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

How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

maia.crimew.gay

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 677 posts

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#651

Post by FeepingCreature »

sammax wrote: post #614
ripdog wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's likely that I am more challenged by the grammatically incorrect pronouns than most neurotypicals in this thread, thanks for pointing that out. A lot of people who like to cry 'transphobic!' may wish to understand that there are people who need accommodation in our society other than trans people, and that heralding chosen pronouns as truly inviolable will sometimes make other people less comfortable. That s…

I fail to see how any of the mentioned pronouns are ungrammatical. As for competing needs and such, in this case it’s as easy as using she/her (as maia lists that as one of its pronouns), in other cases it’s usually acceptable to use they/them or no pronouns at all. The only thing that is generally absolutely unacceptable is (knowingly) using the wrong gendered pronouns or using gendered pronouns when the person only…

It's not that it's hard in any absolute sense, it's that imposes an ongoing overhead cost on people who may already pay a high cost to interact at all. (Also, of course, a cost on reading discussion about it. (Does that 'it' refer to the discussion or the author? You don't know! Have fun investing effort to work it out, every single time it's used.)

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#653

Post by tsimionescu »

jupp0r wrote: post #619
tsimionescu wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on this, but I feel a need to note that "it" refers to non-persons, not just inanimate objects. It's perfectly normal to refer to animals as "it", and it is also quite common to use it for babies (and even more common for fetuses). Not that this makes it any less weird to ask to be referred as "it", mind you.

I've also seen it being used to refer to aliens. What's wrong with letting people choose their pronouns?

Letting people choose whether to be referred to as men, women, or neutral (perhaps using neo-pronouns or singular them/they) is perfectly fine. But re-purposing existing words with other meanings is not. And "it" has a very specific meaning, one that just doesn't apply to conscious adult people. If I asked to be called "the object" that would not be a reasonable request, anymore than asking to be referred to as "it".

And particularly for "it" and other objectifying language, it has the huge problem that it makes other people uncomfortable. Especially those who overhear without being aware of your preference (imagine sending an email to a new client with text like "in my absence, contact my colleague X, it will assist you, it is an expert").

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#654

Post by munificent »

jimmywetnips wrote: post #634
munificent wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The property that pronouns capture is essentially arbitrary. That's why Romance languages assign gender to stuff like telephones and sandwiches. The point of gendered pronouns is that sentences very often have two nouns: a subject and object. If you have only a single pronoun, then any sentence can only use a pronoun to unambiguously refer to one of those. If you have two pronouns and you randomly and evenly distribu…

Why even use articles or pronouns, a better way would be to unambiguously mark every word with whether they're the object subject or whatever role it is in the sentence. Maybe tack on more flags as you need them for more information as needed Hence why forcing my team to learn Hungarian has really been a no brainer and will really start to pay dividends in the next decade when we finally reach a working professional…

> mark every word with whether they're the object subject or whatever role it is in the sentence

No, that's not the point. (Most languages do make subject/object fairly clear.)

The point of pronouns is to have a short alias to refer to a previously introduced noun.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#655

Post by vgb2k18 »

Maursault wrote: post #642
tastysandwich wrote: post #200

As a software engineer even I sometimes can't help romanticising hacking in my imagination. But so many times it turns out to be just like some company left the front gate wide open and the "hacker" walked in and took a look around. Eg when an airline had a public API where you could get someone's passport number and details just from their boarding pass https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis...

> Eg when an airline had a public API where you could get someone's passport number and details just from their boarding pass https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis ... Underneath all the garbage, good story. But Holy Hell, why do bloggers write so terribly and self-indulgently? That's a half hour of my life I'll never get back that shouldn't have been more than 10 minutes. Don't they have Rital…

Aussie, can confirm. They have Vyvanse, Dexamfetamine, Adderal and Ritalin. I didn't mind reading this one though, was a novel change to see sentences starting without capital letters.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#656

Post by notch656c »

sschueller wrote: post #608
nibbleshifter wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Swiss tend to make your life vaguely difficult by confiscating your computers every now and then at the request of the US. You won't be extradited though. The Swiss could maybe prosecute domestically, but its not (currently) in the public interest to do so.

Even then the sentences are reasonable while in the US you go to jail for just as long as if you killed someone in some cases. The ATT "hacker" got 41 month for guessing URLs. US sentences are insane.

Isn't weev hiding in Transnistria after he got released on a technicality that allows them to go back after him in another district court or something?

I was thinking the courts ruled he got tried in the wrong jurisdiction so prison had to release him. He basically GTFO'd before they had a chance to refile and is hiding in an unrecognized territory inside Moldova.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#657

Post by seba_dos1 »

uiri wrote: post #296
Miner49er wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a problem with the English language though. There's not a singular only version of "they" and there probably should be.

The singular only version of "they" is "they", just like the singular only version of "you" is "you". "You" was formerly plural, with "thou" as singular, but "thou" has since fallen into disuse.

> "You" was formerly plural, with "thou" as singular, but "thou" has since fallen into disuse.

Sadly. Overloading "you" and "they" feels rather clunky. I wish it got rid of "he" and "she" instead - gendering pronouns is completely useless, and that's coming from someone whose native tongue genders much more than just pronouns...

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#658

Post by trompetenaccoun »

Rhinozz wrote: post #29
ryandrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder which no-fly list it is. Is it a government no-fly list that would contain suspected international criminals and terrorists, or an airline's private no-fly list that would contain people who cause a ruckus on flights, drunks, anti-maskers, and so on. Maybe one shared between airlines? I would imagine that second list has grown substantially since 2020 given all the craziness airlines have had to deal with si…

The Daily Dot article specifies that it's the United States' (the Terrorist Screening Center's).

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/tsc

>[...] the vast majority of people who have disputed travel and appeal to the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program are not on the terrorist watchlist. Most people on the terrorist watchlist are still able to fly within the U.S. A very small subset of people on this list are on the “No Fly” list.

[...]

>The No Fly List is a small subset of the U.S. government Terrorist Screening Database (also known as the terrorist watchlist) that contains the identity information of known or suspected terrorists. This database is maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center.

So, shouldn't this list be public information anyway? It's not even suspicious people they're watching, by the sound of it the no fly list is only for people they have concrete evidence of terrorist activity for. Imo the public has a right to know those identities.

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#659

Post by dang »

xtian wrote: post #477
kleiba wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Would you please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? Regardless of ideology, that's not allowed here, because it destroys what the site is supposed to be for.

Lots of past explanations are at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

We've had to ask you this before, and you've been doing it a lot. That's not cool.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: How to own an airline in 3 easy steps and grab the TSA nofly list along the way

#660

Post by int_19h »

notch656c wrote: post #349
uiri wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does your citizenship status matter? The right to domestic travel within the United States is enjoyed equally by everyone within the US.

Are you sure of that? Rights attributed generally to "the people" in the constitution can be limited from being enjoyed based on immigration. For instance, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms but god help you if you're here irregularly or on a tourist visa and do not meet one of the exemptions. Sure non-immigrants are persons but federal law doesn't give a fuck.

FWIW the courts have ruled in favor of non-citizens challenging states denying them the right to own firearms before, e.g.:

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-ibrahim

Granted, this is a Washington State court ruling on the basis of the WA state constitution (which has a stronger RKBA provision than the federal one). But there were similar rulings in other states, and if I remember correctly, at least one of them cited the federal constitution.

As far as the "exemptions" go, it might simply be that nobody ever challenged them before - I mean, as a non-immigrant alien who can get kicked out quite easily in any case, why would you go and antagonize the feds if you can just buy an Alaska hunting license online for $60 and make them happy that the requisite checkbox has a mark in it? But also, until Bruen, the courts tended to defer to various onerous licensing restrictions and requirements even for citizens.

Post reply on HN