My kids (9 yr old girl, 11 y/o girl, 13 y/o boy) said it was the best movie they have ever seen. They are not super familiar with Looney Tunes. It isn't uncommon that they would see something and immediately it becomes their favorite movie, but the discussions afterward were different.
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
I loved macgyver growing up (unusual I know) and I found macgruber just incredibly mean spirited, like, it wasn't a parody that loved its source material and audience, it felt like it hated it.
> MacGruber is a 2010 American action comedy film based on the Saturday Night Live sketch of the same name, which itself was a parody of action-adventure television series MacGyver.
How did you think this was some kind of independent original thing???
I want to have this debate. This might be the MOST important thing ever discussed here on HN. Let's get this SOLVED!
If you look at the name, sure. But, the ENTIRE premise of MacGyver was that Richard Dean Anderson would ALWAYS come up with some strange scientifically accurate combination to get out of a hairy situation. MacGruber is about an elite strike force guy whose wife is killed on their wedding day, and then this pain drives the entirety of the movie. The characters have no origin story in common, and no references to MacGruber can be derived from MacGyver.
From MacGyver: "Resourceful and possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of the physical sciences, he solves complex problems by making things out of ordinary objects, along with his ever-present Swiss Army knife, duct tape, and occasionally matches."
SPOILER ALERT: I suppose the carrot in the ass COULD be considered a clever approach to a problem. But, I just thought it was evidence of MacGruber doing somthing ridiculous. And, clearly he used this often in the past, and it is not an ad-hoc clever assessment of something in the moment. Maybe he could have picked weeds in one scene, stuck them in his butt, then Ryan Phillipe could have used fake flowers, or something. Otherwise, you get no points for that one.
MacGyver has none of the rage that is SO important to MacGruber. His origin story: "The show follows Angus MacGyver, played by Richard Dean Anderson, who works as a troubleshooter for the fictional Phoenix Foundation in Los Angeles and as an agent for a fictional United States government agency, the Department of External Services (DXS)." NOTHING in there to indicate he is using emotional pain to drive an episode.
The only real satire I see is this: "He favors non-violent resolutions and prefers not to handle firearms due to the accidental shooting death of one of his friends when he was 12." Clearly, MacGruber does not have any such qualms about violence, and he also hates guns. But, you can't parody one characteristic by taking the exact opposite (violence), and then parody another characteristic (guns) by making that characteristic identical to the original. It ISN'T RIGHT!
Also, let's talk about Jack Dalton. He's the womanizer, and his eye twitches. And, his get rich quick schemes. That could have been mined for gold in this "parody."
If it is a parody, then Will Forte is insanely lazy. I'm willing to accept that might be the case, but then you need to refer to it as a lazy parody.
Bring it on, wredcoll. I'm waiting like a ninja and wolverine combined.
But, it feels like there were attempts by government to regulate and penalize bad actors. Watered down and neutered by lobbyists, of course. FINRA and Rohit Chopra and Lina Khan had some power in the last administration.
But, this seems like the top down government is actively engineering a looting of the treasury for private interests.
Am I wrong that this feels at a totally different scale and audacity?
> Am I wrong that this feels at a totally different scale and audacity?
I believe the difference is that now it is really "in your face" because the internet is dominant.
The world of money/finance/banking always had a lot of money and the best thing they can buy are the people in charge. There are plenty of books explaining it decades ago and and I read a lot of them. 2008 was when it started to become mainstream for the first time, now it is free to read on substack.
The difference is also today we have an open battle between an old guard and the tech/crypto challengers, and it seems the newcomers have outbid the old guard in the current administration.
Should you side with WellsFargo/Visa/Mastercard or Circle/Tether/Strip ?
I don't think it makes much sense to expect such a cohesive/specific philosophy from an open source project like this.
The goal is "Linux on Mac". In a commercial product, specific details of what gets built usually stem from a more detailed vision that can be articulated as one. In open source projects those details are determined by what individual contributors are motivated to work on.
That doesn't means a cohesive vision can't emerge, there might be one for Asahi actually. But I think the default position is that it's kinda just a mob of people doing what they each feel like doing.
I don't think it matters that Asashi is a generation or three behind, because the moment you really need it is when Apple stops updating the OS for your hardware.
When M1 drops out of support I bet Asashi for the M1 machines will be pretty polished.
Another thing is, the M1 and later hardware is still years later some of the best arm64 hardware youre going to find. Combine that with the really affordable prices you can find on the used market and Linux arm64 on this kind of great hardware at a low price is quite appealing.
Oh, so an M2 will support GPU usage? Can you run CoreML and unsloth models in the same way you would use them on regular MacOS? Are there benefits to using Linux/Asahi for running models on Apple hardware?
You wouldnt be using coreml since thats apples software, but likely vulkan versions of llama.cpp or pytorch or what have you. How well that works at the moment i dont know
I bought a Mac mini M4 simply because it was very cheap and the M4 chip offers great performance. It is currently mounted on the back of my TV and serves as a media station.
It runs macOS, but I have no particular interest in the operating system, nor do I own any other Apple hardware. (So no synergies.) It is alright (and better than Win11) but the preinstalled software does not even properly update without an Apple account. As soon as I can switch over to Linux, I will. ... I would just wait for all the ports to work.
Me too, M4 and keen to run Linux, partly because every damn system update bloats the system by 20GB but no memorably useful novel feature actually emerges and partly because it's long term stable. That said, at this stage in my career I appreciate a working system that doesn't require umpteen kernel recompiles!
I have an M2 Macbook Air that i sometimes boot into Asahi to play Steam games that doesn't work natively on mac. It works unreasonably well given that there is something like five different translation layers to make it work!
I have an M2 Macbook Air that I love, it's the best machine to read news from and access other machines over SSH, I only use macOS to use rekordbox, 99% of the time I'm booting into AsahiLinux
Huh, I thought Asahi would still be too unpolished on M2 to play games reliably. Could you elaborate on your setup a little? What kind of games do you play? What is performance like? Is it really better than Crossover for example?
It‘s going to be a godsend for people with M1 macs when Apple or App vendors decide to drop support for them.
The hardware is super capable and will make a great fileserver, TV box or HomeAssistant instance once I‘m done using it as daily driver.
Similarly, because of distros like Fedora and Ubuntu, I can keep using a 15y old Samsung notebook with a modern firefox, whereas Windows 8 already broke Samsung‘s display brightness driver and thermal management, and 10&11 are entirely unusable.
Target user is someone that wants to use Linux on good hardware. Apple hardware has some of the best perf-per-single-thread-perf-per-watt there is. Also, apple desktops are really compact and easy to keep out of the way while having really good performance too.
My current linux PC cuda machine is the latest Intel Ultra 9 mini PC from minisforum, and it still isnt quite as fast as a years old M1/M2. The only thing it has that the mac doesnt is cuda egpu support.
They are envious towards Apple Silicon and think Apple owes them something once again take the ball by the horns and build an Arm processor with a fork of Linux running on it. If three former engineers from Apple can start a company called Nuvia it can be done.
Are you talking about using a thunderbolt dock and GPU? I doubt that's a use case high in the developers minds. I'm curious though, I wonder if the open source NVIDIA driver can be built for it.
Sounds like you haven't used Asahi. I found the kde remix to be pretty nice to use. Literally the only thing that I found frustrating was:
1) for the longest time, but no longer, Google did not ship an official chrome linux arm64 package. Chromium Browser also has not included google sync for years now. But now, google chrome does ship for arm64 linux so its all good.
2) usb-c video still doesn't work, so not ideal for a laptop without hdmi that you'd want to dock
Does anyone have a suggestion for a harness that is good at handoff?
When I say handoff, I mean:
* handoff from a terminal CLI to webui (on a phone)?
* handoff from one team member, to another?
* handoff from one communication modality, like writing a prompt in a TUI, to email?
* handoff from one model to another, or one provider (openrouter)( to another (llama.cpp)
Does such a thing exist?
I used to think that a PR would be a good place to centralize all this. Who cares what IDE, or developer, or location. But, now I feel like an agent harness might contain that better.
Why do I want handoff? I keep losing context of where my harness is running. Sometimes I am inside an isolated VM. Sometimes I'm on my laptop, sometimes I'm on my home machine with the big GPU for local models. If I could spin up a harness that could identify itself inside my tailscale network, then I could probably have a single web UI which allows me to keep all that context straight.
I'm tempted to experiment with Pi to configure such a thing. But, perhaps there are patterns out there already with a harness I have not considered.
The session is "just" the raw chat history in it's entirety (human and agent) and can be disseminated as such. This is what enables swapping between models, you simply send the whole context.
Not sure how others do it, but opencode stores sessions in a sqlite db and you can extract them and share them as needed.
Pro-tip: Building your own extremely minimal harness takes about 15m and is both fun and enlightening. Agents are unsurprisingly quite good at it, but ask them to walk you through it step by step.
I do this all the time in my workflow. Use any harness. Ask it to create a markdown file with the information required for the handoff. Use that downstream. Keep a "repo" of those markdown files. Are you trying to orchestrate or manage this sort of process?
We're designing it like a meta-harness actually. The goal is to let users put any agent(s) (Claude, Codex, Pi, OpenCode) on a sandbox on any computer (local, K8S pod, cloud VPS, sandbox provider, etc.)
And then be able to interact with the agent(s) from anywhere: terminal, phone, web, or load them into the Codex, Claude, or Cursor apps
I found both Tmux and Herdr to be insufferable, but they work for many people. I'm not in the business of managing 17 agents at the same time (I have 1 to 4 agents I manage, those might have sub-agents, but I'm not a micro-manager). The hand-off problem itself is trivial, it is a txt file that needs to be sent around, but I haven't seen any good tools giving good UX for it yet.
1. Means running somewhere that is not your computer. I just use my personal server for this.
2. Should probably be done in the repo. Just add the context file in a dedicated sub directory. At this point I think these kinds of artefacts are part of the SE process, and fair to check into source control.
3. Can be done by letting the TUI write/draft emails via MCP.
4. Can be done with something like OpenCode or PiCode, which just allows you to switch in their TUI interface. Beware though, context has to be re-ingested, so it costs a couple of cents.
But again, in the end context is just a file. By switching models, you are paying the price of not having any context cached, but for manual steps that's usually not super relevant. Just be careful about adding these kinds of things to automated workflows, as a cost like 25c can add up when agents run amok.
Not really solving all your cases, but I found tmux (or herdr) on a home server works pretty well. I just ssh into my home server and continue where I left off with the same claude/opencode open.
On a longer term, I think "assistant" style harnesses might help here, like vellum.ai. I no longer use that, but I asked it to create an ACP proxy through iroh (basically tailscale but on the application layer), and it managed to control claude on another device of mine. A friend did similar stuff with tailscale.
I have started writing a hobby harness with a web interface where I would like to support this "ACP proxy" mode natively, and also to make the models aware of different devices in some way and "move" work between them.
I basically do this, tmux via tailscale. But, I often get inspiration and want to jump into a webapp from my phone, or review.
I've been playing with pi and the remote webui extension. I don't love it; it has a lot of chrome that obscures what I want to do. I just want a simple way to review the progress so far, and keep tweaking with minimal setup. Then, jump back into tmux when I'm back on my computer.
The press release says something about 4 people in Boise a long time ago?
None of the quotes have anyone from Boise or even Idaho. Not the governor of Idaho, not a University of Idaho faculty.
There are quotes from Lutnick, Cook from Apple, Jensen Huang, someone from Stanford.
What's the connection to Idaho? Why put this there?
As an Oregonian, I'm a little biased, but why not put this closer to ex-Intel employees and a source of labor. As an Oregonian living now in Florida, the stories about everyone from California moving to Texas and Florida definitely don't seem true to me. My opinion is that those migration patterns hide the realities which is that you've definitely got a lot of financiers and billionaires like Sergey Brin (i.e. tax evaders) declaring they are now Florida residents. And a bunch of people outside of high skilled fields (setting aside healthcare workers) who are migrating in search of cheaper housing. But not a lot of "middle class" tech people (I've been searching for four years and they aren't here). Probably they don't want to subject themselves to the worst public schools in the country and fight the culture wars.
But the point is, how do you staff this research lab without an expectation that thousands of people will move their families there. This is a research lab, not jobs for a data center (electrician and construction).
They were founded in Boise. Boise is their HQ and where most of their developer and research staff live. I worked there for almost 9 years. They have several fabs here, all on the same plot of land just outside of town. This will add to it.
I interned at that site about 20 years ago. Took me 30+ minutes to walk from one end (where their image sensor R&D was, before they spun it off) to the other end. As a 20 year old, it was amazing to walk past all the various clean rooms, watch the robots and the guys in bunny suits do their thing. A fun experience.
Yep, the "Micron Mile" where you can walk a full mile one end to the other and back, without going outside. Very nice in the winter for stretching your legs on the lunch break. The new clean rooms they have are amazing.
Boise is a desirable place to live if you love the outdoors. And it is a capital city. If you can't afford SF or Boulder, you might be able to swing it in Boise. Of course, Boise housing prices are expensive already, and this will make it even more expensive.
If one is or a member of your family is a woman, healthcare will be an issue, many healthcare professionals in obgyn specialties fled the state when abortion ban kicked in so only the older generation of providers who stuck it out are left and that is a cohort that is going to get smaller and smaller leading to longer and longer queues for care, they can only lure in anti abortion obgyns so the candidate pool is small.
This has been in news for years with recent article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA29YwYp
The press release was poorly edited. While everyone inside the semiconductor industry knows that Micron is based in Boise, the general public doesn't. The press release should have said so rather than leaving it to the reader to interpret the 408 area codes listed for the contacts. Oh wait...that's San Jose. Boise is 208.
Fwiw the story of how Micron ended up being founded in Boise is pretty interesting.
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 hotel with no roommate. I chose the latter. When we go there, they said, "oops, sorry, short on rooms!" So I had a roommate.
Wandered around Manaus, took a skiff out on the Rio Negro. Saw pink river dolphins. A little boat approached us and a kid handed me a sloth, and then demanded I return it with a twenty dollar bill.
The airline got us another plane 24 hours later. Made it back to the US safely.
A few weeks later, the airline reached out and said "Here is $100 for your trouble."
I declined to take that offer. I had missed several business meetings that cost me actual money. I couldn't donate blood for years because I had been to the Amazon and was tagged a malaria risk.
During the many arguments with the airline I threatened to take them to small claims court.
I got a really strange response over email which I clearly wasn't supposed to see. A representative from that airline was asking internally if they could put me on the no-fly list. That was really chilling.
But, this is the kind of information I'm worried about when a vendor sells my data. If Google wanted to sell a product to the airlines that offered to keep annoying people like me from purchasing flights, they could do that with that email chain. I'm skeptical it'll be wiped correctly. Isn't my poor writing style basically my signature? How do you wipe that?
I'll never understand this attitude toward airlines. What did you want them to do in this situation? Keep flying the plane with engine issues so you could make your important meetings? It sounds like the airline did the right thing here but you were still mad?
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 last minute replacement. That's the case even if the room wasn't available because it was unsafe for some reason.
Of course nobody is expecting that they "keep flying the plane with engine issues so you could make your important meetings". But ultimately you relied on them to get you to that meeting, and they failed to do so, so you should be compensated so that you're no worse off than if they had provided the service. The fact that an airline will sometimes fail to get their customers to their destination and will have to compensate them for it, is just the cost of doing business.
Luckily in the UK and the EU your right to compensation for delayed flights is enshrined in law.
In the UK and EU you absolutely do not have the right to be compensated for sales or deals not closed in part due to a delayed flight.
Your entire point is completely at odds to reality. In the general case, contracts do not guarantee there are never problems, and problems happening do not create an automatic entitlement to sue. The entire point of contracts is to protect both parties.
Ultimately, if you are travelling, you are relying on *you* to get yourself there. Airlines and hotels will help, there's compensation available to some degree, but extrapolating that out to "everything is someone else's responsibility and I deserve to be compensated for everything I hoped to achieve" is pure fantasy.
seems OP is not talking about compensation of the deal itself but rather compensation for the actual flight rather than a $100 voucher. Assuming his flight to Brazil was much more than that
Why should the entire flight be compensated? The airline provided the flight, just 24 hours later (and the delay is what the $100 are supposed to compensate).
Because the customer purchased a flight on a specific date, which was not delivered.
If you book a hotel room for 1-7 August to visit a conference, would you be okay if they said "oopsie, it'll be available for you 10-17 August, here's a $100 compensation"? What about a rental car, or food delivery? Is it okay for your wedding photographer to show up a day late? Of course not, the product you bought is inherently time-sensitive.
Many businesses have a notion of partial delivery. If you hire a contractor to build an extension on your house and they get sick halfway through the project and hand off to another contractor who completes it a few weeks or even months late, you don't get it for free.
This would require airlines underwriting the value of the meetings that you might miss and pricing their services accordingly. I imagine an airline would never sell a flight to CEOs on their way to board meetings, or actors on their way to filming a big budget movie.
You can absolutely find someone willing to sell you insurance on whatever you need for a price, but the airline isn't in the business of insuring the value of your meetings.
I've had plenty of bad airline experiences and wished they gave me more for my trouble, but clearly they are unable to at current margins. If you want the market to provide a better service, it already does: you can pay tons more to fly private, either a charter or your own jet you purchased!
> I've had plenty of bad airline experiences and wished they gave me more for my trouble, but clearly they are unable to at current margins.
It's weird to see people simp for the airline industry. A cursory google search shows that United Airlines, to take one example, made $4,300,000,000 in profits before taxes last year. This is money that could easily be spent on things like better maintenance, more pilots and crew, and other expenditures that would make flights less apt to be delayed or canceled. Instead it goes to shareholders and executives.
This was a fantastic year for United, and the margin is ~6%! They lost a similar amount in 2020. The earnings history definitely backs up the story of relatively low margins, weak growth and a fair amount of volatility to deal with.
I wouldn't be surprised that an airline lost money in one of the worst travel years of all time (due to Covid).
Cursory searching shows United made more than $3,000,000,000 in 2024. So even if 2025 was an unusually good year for them, it wasn't a complete anomaly. Just goes to show that when flights get delayed due to insufficient available crew or maintenance issues, it's a savings that's passed on to investors and the c-suite at the expense of consumers.
Sorry man, your "just goes to show" ain't gonna cut it. Yes, I want better perks when the going gets rough, but it's not enough to blame only the c-suite and shareholders. This isn't software dev. Prior discussion on the article I shared in the other comment:
> Yes, I want better perks when the going gets rough
Maybe you're not understanding what we're saying. There have been numerous comments remarking on flights that were delayed or canceled due to corporate decisions, which reduce to excess savings on (or insufficient investment in) maintenance and staffing. This has nothing to do with "better perks"!
Every dollar of profit is a dollar that could have been spent on maintenance and staffing, or god forbid, proactive investment in better systems and infrastructure. No one is saying that airlines should become non-profits. But I have a feeling three or four or five BILLION dollars in profits is too much.
I will be clear: I don't want to stand in line for 3 hours at Frankfurt with a MacBook Pro and a million other things in my backpack to be offered only a faraway hotel I don't want, no vouchers or cash, just take it or leave it, and no other compensation, and my luggage being lost for literally 11 weeks.
My understanding is that a portion of net profits might go towards rewarding shareholders through buybacks (bolstering the stock price), but most of it is reinvested into the business, i.e. exactly what you are saying you wish they would do. A windfall enables them to purchase more aircraft and pay down debt accumulated in the years they do not make much in profit, of which there were many in recent history. Is it too much profit? I don't know, but they're spending over $7 billion in capital expenditures this year.
I'm not sure what to say to you wanting them to have better tech. I wrote code for a major shipping company over 2 decades ago, and it's impressive to me that airlines mishandle bags at a far lower rate (under half a percent) than UPS and Fedex which usually are around 3-5%. I'm not a logistics expert. Will things get better with robots or something? Time will tell.
Wow! Simp?! What a word. A wrong word, though. So very, very wrong.
Would you prefer I spend some time telling my personal horror stories? Or should I point out that while a meaningful minority of those profits have recently been going to buybacks (a billion or less) which do benefit shareholders and executives to some degree (although a lot of executive compensation is already paid before we're looking at net profits), most of those are going to the needs of the airline which operates in a very capital-intensive industry. They have do do things like, y'know, BUY AIRPLANES. A bit pricier than those MacBooks a typical SaaS is purchasing. Apparently, after the industry was deregulated, it made it very difficult to keep some routes stable, and the article calls into question whether you can actually have a free market ever reach equilibrium or if the strange nature of this particular industry will always be pushing one of the players towards bankruptcy.
Of course, you only performed a cursory look. Perhaps if you had put in a little effort, you'd realize you didn't just singlehandedly fix the airline industry!
That link I shared was not some random, cursory look at the biz. I felt I learned a lot from it. I'm not able to verify whether the conclusions are accurate, but if they are, it sounds like the business has some pretty unusual problems, and where to go from here is not at all clear.
> 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.
Do you think this is how companies sell things? With uncapped liability?
Do you think AWS reimburses customers for their lost revenue when they have an outage?
Yes, but they do not compensate you based on your lost revenue, they compensate you based on how much you spent with them. The best you can get from them is a refund.
Depends on the SLA. Usually you negotiate an SLA to cover much more than a refund of the missed service targets (but with a fixed/known ahead of time cost for breaching the SLA).
I would say even smaller; but more than 90% of those SLAs will have explicit remediation and compensation clauses, hence “usually” wrt. to negotiating an SLA.
> But ultimately you relied on them to get you to that meeting, and they failed to do so, so you should be compensated so that you're no worse off than if they had provided the service.
By this logic, should I be able to sue Brooks Brothers for lost earnings if I split my pants in the middle of a sales pitch? Goodyear if I blow a tire on the way to a job interview? Taco Bell if I crap my pants in the middle of Jeopardy?
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.
> generally we insure ourselves against acts of nature and accidents and thieves.
No. We insure ourselves against unforeseen events whose effects are financially unbearable to us otherwise. You've conveniently carved out certain unforeseen events in order to serve your point rather than being intellectually honest.
Businesses insure themselves against the death of an important employee, for example. If that employee is murdered, that is neither an act of nature, an accident, nor thievery.
You might argue "you were robbed of an employee" and stretch the meaning of the word "thief" but then I'd say a similar stretching of "act of nature [or] accident" includes "aircraft malfunction"
Businesses also insure against a great many other things.
If they truly were exceptional that would be fine. But long delays happen a lot, and I am sure there are things airlines could do to improve that like maintain the planes better so they aren't grounded as often and having backup planes so that if one has problems they can put customers on a different one.
I'm with you on the delays, especially since it's one sided, company doesn't loose anything, main inconvenicence is to the user so the company has to be incentivised to be on time (it may be even beneficial for the airport, since passengers would buy more overpriced stuff from waiting area).
I was referring to the case when an engine went bad and company had to use intermediate airport and accomodate all users for the night. Also you wouldn't want to punish company hard for admiting technical issues, since that might cause them to underreport and create dangerous situations.
It probably doesn't make sense for every airline to have a backup at every airport. But maybe the airport itself keeps a couple of backup planes that it rents out to airlines when they need it.
> 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.
You can sue anyone for anything. But when a service provider can't provide service because of acts of god, accidents, safety issues, or equipment failure, that's just... reality. Courts are not going to give you a huge payout because Delta refused to fly you in a broken plane to make your meeting. This is why insurance is a thing.
You must never read the contracts you enter into. Nearly every contract limits the liability of the service provider to the amount you paid them. Short of proving fraud or negligence, you're not going to get more than that.
I don’t think airlines are a special case? They should compensate you for cancelled flights, delays etc, which sounds like they did. What you seem to be asking for is compensation for… actually I’m not sure what. What is the value of the missed meeting they should compensate?
If you take a taxi to a meeting and the taxi broke down so you missed some important meeting, should the taxi driver / company compensate you for that too? Or do they just refund you the fare, or pay for a different taxi?
> 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.
This generally only applies to direct losses, though. If Amazon ships you a defective Bic pen, and it leaves you unable to sign a time-critical $1B contract, Amazon is only liable for the cost of the Bic pen - not the resulting $1B loss.
You might be able to sue for the cost of obtaining a replacement pen, but anything beyond that isn't going to happen without some kind of bespoke SLA.
You are basically arguing that travelers with little to lose from a delay should subsidize travelers with a lot to lose, they would pay the same ticket prize but end up with different payouts.
I don't think that's reasonable. If you have a lot to lose then extra insurance should be a premium offering.
My understanding is that there is no arrival time SLA when you buy a plane ticket (barring the compensation ladder set by EU regulators). All they owe you is getting you and your stuff to the destination.
I suppose consider yourself lucky that you haven't yet been inconvenienced by an issue completely within the airline's control and been offered $50 in funny money even though you had to pay out of pocket for your dingy hotel and transport in/out of the airport at 11pm/6am the next morning. And no, they won't reimburse that, because you could have slept on the terminal floor for free
I on the other hand will never understand anyone extending any grace to an airline. They are constantly testing just how poor of an experience they can deliver to their customers and stay in business.
For starters, they could have offered more than $100 to OP here
I travel all the time. I've missed or been late to all sorts of events because of delayed, canceled, and diverted flights over the years. It's the nature of air travel. It's an extremely dynamic environment that is not in the complete control of the pilot or or the airline. To have the attitude that the company personally owes you because of something like that is, imo, ridiculous. I understand that there are extreme cases where the airline screws up and in those cases you should receive compensation. I once sat on the tarmac at JFK for 4 hours and JetBlue offered me a measly $50 voucher. A plane having mechanical trouble over the Amazon rainforest, diverting safely to a large and safe city, then getting put up in a hotel room for the night does not count as an extreme case of the airline screwing up.
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 delayed.
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 optimization on the airline's part, a gamble that they can put up enough customer service phone menus and hoops that they only have to comp a small portion of customers whose time and money they've misappropriated.
ETA: my example above is to point out that even in the common failure cases airlines are awful, and as OP shares, even worse in the rare engine failure case. Yeah, they don't directly control that the engine failed (unless we start talking about how lack of maintenance and overworked mechanics contribute to that, which we should, and is under their control btw) but a hundred bucks for being stranded in the jungle is an insult no matter how you slice it
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.
Crews "time out" due to regulations governing duty hours, not airline policy. Many things can delay or disrupt travel, including weather, mechanical problems (which to a degree may be on the airline but random failures happen too), closures or bad weather at your destination, or at other airports that are creating a backlog of diversions at your destination. It's unreasonable to expect that even the best-intentioned airline can avoid all of that all of the time.
Travel insurance is can be purchased for situations where a delay or canceled flight would create unusual costs for the traveler.
That's a strawman of the request, not the request. The request is that, same as anything else in a proper Free Market, the price includes all costs and internalizes all direct risks. I'm paying $XYZ to be delivered from point A to point B on a given date with a ~roughly given time. I don't expect there to never ever be trouble, that's life. I do expect them to take care of all trouble however, as I am in their care. If they create a need for a hotel stay, then they should pay for that. If they lose luggage, they should pay for that. If they have to reroute, put me on another mode of transportation, or whatever, that should all be their problem. And if they can't deliver reasonably appropriate service they should partially or fully refund the purchase.
This is critical to a functioning market. If Airlines Alpha & Beta both have a incident rate of 0.5% but Airline Omega has an incident rate of 4%, what should happen is Omega has to compete or go out of business vs the other two (and then someone new comes in and gets the assets to try a different approach). Maybe they save enough money over that they can offer lower prices anyway, or have high enough quality or unique offerings elsewhere to charge a higher price, or accept even lower margins, or some combo. But what cannot be allowed is for them to externalize that onto the public, because then the prices are fraudulent and no longer comparable between competitors. The market can't respond if the pricing signal gets muted. Unsurprisingly lots of players would love to be able to advertise a lower price not through actually earning a lower price but just socializing costs, but that's not ok.
>But let's be real, their slim margins cannot support bonusing out every passenger with a sob story about getting delayed.
Horse baloney, margins have nothing to do with this. Every airlines can and should be held to the same standard, so it's just a universal cost same as jet fuel. They're all in the same boat so long as they perform the same. If some airlines have much higher failure rates then others, then yeah they're going to have to address that somehow and that's exactly how it should be! Normal adult businesses deal with this via prevention, insurance and buffers, it's simply a cost of doing honest business.
I just want to note that pretty much all airlines and travel credit cards and other similar services offer travel insurance products that deliver this exact “take care of every travel risk” coverage if you want it. You just have to pay for the real cost of that service.
However, your airline ticket alone is not that. It’s just a contract to carry you from point A to point B, and that will happen at a scheduled time if everything goes well.
Everything else that you infer should be in the service contract is a fantasy. It is simply not part of the product. You can go ahead and read the contract for yourself, every airline posts them.
Furthermore, there are basically no product categories that include all possible costs and internalizes all risks. Every single thing you buy has some kind of risk involved.
If I buy a ticket to a broadway show, they can refund me or give me a makeup date if there is an unexpected cancellation, but they will not reimburse all my costs of being in town on that day or compensate me for not having anything else fun to do with my time. They don’t know or care if I traveled across town or across the world to see that event. It’s not their financial responsibility if I blew $2,000 flying to NYC from some far away country to see their event.
When I pay my electricity bill including the flat delivery charges, my utility doesn’t guarantee that power will be uninterrupted and they don’t compensate me for outages. Even if they do compensate me for outages, they don’t compensate me based on the specific amount of disruption it caused in my life. I don’t get to tell the utility company “I work from home as a lawyer and this outage cost me $500/hour” and magically get that amount compensated to me.
If my local baseball game gets rained out and the game is made up another game, it’s not the team’s responsibility if I’m no longer in town or can’t make the new time. They even sell insurance for this very possibility when you buy group suite tickets. If you don’t buy the insurance you are SOL during a rain-out.
You can’t even really buy a consumer product and expect it to be problem-free for very much time. When you buy a car there’s no guarantee that there will be a set cost of maintenance or that unexpected problems will not occur, there’s only a highly limited warranty to cover manufacturing defects. Warranty length and coverage varies widely by manufacturer.
Numerous products are sold with no refund possibility of any kind. Just try to get a refund from your local McDonald’s franchise. They’ll never do it. They will give you replacement food, but they will never give you your money back.
Software has no warranty. At all. Period. Not even enterprise software. At best you get a service agreement where you get some kind of pittance of a reimbursement when something goes wrong.
>I just want to note that pretty much all airlines and travel credit cards and other similar services offer travel insurance products that deliver this exact “take care of every travel risk” coverage if you want it.
And that's wrong. Same as warranties on products being far, far below reasonably expected working lifetime but with the option to have an added warranty. That sort of behavior is very common in our society at this point, but it's all bad.
>You just have to pay for the real cost of that service.
Ie, you just have to except the airlines externalizing that onto society right now. Doesn't mean we can't advocate for a free market instead though.
>Everything else that you infer should be in the service contract is a fantasy. It is simply not part of the product. You can go ahead and read the contract for yourself, every airline posts them.
You are demonstrating incredibly muddled thinking here, as well as leaping into your own brand new strawmen. Saying how things "should" be by definition is not saying how they are. I argued specifically against a strawman and incorrect point, and I said that it was a "request", I never claimed the contracts were secret or didn't have all sorts of BS escape clauses that, in many jurisdictions (though not so much in the EU), are unfortunately legal.
>If I buy a ticket to a broadway show, they can refund me or give me a makeup date if there is an unexpected cancellation, but they will not reimburse all my costs of being in town on that day or compensate me for not having anything else fun to do with my time.
The broadway show doesn't involve taking physical control over your physical body in time and space. You cannot just step out and leave partway through a flight. That you'd use this as an example is either stupid or malicious.
>When I pay my electricity bill including the flat delivery charges, my utility doesn’t guarantee that power will be uninterrupted and they don’t compensate me for outages
Your utility is massively regulated and depending on jurisdiction yes, they will indeed pay for certain levels of issues, as PG&E has been discovering in California over the last few decades. You don't pay for power not delivered, you are allowed to generate your own power and store it. There are SLAs available for utility services as well.
>You can’t even really buy a consumer product and expect it to be problem-free for very much time
>Numerous products are sold with no refund possibility of any kind. Just try to get a refund from your local McDonald’s franchise. They’ll never do it. They will give you replacement food, but they will never give you your money back.
Which, again, is bad, not good as you are arguing. That bad stuff exists elsewhere does not in fact mean we can't want to improve where possible incrementally.
Yes, we live in society the whole time, and no doubt you are very smart.
Where I find this subject difficult to converge to is the exact point of “things should be” lies.
I would be in agreement with you that more customer protections are usually a good thing and that most jurisdictions on this planet really don’t have enough of them. Certainly I would agree that airlines shouldn’t be allowed to engage in as many anti-consumer games as they play in the status quo.
That said, I think we can both understand that there has to be a limit at some point to the risk internalization that a business can be reasonably expected to bear just to exist and sell products. Otherwise, it pushes costs higher for everyone and makes competition more difficult to come by.
It also limits product choice because many consumers prefer to choose higher risk options specifically to save on cost.
If airlines have to charge 10% more now because they have to compensate everyone’s hotel, car rental, and wasted DisneyWorld tickets for every canceled/delayed flight (I’m not saying you are advocating for such a thing, just a hypothetical), and I’m a customer who has a flexible schedule and never utilizes those compensations, now I’m just paying 10% more to get no additional protection for me personally.
This concept is essentially imposing a risk tax on all of society to normalize risks, and it might be argued that such a tax is not very progressive or productive.
Regardless of where we decided to specifically draw the line, any increase in compensatory duties imposed on airlines will increase pricing for their services. The airline industry is the perfect case study for that idea because it’s essentially a zero-margin business. Almost every US airline loses money flying and makes up for those losses with credit card programs. So if they have to start compensating for more scenarios, our ticket prices are going up, guaranteed. It’s not like Apple where imposing mandatory replaceable batteries or a 2 year warranty would barely change the economics of their business and greatly benefit consumers.
My main idea was not to bring up a bunch of irrelevant strawman examples, they were more to point out the fact that acceptable harm or risk is something of a universal concept in commerce. It’s not reasonable to ask beer companies to pay for every health complication of alcoholics just like it’s not reasonable to ask airlines to pay for every consequence of a delayed flight. This is because the level of risk was already agreed to by society: everyone knows that beer is bad for your health[1] just like everyone knows flights sometimes get delayed or canceled.
[1] The only reason the tobacco industry got into legal trouble is because they lied about their knowledge of its unhealthiness and addictive qualities.
In agreement with your points, but I think something even more pertinent to airlines compared to beer companies, is that a brewery is almost incentivized to create alcoholics. The only natural distinctives are at the extremes. Extreme alcoholics die and therefore stop buying booze, and social backlash to extreme levels of liquor consumption can cause profit-hampering regulations or outright prohibition. But in general, a person who empties a six pack every night after work is ideal for Coors.
Contrast this to airlines. They have ZERO incentives to delay your flight. They have zero incentive to divert passengers to another airport. They have no incentive to cancel, or otherwise prevent their plane from getting to its destination. Their interests are fully aligned with yours in this regard.
>I on the other hand will never understand anyone extending any grace to an airline. They are constantly testing just how poor of an experience they can deliver to their customers and stay in business.
It's actually pretty simple to understand how I offer them grace, it's because they're terrible businesses with terrible financials. Airlines run on brutally thin margins, barely 5% in the best of years and usually closer to 1-3% in average years, and frequently wipe themselves out, as Spirit did here. They generally make less than 10 USD in profit per customer.
Because I don't want to pay an extra 100 USD for a marginally nicer experience, and w neither does anyone else. I want the cheapest possible way to be thrown through the air across an ocean. I'm not going to fault them for acting like assholes when I pay them like an asshole.
The airlines are certainly bad actors, the problem on the other side is there are a massive number of people that are willing to waste massive amounts of time to get undeserved freebies if the boundary is too permissive. I agree with your underlying sentiment that the needle is too strongly on the side of the airlines at the moment, but I think if they shifted towards a more healthy stance they'd quickly be swamped by these abusers.
I'm curious what the game theoretic optimal here is.
You could have bought travel insurance. Just like you do with expensive packages in shipping. If your business meetings were critical, you should have insured the trip for an amount that offsets or covers the cost.
Also cost. I mean you can charter a plane if you want better QoS than what the airline provides (maybe). It'll just cost you a lot of money. Heck you can charter two redundant planes to fly together so the second one can pick you up if the first runs into issues.
The pilot did the right thing, the company didn't.
I think that in the EU, compensation for such an event is at least 600€, plus all expenses paid (including meals, hotel, etc...). The airline most likely offered $100 as an attempt to settle for way less than what they legally owe.
Without further information, we can't really blame the company for the incident itself, and they may have had no other option regarding what happened in Manaus, but they definitely had the option of offering proper compensation instead of threats.
Agreed. Before I had finished reading, I honestly thought you declined the $100 because everything ended up alright, you got to see some dolphins, and have a cool story to tell.
I got mad when airline checked us in for a flight, during a blizzard, took our luggage, then cancelled our flight and refused to give us our luggage back promising to fedex it to us. Fortunately we noticed a lot of luggage on the ground and eventually found ours and just took it despite protests.
I read the main objection as being with an airline exploring option to put a traveler on a no-fly list. Not due to anything related to security, but purely as a punishment for exploring compensation options. This, in my book, is VERY bad and and deserves public shaming of the airline, complaints to regulators, etc. etc.
Everything else IMO is just fine. The airline landed the plane safely, made some promises (including a single room), could not keep all of those promises, the passenger pushed for more compensation than what airline offered, etc. That happens thousands of times every day all over the world. But this does not remove the big black mark of exploring putting a passenger on a no-fly list. My 2c.
Read his comment again. He says he rejected the $100 and then started arguing and threatening to go to court. That's when they started exploring banning him from the airline.
> Read his comment again. He says he rejected the $100 and then started arguing and threatening to go to court.
Going to court is the standard, and usually the only, path for resolving disagreements that parties cannot easily resolve between themselves. Retaliating by putting the passenger on a no fly list deserves public shaming and pushback.
For example, a major grocery store can put people on a "do not come here again" list. But this is an easy way for a big business to hurt a person and should not be used for minor issues. I might see this "the business bans whoever it wants for any reason" as a legitimate defense, but not in a regulated business with high barrier to entry.
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.
When something like this happens, at the very least you should get the full cost of your ticket back, plus reimbursement for lodging and food, at least. Then maybe airlines would have more of an incentive to maintain their fleet better, and have backup planes so this kind of thing doesn't happen very often.
I don't think you understood his comment. The emergency landing was not necessarily the problem; it was everything the airline did to remediate that after the fact.
Parent commenter never said it was Spirit. (I kind of doubt that they ever operated in Brazil.) Just that this is the kind of data they would be worried about being sold.
Agree, isn't this precisely what credit-card companies promise to cover? I'd think I would just claim flight-interruption with the credit card insurance and it should cover all expenses.
There is no amount of maintenance that can avoid all mechanical issues. Take bird strikes, for example.
Regarding "carry insurance": margins in the airline business are notoriously slim. They compete very heavily on cost, because the service they provide is a commodity (or close to it). Most airlines will probably not willingly add any extra costs that they don't have to, because that would put them at a disadvantage relative to their competitors.
For those passengers who are willing to pay extra to be reimbursed for delays or other inconveniences, there may be travel insurance that can provide that.
Uhm, properly compensate passengers that have concrete harm to point to instead of offering a laughable alibi payment? What I'll never understand is why some neoliberal schools of thought defend conglomerates like they're their children... This company has enough money to compensate for fuck-ups, at least it should have. Every insurance on the planet can do the simple math involved for this risk assesment.
I hate some airline polices as much as anyone, and it is absolutely terrible to loose a meeting, family reunion, cruise ship vacation, etc. for something like this, but it is way worse to die. If airlines compensated with whatever money you think you deserve, the tickets would cost way more than they already are.
Shit happens. You are not entitled to compensation for everything shitty that happens in the world.
> You are not entitled to compensation for everything shitty that happens in the world.
This is true, but not relevant here?
If you pay for a service, and you don't get that service, are you implying that you should just be SOL?
If the plane has an issue, and the pilot rightfully lands it for safety concerns, but the paying passengers don't get where they are going, that sounds like the airline's problem to me, not the passengers' problem.
At the very minimum the passenger should be refunded for their ticket, because they didn't get what they paid for.
There are already too many negative consequences in the world of commercial transactions that the end-consumer gets saddled with simply because they don't have the leverage, money or time to fight for redress.
Perhaps they want the airlines to do a better job maintaining their fleet such that the airline is capable of meeting its obligations with respect to arriving on time without crashing.
This is an unfair take. Airlines already take maintenance very seriously. Knock them for their customer service all you want, but engineering doesn't deserve it.
I fully share your concerns. And I don't understand how apparently tons of Teams and email conversations can be archived and sold without any kind of scrutiny. How can such data be sold without the consent of all involved parties? What gives Google the right to use it to train LLMs? Is that just a way of washing away the legal protections?
It is being scrutinized. The sale is overseen by the courts. Also, the media is scrutinizing. Also, PII has already been addressed by the court, from the article: "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."
Specially when you have a list of flights, people on board, issues, etc... The fact that they are specifically tellling people to not worry about that is also a red flag for me. They know what they'd worry about if they were the affected ones.
Yes, the same google that has repeatedly, entirely "by accident", captured boatloads of wifi data with their wardriving vehicles (or google streetview or whatever it's called). They sure seem like a trustworthy bunch.
Not only those wardriving vehicles. They use everybody to scan the world's wifi networks. Well, except people like me who stubbornly turn off 'location accuracy' every time some app demands you turn it on.
I don't know exactly what gets sent to google, but it's certainly enough to identify and track (retrospectively) a huge part of the world's population.
Now I know you get tracked by the celltowers anyway, but still. Navigation works fine with the accuracy offered by just using GPS and it doesn't need all the wifi scanning, it's pure data harvesting.
Google 100% was wardriving and all of your other items.
However, you can increase gps accuracy using wifi. GPS is not that precise (part of which is government regulations) and WiFi does help immensely with accuracy.
Yes, you can increase accuracy. However, I always turn it off and still get an accuracy of a few meters, which is plenty accurate nearly all practical purposes. Even in cities.
The difference used to be larger, but with the multitude of satellite systems now available and the advancements in receivers the difference is way less than it used to be.
> Now I know you get tracked by the celltowers anyway
Yes, but theGoog doesn't own that data. By having all of theGoogOS devices scanning and reporting back directly to theGoog, theGoog gets that data for free. Plus, all of the other info it can hoover up that the cell towers would not have access.
This is when a track record of Google's "Don't be evil" motto, culture and corporate habits being literally front and center on its official code of conduct, instead of moved to the very last line in 2018, would have persuaded people to give it the benefit of the doubt. Functionally effective privacy seems to be retreating ever more exclusively into the domain of very wealthy families and behind the corporate veil (by purchasing information scrubbing services on a regular basis), and the loss by normal people of the commons of mass privacy has unfortunately not been appreciated by the common citizen. It is a more valuable commons than recognized by most citizens, and is being rapidly co-opted and monetized by commercial entities that are not aligned with individual interests.
Even as an investor who stands to benefit from that monetization in the short term, I stand against this trend because like any Tragedy of The Commons economic scenario, in the long term (which isn't that long due to the automation that harvests this resource) it sows the seeds of its own dilution into functionally near non-commercial value.
I'm sorry but such assurances are worthless without being explicit what was scrubbed and what is retained. An "anonymous" customer ID with a list of flights is very identifiable when you have other information about the trips someone has taken. PII is not a binary yes or no and even benign data can become a problem in aggregate.
Makes one appreciate living in place with sufficient constitutional protections against this sort of stuff. Even for work stuff selling this info wouldn't fly in some parts of the world.
If you're referring to GDPR, companies routinely evade such protections using "informed consent" / "legitimate interests" loopholes. The big ones get caught once in a while, get a slap on the wrist and continue to do whatever they were doing before, albeit with more safeguards.
Not for nothing, but you have probably already consented. Typically user agreements allow for this kind of sale if you’ve authorized use and processing but YMMV.
The party owning this data (Spirit Airlines) is consenting to the sale. Employees and customers of Spirit consented when they started employment and did business with Spirit, respectively.
This is why the GDPR (and to a lesser extent the CCPA) is a good thing. The data was supplied for a specific purpose. The handler of the data should have to obtain further consent if they wish to use it for another purpose.
Did they consent? Just because one receives a letter it doesn't mean they “own” it, much less that they are entitled to publish it at their leisure. If Spirit were active in any country with GDPR-style laws, the seller of these data would be most likely investigated.
this is the conceit of politicians/elites when they talk about "freedom" vs when we talk about it; its a nice dog-whistle that only they can hear the true meaning of
Usually when you work a job you sign a little thing that says "yeah you own everything I produce for you, no matter how small".
Which is, of course, ridiculous, and follows the trend of absurdist contract law wrangling in corporations. Similar to non-competes and NDAs.
It makes sense to some degree, but the fact that semi-private conversations are included in that makes no sense. These have little to no business purpose.
Since it’s work communications, consent was already given.
When you join a company, you typically sign an agreement that talks about how the company owns all your output. Thumbs upping a Teams message is work output and they own it.
Every email sent and received. Every keystroke. Etc etc etc.
If you don’t want your employer to log and sell it, start your own company. Or use a personal device. I do the latter.
I don't know the US law, but surely in Europe specifically every private conversation is private, period. No matter if it's work email, your company cannot read the emails directed at your company mailbox by its initiative (of course in case it's needed a judge can ask it to be taken as evidence), nor it can read the files on your computer, or anything similar, no matter if the device it's company provided, because it would be considered the same as using a camera to spy on the employee, that is of course illegal.
Of course if it's shared communication media (e.g. a mailing list) it can, but not at your private address, no matte if it's @company.com, it's considered the same as your private email.
It heavily depends on country if employer can access the email or not. For example in Italy:
> Italian Supreme Court case law according to which defensive controls may be carried out where there is a well-founded suspicion of unlawful conduct, provided that an appropriate balance is struck between the employer’s interests and the employee’s dignity and privacy, and that the control concerns data acquired after the suspicion arose.
That's not consent. It's a one-sided condition of employment. Consent would imply a meeting of the minds and a way for each employee to negotiate, or opt-out without losing employment.
It's like saying I consent to my phone company's 200 page long terms and conditions.
Corporate America has a very fucked up definition of consent, and they seem to have spread that definition broadly.
It’s legal consent. It’s the version that matters if you’re trying to limit what your employer can do with everything you write at work. And sufficient to allow anything in the US, and many other countries.
I disagree with this and think it’s a bad thing. If I founded a company, I would explicitly disallow this and make communications private and not resellable.
> How can such data be sold without the consent of all involved parties?
In the US, whoever owns the computer owns the data on it. Courts have routinely ruled that you have no say in what other people collect about you. The goal of bankruptcy courts is to minimize the losses of the creditors. And bankruptcy courts routinely rewrite contracts except where statute prevents it (like mortgages).
In the EU, you own the data about yourself. A lot of people utterly hate GDPR, but that's reason that you own the data about yourself.
And here I was thinking that flooding the zone with fascist bullshit, an office that's entirely above scrutiny, and their violent, unaccountable private army was the biggest threat to it.
The thing with government is the good ones always disappoint you and the bad ones never fail to be worse than you expect. Regardless of your feelings about the present administration you need to make sure the framework is there to protect against the next.
Funny, when I watch the news I see freedom being taken away by authoritarians, not people tracking who complains about window seats, or what pizza place you like best.
How exactly do you think those authoritarians are identifying whose freedoms are to be taken away? Or do you think all of the datamining and Palantir contracts are for lolz? Two sides of the same coin.
> How exactly do you think those authoritarians are identifying whose freedoms are to be taken away?
Pretty easily. Do you look sort of like their enemy of the week?
That's all the excuse they need to grab you.
They don't actually give a shit about being accurate in that identification. Accuracy in repression isn't the goal. The goal is a visible, public show of force.
Why should corporations have the same rights and freedoms as human beings?
I think this is a far more important question than do you believe in right or left economic policy. idc, I want you to know, do you think a human’s rights, especially many humans together, outweigh that of non living entities like large tech companies.
> Corporations have more rights. Also immunity from any real consequences
That's just untrue.
They may have rights that you do not like that they have, but they do not have MORE rights than humans.
Similarly, companies face all sorts of penalties and restrictions that constrain them in particular ways, including very severe penalties. There might be some actions that you think ought to have more severe penalties than they get, but that doesn't make your statement that companies are immune to real consequences false.
If you cut out half a sentence you can definitely counter anything. I specifically said it's an enforcement thing. If you fine meta something in Mils when they have a quarterly turn over of billions that is not consequences. But sure, let's go out and defend corporation.
So corporations can go to prison then? Or do you think some groups of people should get a free liability shield without any restrictions that come with it?
> I got a really strange response over email which I clearly wasn't supposed to see. A representative from that airline was asking internally if they could put me on the no-fly list. That was really chilling.
What if they only pretended to forward it to you by mistake and you /were/ supposed to see it?
As in "it would be a shame if you could never fly again".
It struck me as something that could be particularly clever.
It is clearly a threat, and most likely a bluff. But should it be brought to court, they could claim it was indeed internal communication (and that you should feel bad for reading it in the first place). There may even be an internal response saying "no you can't be put on the no-fly list", which isn't forwarded to you of course, to keep up with the masquerade.
In the United States legal system, when you take a plea because the Government was threaning you with a 20 year sentence the judge requires in court and under oath for you to state that you were not coerced/pressured in any way to take the plea (because pleas wouldn't be valid if the Government pressured you into them and into signing away your rights).
Before you push back at your work you have to consider possible loss of work and therefore housing/medical insurance/food.
The entire US system is designed around baked in blackmail of the individual into conforming. Not surprising at all to see the airline turn the no fly list into that pressure, it's the main technique we know to motivate people in the USA.
Re: plea deals. Most people don't know that plea deals are very common. Over 90% of convictions come from plea deals.
It's not just that lawyers are expensive and court is risky. Court also takes fucking forever. Somewhere along the way, a right to a speedy trial has been lost. People have jobs they have to get back to, families they have to provide for. The plea deal is often a way out right now, with the tradeoff of having a conviction.
Even if you're 100% innocent, it's often the better financial choice to just... take a guilty plea. The end result is we can't really say, for sure, how many convictions are actually guilty people.
The calculus gets even more complicated when we consider race. If you're a large black man, are you really going to want to take the chance in trial? If you're a meek white woman, you might be more inclined.
This is one of those places where our failure to teach history and civics is failing the American people.
It's Adams defending British solders, and later being very much a supporter of the concept of jury nullification. The fact that the modern court has been allowed to not only block the distribution of this information, but actively seeks to tell jurors that they HAVE to follow the law is, to be blunt, a disgrace.
> The entire US system is designed around baked in blackmail of the individual into conforming.
Back when I still argued with people on reddit I was shocked to learn that normies actually believe this is a good thing. Particular example was that the fact that so much of your life is tied to your workplace and you can get fired for political activity outside of your work. This shuts down any non-mainstream discussions. They were like "yes this is exactly what we want".
When I tried to explain "ok but there were times when racism and homophobia were the mainstream, do you think people advocating for equality should've lost their jobs for their political activity" I always got in response 502 Internal Server Error.
A product that lets airlines keep annoying people off them isn't worth enough to either the airlines or Google for it to be worth releasing.
My very first project at Google made them about $180M. It was canceled after about 3 years because it didn't move the needle. If it doesn't make at least a billion, it's not worth the distraction to the executives. I was like "Well can I quit and buy it back, I would love to make $180M", but no, it was too tied in to Google infrastructure to make a clean split, and would cost more in lawyers and exec attention to be worth it.
Most likely Google is using this so that they have actual training data on how a company runs internally. What kind of emails do people send? What actions are taken in response to them? What starts out as a chat and then becomes an email? What do communication architectures inside the company look like? Whose job is superfluous and doesn't actually add to the bottom line? Who does the same thing over and over again, which can be replaced by a computer and LLM?
They can then build this into the next release of Gemini and bundle it with their Cloud offerings, where it will generate much more than a billion dollars in sales to all sorts of organizations, without anyone much caring about the individual people who make up the data set.
This is a fascinating story. Thanks for posting it.
That email you accidentally received really bothers me. I don't understand why a CS rep would get this invested to the point of wanting to cause you real harm. They're not the airline. The psychology is fascinating. There are people out there who feel like a mild short-term inconvenience to them where they have no stakes somehow justifies life-changing harm is kinda frightening, honestly.
I'm reminded of the Yahoo search data fiasco that was allegedly anonymized. Turns out, it wasn't so anonymous [1]. For one thing, people tend ed to search their home address. Whoops.
You mention writing style. We already have LLMs quite capable of copying a writing style. It's a natural extension to say we can fingerprint writing style too.
But here's another aspect. Imagine you're in a relationship with someone and you somehow fingerprint their personal data with a company. For example, you use their Netflix to like 5 very obscure movies, to the point where it's likely unique. Now imagine that Netflix's data gets released in an "anonymized" form and you can now find it based on those obscure likes. I can imagine many scenarios like this. And there's no text involved here at all.
> I don't understand why a CS rep would get this invested to the point of wanting to cause you real harm
This is the kind of power tripping that easily corrupts people, especially those who don't have much power outside of work. The US national security apparatus is vast and powerful. Many people get giddy at the thought of inflicting punishment on those who "deserve" it. Act rude to a fast food worker, and you get spit in your food. Lots of people cheer the worker who spit in the food of a customer who is merely rude, impatient, or demanding. Or is guilty of being a cop, politician, rich, etc.
I can easily imagine the kind of CS rep who would delight in putting a customer who didn't just go along with things and spoke up for themselves... thats 'rude' and 'disrespectful' to some. Police are the most notorious for this kind of petty "you will respect my authority" but it is in every industry.
HN / hacker culture celebrates this in the 'Bastard Operator from Hell' [0], the sysop who will ruin your work and life with their IT wizardry, no matter if you're an intern or CEO, if they do not feel respected. Or if you interrupt their gaming with your support call.
I don't understand why a CS rep would get this invested to the point of wanting to cause you real harm.
Two possibilities come to mind...
1 - The CS rep has been instructed to do this. Scary, but corporate leaders can be assholes and wield lots of power within their orgs, so doesn't seem completely unlikely to me.
2 - The CS was just a dick.
Frankly, given the behavior of various SuperMegaCorps over the past few decades, I'm going with #1.
... or frustrated. "I have my quota of jiras to meet, and this person is taking up too much of my time when it was such a simple issue which no one complains about". Not a good customer service mindset, but frustration happens.
> If Google wanted to sell a product to the airlines that offered to keep annoying people like me from purchasing flights, they could do that with that email chain. I'm skeptical it'll be wiped correctly. Isn't my poor writing style basically my signature?
I'd be amused if a sub-sub-agent organically decided to do it anyway - even if just for a notable figure that an LLM can identify with its weights alone. What are the controls? Who's going to keep Google accountable? Hah.
The OP article is also wrong on multiple counts. "Customer behavior" data like call recordings and email addresses/activity is specifically not included in Google's purchase. See page 18 of the court document they link, the "Google's Data Purchase Request" column on the right lists what is and isn't included.
I know Meta it's not Google, but it's worth remembering that these promises haven't had a great measure of success in the past:
> Facebook has been fined €110m (£94m) by the EU for providing misleading information about its 2014 takeover of WhatsApp. (...) When Facebook took over the WhatsApp messaging service in 2014, it told the commission it would not be able to match user accounts on both platforms, but went on to do exactly that.
> A representative from that airline was asking internally if they could put me on the no-fly list.
These are the kinds of scary scenarios that people should fight and push back on opaque, unaccountable laws that other people and organisations in power try to enact in the name of safety and security, and we need to collectively fight back when someone is charged, or worse "taken away", without due process and visibility.
I got to the part where you declined the $100 and thought you declined it because you had gotten some memorable experiences and that was payment enough.
1) +95% of the population live on the coast very far away from the Amazon. Most of the population has not been there. Most of the coast has a very different jungle biome called Mata Atlantica and the countryside close to the coast is not that different from temperate forest of Europe. That is what most all Brazilians are used to. There is a significant population in the arid northeast though and the cold south as well (which is even more similar to europe).
2) Manaus is the biggest city in the Amazon and it is huge developed place (and has been for decades). You are not in the middle of the jungle if you land in the airport. The countryside around the city is jungle though.
3) Brazilian people do not necessarily like or are used to tacos and spicy food. Mexico is _really_ far away from Brazil.
I would not be offended by the blood donation thing. They generalize based on administrative regions (Amazonas in this case) and not whether you visited a big developed city or not.
I had a similar blood donation issue for visiting a particular island in the Philippines, and could not donate for 4 months.
It is funny there is no similar treatment about TBE (tick disease) which is predominantly an European disease and very dangerous and much more common than Malaria is in most (all?) South American countries...
I think 2) in particular makes some bits of the story evident that, at least, weren’t so obvious to me. I’m not well informed about the geography of the Amazon. For example, if Manaus is reasonably built up, I guess the hotel situation was mostly Spirit cheaping out rather than a limit on the actual hotel capacity of the town.
I have a german last name, do you know how often people outside Brazil act weird when they learn I am Brazilian?
My grandparents came to Brazil right after WW1 way before the Nazis came to power. High ranking Nazis fled to south america because there were a lot of germans living there already. Nearly all german people who moved to south america did it way before WW2.
I just run into this stuff a lot living in Europe.
> I have a german last name, do you know how often people outside Brazil act weird when they learn I am Brazilian?
I am surprised by this in the 2020s. Supermodel Gisele Bündchen is probably the world's most famous German-heritage Brazillian. She has been famous for at least 20 years.
Honestly at this point it is usually the Europeans that need this (I have been asked if Chile has good tacos from a European). At least in my experience, most USians (in spanish Americans means everyone in the hemisphere) now know more about South America than the average European.
Why are Americans in particular expected to know details about every country on Earth?
Do you think Canadians know all these facts about Brazil? Do Indians? Or Swedes? It's only Americans that are smugly called ignorant for not knowing about the entire world.
Not details, but at least having a basic notion of where countries are located. Everyone should be expected to know, for example, that Mexico and Spain are two different countries that are located in different continents. Yet it’s always people from the same country referring to one by the name of the other.
Take the perspective of a non-US person. Regardless of country, almost universally, they will know more about the US than an American knows about their county. It kind of comes with being the most important and biggest cultural exporting country. So every foreign individual justifiably sees the asymmetry in knowledge. I think that that answers your question? Of course, I agree that it's kind of impossible for an American to have the level of knowledge required to make it symmetric, because the asymmetry of the setup.
I 100% agree, I want to see if the people who downvoted me can come up with some kind of bizarre reverse engineered reason for why they think it's important Americans know about every country on earth.
It seems like you had a nice, unexpected experience due to the incident. I didn't expect your story to end up in you threatening to take them to court.
> I declined to take that offer. I had missed several business meetings that cost me actual money. I couldn't donate blood for years because I had been to the Amazon and was tagged a malaria risk.
The sloth was returned to his owner and I did tip him. That kid is probably still prowling the Amazon (as an adult now), looking for sucker tourists like me.
Shouldn’t have accepted the sloth in the first place.
They may look cute and docile, but also have a panic reflex to grab onto the nearest tree-like thing they can feel with their claws, including their would-be attacker. Or if they just feel like they’re about to fall off their “tree” since they have horrible eyesight and get confused easily.
Which then leads to a cycle of pain and violence as they just dig-in harder and harder while trying to free them and/or fling them around wildly due to the human's “get this thing off me” response to sharp claws digging into their flesh.
There are some painful-to-watch videos on YouTube of this phenomenon from unsuspecting passersby tying to “help” them off the road/beach/etc and ultimately making things worse for everyone involved.
I love the irony of you checking them out for more information in response to a comment of them being worried about who reads their data. Nothing wrong with it, just make me chuckle
There's something about circles of control in this, that makes the difference. If I publish information about myself, that's about me, and it's in my control.
If someone else shares information about me, without my consent, and someone uses that to nose in on me, that feels creepy and problematic.
If you find that concerning, I recommend asking Claude or Codex to analyze all your HN comments and build a profile of you (I recommend that to everyone, not trying to single you out btw.) It takes about 20 minutes. It was eye opening and somewhat unsettling how accurate it was when I ran it on my own data. Even worse, there’s NO way to delete your old HN comments.
Well at the risk of flouting HN guidelines, I went to Grok and did exactly that. Grok's profiling seems thoroughly fact-based, and doesn't pull any punches.
>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.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. The privacy abuse already happened. The data is already there. And it was the airline that did it, not a tech giant who just wants to train a bunch of MLs.
Surely if this is the scenario you're worrying about, and you accept the lack of regulatory protections, Google buying Spirit's data is a good thing, right? Much better them than the airlines who you already know to be corrupt?
Aren't there like ToS/SLA whatever the word is when you buy tickets that cover what's promised? I don't really get what they did wrong landing. If they had to cover every case then I'd expect super high variance on prices to cover routes more likely to cause problems. Is your contention that they slacked on maintenance? I guess i still don't understand what your expectation was. Just more money? Does anyone know if higher tier ticket classes come with more reimbursement? Maybe it's newer thing where the airlines offer insurance and the credit cards offer separate insurance. I'd be curious if they existed 20 years ago and if they would've helped in your situation.
To be clear, I hate airlines. It's one of the sectors that has certainly gone back down in terms of user experience. I have had shitty experiences, but also experiences where they surprised me with service. Those latter experiences were actually based on the credit card now that I think about it. On the plus side a lot more people get to fly now.
I never understood this attitude, like I feel like being able to fly in airplane is one of the most amazing human achievements, yet people will try and save down to the dollar booking a flight like it was breakfast at Dennys, and come out huffing and puffing as soon as anything goes wrong demanding their money back.
Airlines like Spirit catered to the worse of these type of customers.
That’s a bit unfair. They also catered to broke people who weren’t crazy or argumentative. On a planeload of 100 people, there must have been 60 of them at least who were just broke. Or on some routes, Spirit was the only carrier with a direct flight so they were just normal people who wanted to get to a certain place efficiently (Hi, that’s me, I flew them for this reason). Keep in mind Spirit had an excellent safety record, too, so airline choice in this case was primarily a question of having luxuries or not.
That's because they're seemingly perfunctory. What's worse than no law is a bad one that doesn't do anything but make you feel like something is actually being done.
I think most business will decline to do any further business with you after you threaten to sue them. There are even patent licenses that automatically get voided in the event you sue your counterparty for any reason.
Manny retail industries already share lists of "troublesome" customers (trouble = anything from too many returns to lawsuit-happy to friendly fraud). Not sure this is a new concern..
Just a reminder that about 40% of the email conversations in the last 20 years are already in Google’s possession with the identifying data. (About another 40% are in Microsoft’s.)
If they want to do that they already can, thanks to the public’s overwhelming appetite for “FREE” overriding every single other possible concern.
Which is funny to point out on a post about Spirit, since that was an airline built to serve the customers for whom cheapness was the overwhelming single concern.
In the early pioneering days of the commercialized Internet, email addresses were inextricably linked to your ISP. You paid for an ISP connection and you got an email box, with MTA and MUA service to match. You were reluctant to switch or leave your ISP, because that also meant leaving behind your email address. Of course, a minority of nerds got around this with their own domains, etc.
However, it seems that Google, AOL, Yahoo!, Hotmail, and other players got into providing free email services and eventually grew into giants that supplanted every other MTA service. This was not an accident and it was not merely our appetite for “FREE” but it was a very calculated plan by the industry. Those early ISPs did not have a business model that admitted monetizing our private data; they seemed to have a more respectful attitude for keeping it private. Perhaps that was a result of being telecommunications-based companies, rather than advertising or entertainment.
If a service like email provides such endless treasure troves of personal data, including a social graph and glimpses into our private daily lives, why not provide it for free and monetize opportunistically on the data itself? The free email services killed the paid services, not by being better or cheaper, but by being bigger, centralized, and more persistent. The main reason I signed up for Yahoo! was because it would be an utterly stable presence. I saw my parents and others so hopelessly attached to an ISP-based email, but I couldn't end up like that.
After streaks of losing my home and non-payment of bills and moving around over decades, the most stable point of contact for me has been a "free" email address.
> why not provide it for free and monetize opportunistically on the data itself?
Interesting proposition. It seems to me like the first round of this (Hotmail, Yahoo, the free types of accounts AOL offered, Juno, etc) was not about monetizing the data, but about acquiring sticky loyal traffic for their overall portals, to monetize with ads. Remember in the early days you'd log into Yahoo or whatever and the first thing you'd see was your inbox, then later on all these services added a welcome page that would have a bunch of "news/sports/entertainment" type stories, ads, and links to more Yahoo! services. Email was being used then as a loss leader to guarantee you'll be returning several times a week minimum.
I believe it was Google who broke the seal on reading our email to show us targeted ads.
I hear what you're saying that especially for those who go through exceptional circumstances, a free email untethered to any billing account is useful.[1] But it's still sad to me that that concept - admittedly very compelling to Gen-X and millennials who were going through the chaos of college in the 90s and 2000s when email was becoming popular - ended up cementing this idea forever. Both by establishing these identities on a few popular commercial domains like gmail.com, hotmail.com, and yahoo.com, and by setting the expectation that "email shouldn't cost even $1 a year." Most of us pay $60-100 a month for an ISP and another $60-100 a month for a cell phone plan, and $0 of that money pays for email.
[1] I'd argue that for everyone fortunate enough to have more stability of accounts, homes and such, the "moving" problems could have been easily solved by a regulation kind of like cell phone number portability, which shockingly worked out quite well.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who experienced the beginning of the Internet in one of the places where it began...
The real difference with phones is that they come with their own network, which vaguely incorporates the internetworking protocols. In the pioneering days of the internet, the ISP was the closest thing to you which was actually connected to the Internet. Early email paid attention to store-and-forward protocols, nowadays mailing lists are forced to use DKIM in order to deliver to the large ESPs and can't get it right.
The availability of network connectivity is much more pervasive today, clearly store-and-forward has mostly gone away. (Not to be confused with MTA-MTA hops, although these days most of my mail has exactly one hop on the actual Internet, again demonstrating the pervasiveness of connectivity.)
Not sure about Google and Microsoft, but Facebook was (dunno if they're still in the phone business) the de facto ISP for large numbers of people in the third world.
That did not go where I thought it was going! I thought you were going to say that the pink dolphins, the sloth, etc, were all more valuable than $100 ever… nevermind you missed some meetings, time to sue!
"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."
unfortunately "de-identified" data is typically re-identified quite trivially. so i guess we just hope google keeps its promise, and is competent in its scrubbing.
Modern corporations have learned that the best way to do shady things is to make it very clear that such things are against policy and absolutely forbidden, and then to also make it very clear that breaking policy is the only way to actually get your job done. That way they still get all the benefits of doing shady stuff, and if it ever comes to light then they can fire some scapegoats and explain that this was against policy and they'd never ever condone it.
this isn't even a "modern corporations" thing, at least in my experience.
i remember ~25 years ago being on-call with a work truck. we were absolutely not allowed to speed, at all, ever. we also absolutely had to be at the customer's site within 45 minutes of being called.
guess how many of my sites were >45 minutes away when traveling the legal speed limit.
I was thinking longer term. It feels like something from recent decades, whereas a century ago the boss would just outright tell you to do the bad thing. That's just my vague impression of the matter. Maybe this sort of thing goes back forever. In any case, excellent example, exactly the sort of thing I mean.
ahhh, there seems to be different no-fly lists? The one Im aware of is the one for terrorists and moneylaunderers, and usually they will not tell you who put you on that list :-D
There is "the" no-fly list maintained by the government, which is nominally for people who are too dangerous to be allowed on an airplane, yet not dangerous enough to charge criminally.
But each airline also maintains their own internal no-fly list for people they prefer to no longer have as customers, for whatever reason. You might end up on this for some abuse of the system that doesn't pose any sort of safety risk, so the government doesn't care, but the airline doesn't like. For example, excessively doing hidden-city ticketing (where you book a flight with a connection, then skip the second leg of the trip, because weird pricing rules make it cheaper than just booking a ticket to the connecting city) can get you banned from the airline, but the government would be completely uninterested.
Airlines are giant money losing organizations. They are kept on life support either as a national pride thing, an essential service or in America they are actually credit card companies.
This is why I get bad vibes any time I hit a cloudflare interstitial page. If you ever piss them off it would be trivial to cut you off from most of the internet.
Dude you got a free once in a lifetime opportunity to see the Amazon and Rio Negro. You saw pink dolphins. I think you made out pretty well. I would have taken the $100 and made peace.... Yeesh
Not trying to be snarky, and perhaps it wasn't well stated, but the last paragraph I said I'm concerned about identification via my writing style. If they have my emails, they would have my writing style. It doesn't have to be tied to PII there, they can cross reference it with my blog. I'm speculating because I read that you can identify people by a few sentences of their writing.
"Deidentification" seems really murky and imprecise at best.
Reidentification via writing style is definitely possible, and I doubt the vendor will modify things in a way sufficient to handle that.
But I think this is a place where we should apply bounded distrust: there are lots of places where we should distrust Google, but reidentifying people in an explicitly deidentified dataset isn't one of them.
The re-identification is done by ML, at which point it's basically undetectable. If you give all this day to, say, and LLM, and the LLM also has your blog, the identification is embedded in the weights.
I can ask "Tell me about Person A's experience with airlines" and it will tell me. Or I can ask more generally, "knowing your knowledge, derive a no-fly list", and then it's likely Person A will be on it.
Based on their trackrecord, That's definitely a concern. I don't really understand on which basis you conclude 'isn't one of them' . 'Don't be evil' ? :-P
I think this is the kind of place where applying bounded distrust is critical: it's not whether we trust Google overall, it's about figuring out what sorts of statements we should expect to effectively bind companies and in what ways.
For example, I think a pretty worrying outcome here is that deidentification is imperfect (not surprising), the data is fed into model training, and then the model makes identity-dependent inferences. Since no one tried to break deidentification, it's within what I'd expect from the company. (And, to be clear, is bad.)
On the other hand, intentional reidentification to work around contractual deidentification to "a sell a product to the airlines that offered to keep annoying people like me from purchasing flights" is the kind of thing that would make Google's lawyers terrified, so we should not expect it.
If you look at how this worked with DoubleClick, Fitbit, etc there were initially barriers to linking data but the mechanism for unlinking was updated agreements with people who had ongoing interaction with the continuing entity. That's not the situation with the Spirit data.
The closest I'd expect to see for a "keep annoying people from purchasing flights" situation is not a list of troublemakers but a model that's very good at scoring future communications from customers, and has learned to distinguish profitable vs unprofitable customers. This is well within what I'd expect from companies, and doesn't require any reidentification.
I don't think google will explicitly 'deintificate' the data and sell it 'deidentified'. It's more that that kinda data can't really be anonymized. And while I trust google to pay lipservice to the 'anonymizedness' , I don't trust them at all that they won't just feed all that data into their AI training as-is, letting the deidentification happen when someone writes a smart prompt for gemini. As long as they have plausible deniability they don't care.
I don't trust google to do anything out of goodness, they'll do anything they can get away with. Same as all the other big tech firms. Once a firm gets too big it stops having morals.
There’s a new tool too I saw the other day. And a slightly older one ( https://antirez.com/hnstyle ). Anyway imagine Google’s funding + data + new techniques—shouldn’t be terribly murky these days.
Even if they follow to the letter a deidentification process, Google and Meta have so much data about individuals that re-identification shouldn't be very hard for the majority of airline passengers' data they put their hands on.
Of course, takes a lot more effort than not doing proper deindetification in the first place but if they wanted to appear like caring about data privacy they still have enough data points to correlate the sets later on (and/or over time).
The idea that there’s a nefarious plot to do something super evil with this data is a bit crackpot though based on their incentives.
Remember, Google = Ads. Their only focus and only care. Their mission statement, rendered accurately, is “Ads ads ads ads. Effective ads. Ads worth paying a lot for. Ads ads ads. Advertising and ads.”
If they choose to be evil in some additional way, (1) remember, they would only do that if in some way it serves their advertising needs — not to offer innovative new black-hat databroker services to airlines, and (2) this little dataset will not need to be re-identified. They’ll just use the 20 years of email and search data they already have on like half the world’s population.
No need for a nefarious plot, as usual with capitalism it just needs incentives. They will have the data, if at some point it's beneficial to Google to re-identify it then it will be done.
Do I believe they have incentives to do it now? No, as you point it out for their advertisement cash-cow they can already just rely on their own data (GMail, Search, Google Flights) but nothing stops them from the potential later on, the data is now theirs.
Likely its value is just to train LLMs but the funny thing about data is that you can always try to find ways to extract more value out of it. I'd prefer there was no possibility for that without requiring me to trust Google (or any corporation).
In an ideal world my data would be mine to control, not to be traded in deals among 3rd parties, it's valuable and I've spent time generating it so in a sense I've done free work to be extracted by these corpos.
Even before LLMs there were multiple papers written about ways to to reidentify people with ML and other statistical analysis. It is probably now even more trivial especially if you are Google.
> But, this is the kind of information I'm worried about when a vendor sells my data. If Google wanted to sell a product to the airlines that offered to keep annoying people like me from purchasing flights
> But, this is the kind of information I'm worried about when a vendor sells my data
Don't worry. Spirit probably lost all of the emails from the customers (or they were devnulled) and 90% of the data is probably autoresponder messages promising the company would respond.
The other 10% was probably the meme collection of the executive management team.
I don't find that sentence confusing, but I definitely found the article poorly written. Here's the sixth nearly identical map and now let's repeat the exact same thing already stated five times or more while including one new sentence of detail. The density of actual information in the writing is so low that it's hard to follow.
The article is so repetitive and padded out with empty prose that I found myself ignoring whole paragraphs. It's like the author decided to describe what an el niño is, then describe what an el niño is, then describe a super el niño, then describe what an el niño is, then describe what an el niño is, then describe what an el niño is, then describe the possible consequences of a super el niño, then describe what an el niño is, then describe what an el niño is, and finally describe what an el niño is.
Given the repition without new information, random bolded words and consistent paragraph length, I'd say this is probably written mostly or entirely by an LLM
The author is saying the surface of the ocean (where it's easiest to measure temps, so we do that the most) is the 'footprint' or the full colum of warm water below it. Additionally, like a footprint the surface area it represents might be smaller too as warm water continues to rise.
I stumbled across this too but going back to the picture made the sentence easy to understand. Maybe the sentence would have worked better if it was located before the picture. (The picture shows a ramp going up to the right deep under the ocean surface - the subsurface warm core)
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
reply