing emails was one of the terms of installing the app which was required to use the tickets. No matter. I just corralled that spam in a folder and ignored them (which is how I knew how many -- >100 -- I received) for the couple of months I had the app installed. Once I att…

I think you are not remembering correctly. The app does not require you to receive marketing e-mails. It can't supersede law, and it does not in my experience.

Unsubscribing from marketing e-mails does actually work. It's vastly simpler than trying to filter, reject, etc. And this way you still get the actual important emails. Like when an event gets cancelled, or other important information.

You don't need to get all snarky. Just consider this a learning opportunity.

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

#493

Post by kube-system »

bradlys wrote: post #410
kube-system wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue goes far beyond foreign telco operators.

1. It is quite easily to accidentally take over someone's account(s) on various mobile apps when you get a new phone number these days. Many apps will allow you to log in with your phone number, reset password or do one-time login via SMS, etc. Some even do it automatically as a convenience. This isn't an edge case issue -- this happens on several of the top social media platforms, etc.

2. SIM swapping is still a viable fraud vector for identity theft and financial crime.

3. It is very vulnerable to phishing, and its prevalence only has exacerbated that.

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

#494

Post by crazygringo »

jjulius wrote: post #443
crazygringo wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need to log in to something, yes you need always-on, 24-7 access to email or to SMS depending on how the service/account is configured. That's a very common form of 2FA. I'm not victim-blaming, this is just bog-standard security. And what I said is "not a thing" is TicketMaster preventing you from entering an event because you've changed location and that you "have no recourse". You definitely have recourse, t…

Again, the point is that that shouldn't need to be how things function. That you ignore that point of my comment and continue to blame the person for not adhering to how things are misses the point and just continues this circular conversation. Enjoy your day.

Companies don't implement security measures for the fun of it. They do it to prevent hacking, theft, and fraud.

So funny, HN is usually pro-security and pro-2FA.

This conversation isn't circular, you're the one who seems to be missing that this is just standard practice, and for good reason. People try to pull all kinds of scams with tickets. Requiring you merely to log in with 2FA is not problematic.

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

#495

Post by MandieD »

tedmiston wrote: post #472
MandieD wrote: post #93

My 75-year-old, retired construction worker dad’s fingers are nearly useless on capacitive screens; half a century of handling cement apparently has that effect. His deep East Texas accent was still only semi comprehensible to Siri the last time I had him try with my phone. He recently missed several notifications from his truck’s dealership that the part they ordered was in and ready for installation, because they s…

> I’m terrified that there’s going to be a doctor’s office sometime that does the same, with more serious consequences. they can send scheduling info, appt reminders, etc via SMS but (1) they must allow opt out, and (2) they cannot send medical info this way — that's where HIPAA requires encrypted "patient portal" messaging because SMS can be intercepted or accessed by others.

That's good to know - I'll tell him to check that with his current doctors' offices, and make sure that he makes it clear for any new practices he visits that he only does phone calls and postal mail.

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

#496

Post by antisol »

orf wrote: post #491
antisol wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I didn't know goalposts could move quite so fast or often. Not sure why you made up a scenario involving a hospital receptionist, or why you chose to echo my point that they deal with all kinds of crazy shit. I challenged your assertion that it was an 'outlandish and obvious lie' for one to state that they don't have a smartphone due to a court determining they're a threat to national security, and that…

it's always good to ensure you read what you are replying to, just so everyone is on the same page. > Not sure why you made up a scenario involving a hospital receptionist from: "When I run into this (most recently at a hospital)" > I challenged your assertion that it was an 'outlandish and obvious lie' for one to state that they don't have a smartphone due to a court determining they're a threat to national security…

Well it seems I forgot a detail, and you didn't make up the hospital receptionist, you just brought her up and then for some reason asked why I was responding to the scenario you brought up.

  > and we're back to "Is your point that because you can name one person who was banned from using a computer before the invention of the smart phone, a receptionist working at a hospital would therefore consider that a reasonable and common reason for someone to not possess a smart phone?"
No, I already responded to that, pointing out that I could name a bunch of others if I spent 30 seconds on it. And in fact i did name another right there. And you totally failed to respond to that part of my post and instead decided to wildly guess what the internal monologue of a receptionist might be, as if that was somehow relevant.

It's always good to ensure you read what you're replying to, just so everyone is on the same page.

In the future, you could have just replied "ok so my comment was hyperbolic" to my initial post and saved us all some time. Instead you derailed the discussion by trying to shift goalposts and change the subject to something you thought you could "win", for some reason.

There's other things in your long-winded posts which I could respond to, but given that you've repeatedly failed to respond at all to points I've made, for example where I asked why you seem to think there's no middle ground between "common" and "outlandish lie", but why would I bother? It's not like you'd respond to any points showing how your logic is flawed. So I guess we'll just leave this discussion at that because i don't believe there is much to add to that.

To summarise this for you in clear language, since I think you perhaps need to hear this:

* There are multiple already-cited precedents for exactly the type of thing you're calling an "outlandish and obvious lie". If you'd like more examples, I'd suggest a search engine, where you'll find lots of them.

* It's possible for things to be uncommon edge-cases without being "outlandish" or "obvious lies"

* Hospital receptionists deal with these uncommon edge cases all the time, and are trained to do so. They also regularly deal with crazy people too, and are vanishingly unlikely to even bat an eye at the claim you're calling out. It's unlikely to be the craziest thing they've heard today. And it might even be true.

* There's no compelling, widely-accepted evidence of extraterrestrial visitations to earth, or of their interest in smartphones. Which makes the claim "i don't have a phone because aliens took it" orders of magnitude less likely to be true than the claim that one doesn't have a phone because a court decided that they are a threat to national security - something that, while uncommon, has definitely happened.

* Simply assuming that something is a lie because you haven't personally heard of it before is an excellent way to be incorrect.

* It's actually not a personal attack when someone points out that your logic is flawed and that you're lacking relevant information. And so you probably shouldn't take such things personally and get all upset because your obvious, incorrect hyperbole was called out for what it was.

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

#497

Post by 9rx »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #489
9rx wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He opted out of getting tickets over learning how to “navigate a computer & phone” Which is just a cost. Either he has to pay to learn, or pay someone else to do it for him. A cost you maintain is just $40. > If the price of the season tickers had been x+$40 this year do you think he would have broken his 50 year streak? Well, given your assertions about $40 being the added cost, that' exactly what he did. Allegedl…

I am not trying to say anything. I’m saying you pulled the idea that he couldn’t afford a phone but could afford season tickets for 50 years is ludicrous and you are the only person that has jumped to that conclusion when absolutely everyone else read just what the article says - he doesn’t know how to use a computer or a phone.

> he doesn’t know how to use a computer or a phone.

Or how to interact with other humans? Because if he understood that he would find someone to do the computer stuff for him. Of course, he spoke to the reporter just fine, so we know it isn't people skills that is the problem. Clearly its that $40 more puts the price of the tickets over what he has the budget for. Simple as that.

I know you are Mr. Moneybags over here and don't understand how normal people have limits on how much they can spend, but that's the reality for most. Especially those at the age of 81 who cannot reasonably mortgage their future.

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

#498

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

9rx wrote: post #497
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not trying to say anything. I’m saying you pulled the idea that he couldn’t afford a phone but could afford season tickets for 50 years is ludicrous and you are the only person that has jumped to that conclusion when absolutely everyone else read just what the article says - he doesn’t know how to use a computer or a phone.

> he doesn’t know how to use a computer or a phone. Or how to interact with other humans? Because if he understood that he would find someone to do the computer stuff for him. Of course, he spoke to the reporter just fine, so we know it isn't people skills that is the problem. Clearly its that $40 more puts the price of the tickets over what he has the budget for. Simple as that. I know you are Mr. Moneybags over her…

Im saying you are completely trying to cover yourself for making a dumb assumption that absolutely no one else is making. He is not eating beans and rice and paying for season tickers 50 years. How exactly did he “budget” for season tickers down to penny before the prices were announced? There is absolutely no indication that if they had announced the tickets were $40 more who would have broken his streak.

You are making a completely unwarranted assumption that no one else made

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

#499

Post by queenkjuul »

eudamoniac wrote: post #272
queenkjuul wrote: post #174

People like to say "vote with your wallet, your privacy is your problem" with regard to smartphones, but like going to a baseball game has for a couple years now required you to have an Android or iOS device, same with many concerts and shows. It's simply not reasonable to have to give up baseball and concerts to avoid your phone spying on you. And when accessing your bank or your local sports teams or your favorite…

> It's simply not reasonable > voting with your wallet becomes impossible > nobody would ever choose their privacy Drawing the line at skipping music concerts is a choice, which to you is impossible, but to others is trivial... There have always been these lines. It gets slightly harder every year to choose privacy because of people with your mindset about their specific thing they aren't willing to give up, but this…

Let's say I've been voting with my wallet for fifteen years and using dumb phones, and also going to baseball games.

Now, baseball games require a smartphone.

My life has demonstrably gotten worse because of how other people voted with their wallets. I had no agency and no influence over any of this decision making -- i voted with my wallet, and i lost the election.

So now i give up my favorite pastimes I've happily enjoyed without a smartphone since i was a baby, or i sacrifice my privacy.

And maybe if it were just baseball, it'd be easy, but it's not and you know this. It's venues of all shapes and sizes. It's activities of all stripes.

The only agency left to me is to give up my privacy or give up access to the world. Voting with my wallet achieved nothing and gave me no agency.

Post reply on HN