Wow! I didn’t realize the scope and duration of this outage. This must be doing some serious damage to some of their clients (catastrophic if this does impact JIRA, Confluence, and OpsGenie broadly on a company level). Is there any report of approximately how many (or specific) companies have been affected as a result of this?
What is with some of the responses in this thread! I understand some cases are not so clear, but if you do something as blatant as punch a flight attendant in the face I think that’s grounds to be put on such a list. There should be a policy so that after a period (or going through some program) you could then be removed from the list though..
It actually blew my mind when I heard that you could assault someone on a plane and not be instantly banned
What I don't get, instead, are the people who, like you, find a no fly-list acceptable.
If you punch a person on the street, you get charged. Same if you punch a flight attendant on a plane.
You might even go to jail in both cases. But what you don't get in the first case is to be put on a blacklist that prevents you from using some services. If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.
What you advocate for reminds of proscription lists in ancient Rome or the social credit system of the CCP.
> If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.
Uh, I dunno. We definitely banned disruptive people from our supermarket. And we’d happily let other supermarkets nearby know that Mr. X was an asshole that should be treated with extreme caution (and vice versa).
I don’t see why the government needs to get involved with this though. Airlines are perfectly capable of making and sharing such a list themselves.
There is a reason not all sentences are life sentences. Sometimes people do things wrong and if they are willing to change their ways we as a society should forgive them if it's safely possible. Just because someone does something wrong once doesn't mean they are that person forever.
I can't explain it but every time I hear that phrase I get a very visceral feeling of injustice. The phrase represents extrajudicial punishment by a mob or powerful entity, and the negation of fairness, proportionality, and due process, often expressed by a person who does not care because they are certain that they themselves will not fall victim to abuses of such systems.
> If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.
If you punch a person in a supermarket, authorities can be summoned to take you away. If you do that on a plane, that can't be done. Planes are safe because things are heavily regulated and expected to go according to an extremely strict plan. Any aberration increases the risk of a catastrophic event.
Your comparison does not work. You can be taken away from a supermarket in that instance. You can legally come back to the same supermarket in the future. And even if the owner decides you are not welcome in his store, you can go to any other store.
Banning a person from ever flying again is not the same thing at all.
I’m not taking a position here, but you didn’t counter their argument. They also explicitly stated that it’s not the same thing, but that it’s reasonable it gets treated differently because of the security ramifications. You didn’t engage with that line of thinking, you just reiterated that the context is different, which you both already seem to agree on.
"You can legally come back to the same supermarket in the future." Incorrect, you can be trespassed and thus legally prevented from coming back to the same supermarket in the future.
> which technically, means you can never drive yourself again.
I haven't audited all 50 states, but at least in all the states I've lived in, there is no way to permanently lose your license from any number of DUIs. The license suspensions (and jail time) go up for each DUI someone gets, but they're always able to get their license back at some point.
Here in NL, a driver's license can be forfeited by judicial order. Usually in such cases, the driver has to re-take the driving test and can regain their driver's license that way, but it takes time and is quite costly around here.
Which is why it might make sense to get the government involved, instead of having a purely private-sector no-fly-list sharing among airlines, which would effectively ground someone without supervision or recourse.
(Though I can imagine some libertarians reply "well, just take your own plane..." :-)
AFAIK the pilots decides who are eligible to get on a flight or not. So I guess they can say that they don’t want to have people with a prior history on their plane. The pilots are responsible for the flights safety.
Most professional sports teams in the US ban fans that fight in the stadiums. In regards to banning people in supermarkets - yes, the store is entirely within its right to ban the customer: https://axislc.com/public/can-a-business-ban-a-customer/
Clearly the system has not been abused too much if you are not even aware this is how it already works.
An airline is a business - why would a business want to transport a passenger who has a history of criminal misconduct onboard their aircraft? The airlines have a duty to protect their employees, and a duty of care towards other passengers. They also have a rightful interest in running their services on-time and without disruption.
In the US, airlines are common carriers - which involves certain obligations like published pricing and non-discrimination - but that still allows them the right to refuse carriage on reasonable grounds. You can argue what "reasonable grounds" means, but "criminal history of violent or disruptive behavior onboard an aircraft" seems like it's probably going to suffice.
Very instructive comparison... and considering the current laws on DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol, a clear endangerment to others imo) is instructive.
In my area:
* First offense (failed sobriety test): 6 month ban
* Second offense: 12 month ban
Convictions are different: they draw bans of 1, 5, and 10 years. You need 4 convictions for a lifetime ban.
Most counts reset after N years.
Now compare this to the suggestions for an airline no-fly list. The permissiveness with which alcohol + driving is treated in the US boggles the mind, but I think it's clear from this a similar proposal for airlines would be very lenient.
I'm not sure I am in favour of a no-fly list, however, flying (unlike other examples in this thread; walking across the street, going to a supermarket etc) is not a basic human need. You (and many others do) do not need to ever fly in your life to live a happy and fulfilled life, without any pressure (you could never visit a supermarket but that's actually much harder; most people will never fly in their lives automatically anyway). For most people it is a minor inconvenience if they could never fly again and a minority will have to find another job. A list like it would have little or no impact on anything basically for by far most people on earth. So the question is, is having the list so beneficial for enough people (who are in these planes where repeat offenders kick up a stink) to go through the trouble of creating one?
For each person who punched a flight attendant I bet there are 5 on the list who didn’t come even close to that. The list itself can be used as a threat.
Around here (NL), notorious shoplifters are banned from certain shopping centres. The shopkeepers keep a list with photo's and share it among them. This is established practice (though I'm not sure how widespread) and isn't even considered a GDPR violation as long as the list isn't made public, since protecting yourself from fraud is a legitimate business interest.
Yes, in an ideal world this wouldn't be needed because you could trust the police to handle such cases adequately, but they don't. Hence, where justice fails, you see alternative systems prop up (also see #metoo, cancel culture).
So you punch someone in the street, should you be banned from walking on any street anywhere in the country?
Why are aircrafts so special that they need such special rules about banning people who commit a minor crime one time? Remember these crimes are minor crimes. Yet people are honestly thinking the correct level of response for an assualt is the inability to use an entire industry.
Of course Airlines want the power to banish people from the industry and give their hosts and hostesses power that people will be afraid of them and just comply with everything and anything. These people already have a lot of power in the fact not complying is a crime.
But to be fair, this is coming from a country where there freedoms are so limited it's a crime to cross the street in the wrong area.
Secondly, you're sealed into a tube with 100 other passengers, over the Atlantic ocean on a 14 hour flight. One passenger who cannot control themselves, decides they're going to punch a flight attendant. Now what? You can't just call the police (like you can on the street).
So now, people who are not the police, have to "detain" this individual to keep them from hurting others. The plane has to divert to land so that the person can be handled by law enforcement. The 14 hour flight is now potentially 24-48 hours total, people have missed connecting flights, holidays, work meetings, etc.
So how and why people continue to compare punching someone on the street with punching someone on an airplane, is beyond me. While they're both technically assault, that's where the comparison ends.
Standard assault such getting punched is a minor crime. That is why people don't get jailed for it. It may not be enjoyable but it is a minor crime. Stating otherwise is simple a falsehood.
> So now, people who are not the police, have to "detain" this individual to keep them from hurting others.
This is some overly dramatic bullshit. Just because I punched Johnny because he was being a dick doesn't mean I'm punching anyone else. Simply people very rarely go on assault rampages. The fact you think they would shows out of touch you are.
> The plane has to divert to land so that the person can be handled by law enforcement. The 14 hour flight is now potentially 24-48 hours total, people have missed connecting flights, holidays, work meetings, etc.
Yes, and that why air rage is a much more serious crime than punching someone. We have courts and punishments for these things. Banning someone forever from being able to travel is absurd. Banning companies from providing services for someone because they found out their wife was sleeping with their best mate while in a plane is absurd.
> This is some overly dramatic bullshit. Just because I punched Johnny because he was being a dick doesn't mean I'm punching anyone else. Simply people very rarely go on assault rampages. The fact you think they would shows out of touch you are.
And howd you know that? wait for them to punch others too? or wait for Johny's friend to return the deed?
Well doesnt matter to me. Anyone who resorted to violence while on a flight should be detained, even if the assaulter assault that_guy_iain for being a dick
So you're for tying people up incase they do something? Anyways, having seen people get slapped and punched quite a few times. It's an issue between them.
> or wait for Johny's friend to return the deed?
You tying the attacker up will not prevent Johnny's friend from attacking him, in fact you're making it easier. In fact, you're escalating the situation over all. In many cases, you can tell the attacker to sit down over there and victim to sit over there. If they're attacking flight crew, this has been a situation that has been esclating for a while so they're just gonna tape them up as is their job.
> Well doesnt matter to me. Anyone who resorted to violence while on a flight should be detained, even if the assaulter assault that_guy_iain for being a dick
That's fair enough, but that is not what the topic at hand is. The topic at hand is, whether or not as part of their punishment by the government that they should never be allowed on a flight ever again?
A private plane and a public street are indeed very different. Not that I agree with a shared no fly list between all airlines, but if a single airline wants to ban you after an incident it's not that different than Walgreens banning you because you punched an employee
True, but since this is about adding them to goverment no-fly list which would mean it was no longer the companies refusing service but the goverment punishing them kinda makes this moot.
It think the risk is in transparency. If I piss off an airline employee in some way and they decide to punish me in this way with no recourse it's a problem.
The whole thing exists outside the regular justice system. Even if the airline employee puts you in the list in good faith, the criteria they used to put you there would be somewhat arbitrary (define "unruly") and not weighed against any kind of precedent for similar infractions. Appeal is also difficult.
The responses in this thread were unusually crazy/crass/rude before moderation apparently stepped in. I dunno if that was a glimpse of "unmoderated HN" or if this topic in particular draws out emotions.
The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.
> The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.
I hope so but I wouldn't hold my breath. I remember initially the "enhanced" security pat down was "random" which meant they'd pull aside only brown people. Guess what if it is truly random then grandma on a wheel chair should also be subject to the same "enhanced" pat down. Then they did "enhanced" security pat down on grandmas on wheel chairs but I don't see the public demanding (at least not successfully) the removal.
The whole thing is an opaque mess and includes many false positives. I certainly don't feel any safer flying with the list in place than I would otherwise. To me it seems like another example of post 9/11 security theatre.
The problem is the asymmetry of costs of a false negative and a false positive. A false positive means some dude with an unlucky name has to drive instead of flying. A false negative means some terrorist gets on a plane, blows it up, and some politicians get blamed for it.
Though, yeah, it feels like a bit of security theatre. A more transparent process would probably help. Maybe the thinking is that it would jeopardise sources?
There’s a lot of gray areas too. I recall a flight where the guy across the aisle from me simply could not sit in his seat. Before we even took off they had multiple conversations with him trying to get him in his seat. In the air, he would repeatedly get up and try to lay down to sleep in the aisle. Their talks with him and me being the nearest seat, had me on edge the whole time expecting I was going to have to break up a fight or dodge a rouge fist. I firmly believe this guy needed a probationary period on air travel.
Also Let’s not forget stadiums ban people for heckling, booing, or other extreme conduct. You’ll get kicked out of a movie theater for disruptive behavior, etc. The punitive actions shouldn’t be too foreign.
You can be banned from flying. You dont have a right to fly... it's a contract between airlines and passengers. Airlines ban passengers as they see fit. They dont need the government to ban passengers. They "need" (want) the government to act in the best interests of the airlines.
Because it’s literally too good to be true. Anyone would love to believe such a list will work, but measures like these will invariably become more problem than they’re worth. I bet that guy who got dragged out of the airplane some time ago would be on that list very quick. It’s a great list until you find yourself in it because you lost your patience with an attendant for being double booked. “Please calm down sir”.
Especially considering nobody has the same first and last name as some other person and government, security and low wage slaves at airlines are never ever make mistakes.
To the glorious days of flying without disturbances!
I don't think people are saying an airline shouldn't ban but questioning whether they should be put on a federal list managed by the US government. That's a slippery slope.
If you assault someone on the street, should you be banned from being on all streets, indefinitely and on the whim of the owner of one of the streets, without any legal recourse?
Reductio ad absurdum. This analogy couldn't be worse.
People on the street have multiple ways to deal with your shitty behaviour, including distancing or removing themselves from the situation.
Not so much on the plane. Also, you do realise that streets can't crash and kill everyone who was walking on them?
It’s a slippery slope.
If you risk the life of all the passengers with your behaviour because you can’t be bothered of following the basic rules of civility you should definitely be in a no-flight list.
Following your nonsensical slippery slope, we already put behind bars people that are a danger to the fellow citizens, and in some cases, yes, you are banned indefinitely from all the streets. It’s called “death penalty” and Americans should know one or two things about it.
If you ask me, putting someone on a no-fight list makes definitely more sense than killing someone.
Yes, if you do something deserving death penalty, it makes sense to also be banned for life from flying. However, if you are alleged to risk life of people on the street because "you can't be bothered [to follow] the basic rules of civility", there is a complex and prolonged process to put you off the street, you have plenty of opportunity for recourse, and you'll unlikely to be taken off the street for life. On the other hand, when it comes to no-fly list, there is no due process and zero recourse.
I find it commendable that you are trying to protect me from unruly passengers on a flight. Do you also want to protect me from unruly people on the street, by locking those who can't be bothered to follow basic rules of civility out of public space for life, or are planes somehow special? I mean, if you just willy-nilly shoot a gun on the street, you'll be banned from the street for shorter than you'd be banned from flying for refusing to wear a mask on the plane. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
And if you look at the actual article instead of the HN headline, you can see that this is about putting people who have been convicted for their behavior on the no-fly list. So you have a proper trial before you get put onto that list.
I had a very similar experience as a child. I always wondered how other drivers could tell which way we were turning. My parents told me that they can tell from your turn signal. 6-year-old me just thought turn signals entailed the green flashing arrows on the dash (not also on the car’s taillights). I just assumed all drivers were tall enough to see into the other car and tell from their dash (for at least the next year or so)!
Funny, I remember as a child wondering how my parents knew how to get where we were going. I saw the green lights on the dash (and couldn't see the signal lever from the backseat) and just thought that the car was smart enough to give them directions.
Not sure why the downvotes. Perhaps it’s due to referring to Fear and Loathing as a movie instead of the book it’s based on. The movie is actually a good representation of the book and almost all of the dialog is taken word-for-word
I've been trying to think for a while, why the downvotes, and one thing definitely comes to my mind: For many people, the idea of Hunter S. Thompson is this drug-fueled lunatic acted by Johnny Depp. That this is all he is; leaving behind the amazing amount of writing about American society and politics.
Las Vegas is a tiny book. It's a great book, a story about excess and the American dream. And the movie is the dialog word-for-word, but it adds nothing to the legacy of Hunter S. Thompson. It's Depp getting famous by riding the fame of Hunter. And it is generally thought as a movie about taking drugs and doing crazy things. And, I might be wrong here, but this is how I see it after many of my schoolmates watched it and were quoting the scenes.
And I like the movie. I love his writing. And I think Terry Gilliam was the right director to do this movie. I still kind of want to reject this idea of this movie to be the first thing people think when they talk about Hunter. He was so much more.
This is one of the few genuinely great ideas I’ve heard lately. I’m honestly surprised some of these games have implemented this functionality themselves - it’d probably help reduce player toxicity and frustration amongst other benefits
On top of that their deeplinking doesn’t even work. It’s completely broken. It takes me to the App Store when I already have the app installed and it’s literally impossible to go from a google search to a reddit post in the app smoothly. It absolutely blows my mind that an app where deeplinking is particularly important (google search results) is so broken. If you don’t want to build your own deeplink framework, then there’s plenty out there you can get to integrate like branch.io
I use to have many ant problems - and certainly not due to any lack of cleanliness.
It pretty much all went away once I got a cat. At first I thought it was coincidence, but over the years I noticed if I ever killed a random ant the cat would start rolling around and scenting the very spot the ant was killed.
I don’t have any scientific proof, but I have to think the cat’s scent/pheromones interferes with the ants and prevents more from following/coming.
My family had severe ant problems with two cats in the house. I've never seen or heard of behavior like your cat's around ant death sites. I suspect you have a rare or unique situation, assuming it's not a coincidence.
I have three cats and they don't seem to affect the ants at all. They won't eat them because they're bitter.
It's possible you're on to something. When an ant is killed/crushed, the body releases a chemical that signals the rest of the ants to go on a rampage and find whatever the threat is.
https://youtu.be/OGKPmBtBpBo