frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

This Guy Made a Whip for Claude

1•cbdevidal•2m ago•1 comments

Baldwin Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect
1•apollinaire•6m ago•0 comments

LiveKit on Telnyx: hosted agents with no session fees, lower speech costs

https://telnyx.com/release-notes/livekit-on-telnyx-voice-ai-infrastructure
1•voice_vector•7m ago•0 comments

Startup founder's day swinging between 99% failure with 1% hope

1•kathir05•7m ago•0 comments

Can India Afford to Quit Coal?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Can-India-Afford-to-Quit-Coal.html
1•PaulHoule•8m ago•0 comments

Smart people recognize each other – science proves it

https://comuniq.xyz/post?t=920
2•01-_-•8m ago•0 comments

Is Infrastructure as Code the Right Model for the Modern Cloud?

https://www.planetform.io/blog/infrastructure-entropy-problem
1•dev_infra•10m ago•0 comments

Tokenized Finance [pdf]

https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/imf-notes/2026/english/insea2026001.pdf
2•petethomas•14m ago•0 comments

Modularize Early, Please

https://stanislav.blog/modularize-early-please/
2•spanferov•15m ago•1 comments

Show HN: I made a free alternative to SimpleCitizen (YC S16)

https://fillvisa.com/
1•junaid_97•15m ago•0 comments

JPMorgan warns Tesla stock could sink 60% in new note

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/jpmorgan-warns-tesla-stock-could-sink-60-in-new-note-heres-why-14...
4•freediddy•16m ago•0 comments

"Good Taste" Is Just Experience

https://terriblesoftware.org/2026/03/27/good-taste-is-just-experience/
4•tanelpoder•17m ago•1 comments

A look at Ukraine's high-powered military electric scooters on the front lines

https://electrek.co/2026/04/06/a-closer-look-at-ukraines-high-powered-military-electric-scooters-...
1•breve•19m ago•0 comments

‎Google AI Edge Eloquent App

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-ai-edge-eloquent/id6756505519
1•xnx•22m ago•0 comments

Adobe modifies hosts file to detect whether Creative Cloud is installed

https://www.osnews.com/story/144737/adobe-secretly-modifies-your-hosts-file-for-the-stupidest-rea...
28•rglullis•23m ago•2 comments

Emacs Codex IDE Integration

https://github.com/dgillis/emacs-codex-ide
1•mzarby•23m ago•0 comments

Battle for Wesnoth: open-source, turn-based strategy game

https://www.wesnoth.org
4•akyuu•24m ago•2 comments

Show HN: Vajra, a background coding agent with graph-based workflows

https://github.com/zamana-inc/vajra
1•shloked•24m ago•0 comments

Battling Bots

https://www.coryd.dev/posts/2026/battling-bots
1•cdrnsf•24m ago•0 comments

Studio Display XDR medical imaging feature gets FDA cleared, launching this week

https://9to5mac.com/2026/04/06/studio-display-xdr-medical-imaging-feature-fda-clearance/
2•kotaKat•28m ago•0 comments

Autonmomous Agent Identity Framework

https://github.com/highflame-ai/zeroid
3•sharathr•29m ago•0 comments

Can deterministic coding be relevant in 2026?

https://npmjs.com/package/@cmpsbl/cli
1•promptfluid•29m ago•2 comments

Show HN: I built a modern, self-hosted control plane to manage migrations

https://github.com/minuth/open-migration
1•xarahe•31m ago•0 comments

The Bedrock Is Shifting: Five Developments Rethinking Computat

https://suthakamal.substack.com/p/the-bedrock-is-shifting-five-developments
2•suthakamal•32m ago•0 comments

Real Feelings for Fake Beauty

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/real-feelings-for-fake-beauty
1•paulpauper•32m ago•0 comments

Surprising links between autism, Alzheimer's could change how we treat both

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/04/02/autism-alzheimers-link-research-treatment/
1•wslh•33m ago•1 comments

Artemis II Lunar Flyby (Official Broadcast)

https://plus.nasa.gov/scheduled-video/nasas-artemis-ii-crew-flies-around-the-moon-official-broadc...
4•layer8•33m ago•1 comments

Can You Fake Being Rich?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/style/rich-old-money-tiktok.html
1•paulpauper•33m ago•0 comments

Web Augmenter – Reshape any website with one sentence

https://harishsg993010.github.io/web-augmenter/
2•fidelisakilan•35m ago•1 comments

Acclaimed Physicist and Daughter Are Burying Tiny Nuclear Reactors Underground

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2026/04/02/acclaimed-physicist-and-his-daughter-ar...
2•Olshansky•36m ago•0 comments
Open in hackernews

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

https://twitter.com/Suzierizzo1/status/2040864617467924865
178•josephcsible•1h ago

Comments

recursive•1h ago
Can't read the twit because I don't have an account.
Ucalegon•1h ago
https://xcancel.com/Suzierizzo1/status/2040864617467924865

There you go!

toomuchtodo•1h ago
Original reporting source:

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/dodgers-fan-printed...

cwillu•1h ago
That's strange, because it opens and plays fine without an account for me.
kjkjadksj•1h ago
They sometimes give a more firm account wall and sometimes let you slide a few tweets. It isn’t deterministic.
throwaway27448•1h ago
I don't think I've ever seen this firm account wall for single tweets outside of those marked as sensitive.
masfuerte•1h ago
Inconsistent paywalls are a product now. The Times (the original) has shoe-horned in some kind of AI paywall [1] which claims to maximise conversions by varying how much you get to see and for how long. It pissed me off because I was logged-in to my subscription but it was blocking me anyway.

[1]: https://www.zuora.com/products/zephr/

nxtbl•1h ago
Same here, not logged in to X and works just fine with Firefox.
Someone1234•1h ago
Do you have uBlock Origin by any chance?
threethirtytwo•1h ago
sad, but thats life.
1bpp•1h ago
..because we very recently decided to make it that way
bigstrat2003•1h ago
The point is it doesn't have to be life. We can make things so that you don't need a smartphone, but we choose not to. That's a choice, not some immutable reality of the universe.
xvector•1h ago
We can, but why should we?
justonceokay•1h ago
If your imagination is that anemic then the process is compete.
whoamii•1h ago
Right? This is no country for old men.
HotGarbage•1h ago
Why should we be beholden to the two mega-corporations who control the smartphone market?
pavel_lishin•1h ago
If you scroll up, there's a link to an example of why at the very top of this page.
bigstrat2003•1h ago
Because the future will be very dystopian if we place two tech companies as gatekeepers of everything in life. If Google locks your account and won't help you (which happens!), you don't want that to also take away your ability to bank, go to baseball games, etc.
Ucalegon•1h ago
If you work in an industry that is solely based off of customer delight, stories like these are what you are looking avoid due to brand damage. It is going to cost more time/energy to deal with the backlash than just coming up with a simple solution in the first place.
sateesh•1h ago
privacy for one.
andrewla•1h ago
Can we make things so that you don't need a smartphone? I don't think this is as trivial as you're making it out to be.

Having a non-exfiltratable bearer token is really really hard. In order to present a zero-knowledge proof of the possession of a token you need to have some sort of challenge-response protocol. The simplest one, and the one in most common use (such as this) is a time-based method, where the shared knowledge of the current time represents the challenge.

The other method is to use civil identity as the challenge, and use government-issued IDs as the bearer token that the ticket is tied to. This doesn't scale well to larger events, and presents real challenges involved centralization of ticket exchange.

You can argue whether or not forgery is a significant enough problem to be worth this trouble, but that's a business decision, and as live events like this get more expensive forgery and resale become more and more of a problem, which end up locking out people like this who have legally and legitimately bought tickets but can't gain access to events because someone has stolen and resold their ticket.

raincole•1h ago
Yet, somehow Major League had been selling tickets just fine for more than a century without smartphones.
andrewla•45m ago
It's a moving target. Forging tickets has gotten easier and easier, and as tickets get more expensive it becomes more and more lucrative. Law enforcement is generally not helpful for this sort of petty larceny so they are looking for structural ways to prevent it.

In past eras they used holograms and watermarks and special papers in an attempt to prevent forgery but these methods keep getting challenged by an ever more sophisticated criminal element. Moving into cryptographically secure methods is the last barrier here.

They could also rely on the state to match identities to tickets, but this approach does not scale and is frankly undesirable for the majority of people anyway.

bigstrat2003•1h ago
What? We sold tickets for literally decades upon decades before smartphones came out. Of course you can do it, it's already been done!
andrewla•55m ago
Decades upon decades of holograms and watermarks on tickets to make them unforgeable. But it keeps getting easier to forge them. Meanwhile ticket prices keep increasing (venue space is one of the last things that's truly scarce) and the incentives for forgery keep increasing.

Even if we could make them truly unforgeable, people generally want electronically transferrable tickets. How do you propose to do this?

kjkjadksj•1h ago
Stuff like this should always have an analog failsafe like a printable ticket. I can’t be the only one who has a phone actually die out and about. Especially as this device gets a little old, battery drops maybe 1% every 2 min of screen on use. Even worse in crowded cell service situations like baseball games.
freeqaz•1h ago
Also a good fallback if your phone screen cracked 2 hours before. But I can imagine part of the challenge they are facing here are scalpers. TicketMaster app 'rotates' the actual ticket every 30 seconds. Can't rotate paper.

I'd think that having a 2nd factor like presenting ID that matches the ticket would be sufficient there though.

loloquwowndueo•1h ago
You don’t need the app itself to get the rotating tickets, the algorithm is pretty dumb and was reverse engineered back in 2024. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906148

You probably still need a device of some kind though.

andrewla•1h ago
Ticket counterfeiting is the core problem that they are trying to prevent. If there's a fallback method then that fallback method can be abused to forge tickets.

EDIT: I know complaining about downvotes is a downvotable offense itself, but I'm genuinely curious as to what is objectionable about this comment.

red_admiral•58m ago
China's solution: your passport is your ticket. Not great for privacy, but persumably you also want to check that people banned from a stadium for their behaviour don't get in anyway.
ggoo•1h ago
I wish people would stop posting twitter links, they're a coin toss if they're even viewable
engineer_22•1h ago
This one is viewable
Aachen•1h ago
Posted 9 minutes before your comment... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47662987
Analemma_•1h ago
There are various extensions you can get to automatically redirect Twitter links to xcancel or something, very much recommended.

I don't like that these get submitted either, but unfortunately people do post worthwhile stuff there and only there, and I don't want to just categorically forbid those posts.

mixtureoftakes•27m ago
I like these being submitted.

Twitter still does have quite a lot of unique content that either appears there first or isnt accessible anywhere else at all, unlike paid article websites, previews without logging in actually work for the most part, and xcancel as you said is a thing. Which extension are you using for redirects?

polski-g•1h ago
Well he has no responsibilities. His entire calendar is free, for the past two decades. They came out 17 years ago. He can go get one and learn how to use it.
pavel_lishin•1h ago
Kind of you to volunteer his time.
nslsm•9m ago
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who choose not to get with the times. We all took our time to learn how to use a smartphone. He could have too but chose not to. Probably refused to learn to use touch to pay, ATMs, etc as well. You chose to opt out of society; that’s too bad.
kmoser•1h ago
I noticed the barcodes on the reporter's printed tickets in that video. I hope a nefarious actor doesn't freeze-frame it and reprint them.
avree•1h ago
The ones that the reporter says were for yesterday's game? I guess if the nefarious actor also has a time machine, that'd be a pretty big risk.
daedrdev•50m ago
This is another reason why etickets are used, they regenerate the barcodes
mlinhares•1h ago
I'm sure someone somewhere though this was expected friction and wouldn't be a problem.
jayd16•1h ago
If you think this is bad you should see the absolute cluster that is Intuit Dome's system.
elevation•1h ago
We need to extend the ADA to protect people who are not technologically-abled.
Molitor5901•1h ago
This is a really good point. I'm surprised the box office cannot print it for him for a fee at Will Call, which might be the solution here.
pc86•1h ago
No, it's not. If you are physically incapable of operating a piece of technology, the ADA covers reasonable accommodations for that. If you are simply unwilling to learn how to use a piece of technology, it doesn't and shouldn't cover that.

Being a luddite is not a protected class.

jjtheblunt•1h ago
I agree with your assertion, but it made me think of a question.

Are Amish and Mennonites religiously protected luddites?

pc86•1h ago
For sure, but I don't know how much of their luddite-ness (ludditude?) is simply a byproduct of their faith or vice versa :)
snarf21•52m ago
Most Amish under 30 have secret cell phones. It would only be the oldest generations without them. There are even lots of wink & nod arrangements where they may even have electricity in some outbuilding but they unplug it when elder comes to visit. It also depends on the Order as some are more strict than others. They generally aren't allowed to have electricity in "the house" but batteries and other workarounds exist.

They aren't as isolated these days as they used to be. If you go to Costco, you see them with 3 carts loaded 3 feet high of all the same crap everyone else is buying. A lot of times, they don't even transport it back via buggy but call the "Amish taxi service" which is people who drive them around town in large passenger vans. Even from a work source perspective, a lot have moved on from farm work and work in construction, roofing and other trades. If you go to a gas station in the morning, you'll see work trucks roll up and only Amish rollout to go buy soda and lunches or whatever.

[Source: I live in Lancaster and have for many years.]

jjtheblunt•47m ago
Really interesting!
drob518•1h ago
So, everyone needs to have $500 to be able to purchase a smartphone, otherwise they can’t participate in society?
BonoboIO•1h ago
There are 50$ smart phones that could do that …
EvanAnderson•1h ago
There's more "cost" to an 81 y/o person picking up their first smartphone than just the money they'll be spending.
pc86•1h ago
Well context is important and this was in directly response to the (spurious strawman) claim that if you can't spend $500 on a phone then you are excluded from society.
r0m4n0•1h ago
Yea I'd argue even less. You can get a used android phone w/ shipping for $15 on ebay. A new android phone for $30!

That's the price of one meal at a restaurant...

pc86•1h ago
I was referring specifically to the idea that the Americans with Disabilities Act should cover people who simply choose not to utilize or learn a particular piece of technology which has been around for the better part of two decades.

The "poor people don't belong in society?!?" trope is completely different (and kind of boring).

raverbashing•1h ago
lol not everyone wants/needs an iPhone

And yes. People need to get on with the times.

In the same way people "need" a power connection in their house. And water plumbing. And used to need a phone line to "participate in society"

Ucalegon•1h ago
The problem with this argument is that forcing people to use technology, without proper training and against their will, introduces them to risks as well. Anyone with older parents/family can tell you the harms that come with phishing and other fraud scenarios that cost more than just accommodating people not using technology, both at the micro and macro level. Insulting people and bullying them into technology adoption when there are relatively simple fixes to the problem seem better than increasing risk exposure for no reason other than 'I believe that people who don't use technology are somehow lesser'.
pc86•54m ago
The worst thing about this entire discourse is the root of the entire "just print this one guy his tickets on-demand" argument is that it assumes, at its base, that once you hit a certain age you immediately become a moron incapable of learning anything new or adjusting your day-to-day life at all.

And 80-year old person is just as smart as a 20-year old. He's perfectly capable of learning how to use a $50 smartphone to access his $5-200k/yr season tickets, he just doesn't want to. It sounds like he was told years and years ago they were moving this direction, and they've been printing him tickets as an exception, and they've decided to stop the exception. He's had 20 years to get a smart phone and learn how to use it. The fact that he now has to choose is a prison of his own making.

Ucalegon•46m ago
Do you know how many old people get scammed per year in the United States because they are using technology that they are trained on, but assume that they have to use the technology in order to function each year with minimal practical gain relative to the costs? Its around 12.5 billion dollars in 2024, up from 10 billion in 2023 [1]. Why is introducing someone to that risk worth it to watch a baseball game?

Asserting that individual 'get smart' doesn't actually solve for the actual harms and if it were just simple, we would not be seeing the upward trends in fraud that we are seeing within the elderly.

[1] https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/older-adults-ftc-frau...

edit: fixed the years

daedrdev•52m ago
Im going to be harsh, sorry.

In this case nobody is forcing them to buy a dodgers ticket. It’s a completely optional and absurdly expensive luxury good that is purely for leisure. They can simply not but a ticket if they don't want to accept conditions of sale.

tracker1•48m ago
Yeah... I mean, who says I should have to put in wheelchair ramps for my ballpark that seats tens of thousands? I mean, so few people use/need them, I should just be able to refuse service to those people. Right?

/sarc

Ucalegon•43m ago
Because quality of life doesn't have a value in of itself. Especially for the elderly, they should be excluded from enjoying the end of their life simply because no wants to think of a solution to the problem that doesn't require them to introduce massive amounts of risk into their life which, also, negatively impacts their quality of life.
TheGamerUncle•56m ago
I love technology but having to give money to google and apple should not be a reason with stop people from doing things that CLEARLY don't need technology.

Also that is not what luddite means, like come on even in the bastardization of the term, he is not precisely smashing the ticketing machines, he is just an old guy don't be such a redditor with this senior.

teeray•30m ago
If your ticket was in the form of a piece of music that you had to perform on your violin[0] to gain entry, would you feel the same way? Keep in mind, it’s only in the last 15 years that playing the violin in this world became commonplace and only in the past 5 that these performances became required to access every goods and services. Violins also still cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.
jjulius•21m ago
Is your argument, "Give up your privacy or be left behind"?
ryandrake•1h ago
The OP video actually addressed this: He went to the physical box office, and they seem to be able to print individual tickets. Just not a season ticket, for some reason.
HotGarbage•1h ago
Or who don't want to sell their soul to Google or Apple.

Accessibility benefits everyone.

red_admiral•55m ago
Other people covered under ADA who might agree: partially sighted/blind people (yes there's screen readers and such but a piece of paper is often simpler to handle), people with reduced mobility or tremors in their hands, and probably more.
tracker1•51m ago
My vision has gotten pretty bad the past couple years (not correctable with lenses)... I'm now using a 45" display and still have to zoom in a bit. I have my phone close to maxed out on text/display size options.. and only then it becomes unusable in most apps if I move the slider to the final position...

While I can use my phone for a lot of things, some UX with the larger text/display settings is absolutely unusable... so many modal dialogs where the buttons are off-screen and cannot be pressed, for example.

I can understand a small group/org not going through the effort in a lot of places... but for multi-billion dollar organizations, corporations and large govt entities, there's really no excuse.

jimt1234•46m ago
Good luck with that under the current administration.
bradley13•1h ago
Parking in my town can now only be paid via smartphone. Yes, almost everyone has one, but: there are still people who do not.
gnerd00•1h ago
don't you understand that this means a data trail to your location and government ID ? connecting to your ability to pay a legal fine? You are consenting to that ?
Sayrus•1h ago
And your car, license and insurance are not such a connection?
ryandrake•1h ago
I love it how they can't think of any other way to pay for parking than via smartphone, but if you just park there without paying, they'll offer you many ways to pay the fine.
AshamedCaptain•59m ago
For how long until paying the fine requires a smartphone? And then for how long until you go to jail for not having a smartphone ?
alistairSH•20m ago
They can think of other payment flows, they don't want them because an app gets them data they can resell or abuse.

I was (pleasantly?) surprised when my office parking lot implemented paid parking because it's doable via SMS and webpage (not an installed app). [thankfully my employer is picking up the tab, so I didn't have to do anything beyond providing my license plate numbers]

jasonjayr•1h ago
And sometimes, it seems like there's no fallback if you have no [working] smartphone. I knew someone who had a working smartphone, but a broken camera for few months. Couldn't scan any qrcodes to use these services till the phone was replaced.
parpfish•1h ago
on a roadtrip i stopped in a small town for lunch with street parking paid by app.

super frustrating that i needed to sit in my car and download an app and set up an account just to park for an hour in a town i'm never going back to

CamperBob2•50m ago
But you still did it, didn't you?

Congrats, you're an essential part of the problem.

afarah1•1h ago
In Brazil you already can't access some government services without a smartphone, such as paying for municipal parking in various cities. So if you own a car but not a smartphone, you get a fine. Sadly the least of the country's problems.
harrisoned•1h ago
There should be more noise about this here, but to whoever you talk about that issue they don't seem to grasp the situation, or simply don't care, and call you crazy/paranoid. I have been told you also need the GOV app for certain things related to companies.
ChrisArchitect•1h ago
Alternate link or source instead of rando Twitter user:

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/news/local/why-longtime-...

https://www.instagram.com/arozier/reel/DWsHAvDjxeL/

crazygringo•1h ago
From my quick research online, it seems they've gone digital-only for season tickets because they don't want people just reselling them to turn a profit. They want actual season-long fans, so now if you transfer too many games they can track it and ban you. This is essentially anti-scalping. There's a legit justification.

You can still buy paper tickets at the stadium for a single game. But not for season passes anymore.

Apparently they've been making exceptions for him in years past where he was able to pay hundreds of dollars to have them custom printed for him. And this year they've decided to no longer provide that exception.

Honestly, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. At some point, you have to cut off previous technologies because virtually everyone's moved to something better. You also can't buy tickets any more by snail mail with an enclosed check.

If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone. It seems like he just likes the nostalgia of paper tickets. But that's not a reason to add a separate ticketing flow just for him any more, like they had been up till now.

https://www.aol.com/articles/81-old-lifelong-dodgers-fan-012...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dodgers/comments/1s5fkni/la_dodgers...

bigstrat2003•1h ago
> At some point, you have to cut off previous technologies because virtually everyone's moved to something better.

Perhaps. But in this case, they've moved to something worse. Digital tickets have their benefits, but paper tickets are still superior because they don't tie you into big tech relationships and don't require supporting infrastructure to work.

graemep•56m ago
Paper also does not run out of battery or smash if you drop it.
Detrytus•51m ago
Well, depends where you drop it, paper is very fragile medium. Ever dropped an important paper into a puddle, or spilled a coffee on it?
crazygringo•47m ago
It does, however, easily get lost or left behind.

Phones, on the other hand, can be charged. And if they're smashed, you can just log into your account on a friend's phone if you haven't replaced yours yet. If you can't even do that, you can go to the ticket window and they can look up your account information and verify your ticket.

jjulius•42m ago
Paper doesn't spy on you.
crazygringo•40m ago
If you don't give the app any permissions, it doesn't spy on you either.

It doesn't have any more information than the info you give it to buy the tickets in the first place.

SoftTalker•33m ago
It does when the ticket app demands Location access "to protect your security"
jjulius•33m ago
>If you don't give the app any permissions, it doesn't spy on you either.

We're talking about an 81 year-old who has never had a smartphone before and you're starting the sentence with "if"? And that's just that app, not the phone itself or anything else that someone brand new to, and ignorant towards, this ecosystem is going to encounter and not know what to do with.

M95D•14m ago
> If you don't give the app any permissions, it doesn't spy on you either.

What about the other apps? What about the phone itself?

tacticalturtle•1h ago
I don’t think this policy would pass muster under the ADA though.

The guy might not be sufficiently disabled to qualify - but for example if you have a blind person without a smartphone, you can’t tell them they’re out of luck - because you can clearly reasonably accommodate them without causing “undue financial hardship” by giving them tickets at will-call.

robin_reala•57m ago
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a blind person / person with low vision without a smartphone these days: they’re a near-essential window into services that aren’t accessible though plain paper.
tmp10423288442•56m ago
> “undue financial hardship”

If they have already moved away from paper tickets for everyone else, now there is financial hardship, not to mention the loss to the team's economic position from scalping. Also smartphones have supported usage by the blind for years, particularly on iOS.

tacticalturtle•51m ago
In the linked video they explicitly print him a paper ticket that he purchased separately.
tracker1•55m ago
For that matter, he could/should look into filing an ADA complaint all the same.
ttfkam•54m ago
Visually impaired people use smartphones too. If the app isn't supporting the accessibility features of the platform, it should still be held liable under the ADA.

(Unfortunately it won't as was found when Southwest Airlines was sued over this. Congress hasn't updated the ADA to include web sites since the ADA precedes the web and so it wasn't enumerated explicitly. Also unfortunately, the GOP who have never been huge fans of the ADA have blocked any attempts at patching that hole.)

But check out the settings on your iPhone/iPad or Android device. Whole sections dedicated to accessibility, especially for the visually impaired.

tacticalturtle•41m ago
Visual impairment was just my naive example - but maybe there’s a better one that still persists.

Regardless, maybe there’s a path to legislation forbidding smartphone requirements for huge monopoly businesses like national professional sports leagues. I’d hate for ownership of a consumer device to become codified as a requirement for participation in activities like this.

rrr_oh_man•16m ago
> I’d hate for ownership of a consumer device to become codified as a requirement for participation in activities like this.

What is your reasoning for that sentiment? (I don't disagree)

moondance•59m ago
Have you had the pleasure of coaching a technologically illiterate grandparent through the process of learning how to use a smartphone? It’s a never-ending job and disheartening for all parties involved. Modern mobile UX is not designed with accessibility for the elderly in mind, and it is constantly changing in a way that demands constant re-learning. Not to mention the disabilities and neurological conditions often involved.
mrweasel•52m ago
I'm in my 40s, there is a shit ton of modern UX I struggle with. Basically anything gesture based for example, but really a lot of apps are just shit and have no sensible UX design behind them, so you need to try to click everything and hope you don't mess something up.

To me it's easy to see how someone over 70 might simply refuse to use an app. Especially if it doesn't support scaling the UI to well.

moondance•33m ago
I don’t think people understand the scale of the issue. Each decade that goes by we welcome a new class of elderly, and each decade that goes by, we continue to write off those elderly users.

The failure of the well-intentioned but insufficient currents solutions is well underlined by this case. Sure, you could get this guy an android phone with a custom launcher, or an iPhone on Assistive Access, and he might be able to place a call. But good luck setting him up on Ticketmaster, or the Dodgers website, or wherever they expect him to go to redeem and utilize his tickets.

doubled112•6m ago
The first time I used iOS I noticed a lot of things it considers "normal" are completely undiscoverable unless you know.

Swipe down from the top. No, the other top.

Click share, now click "find in page". Wait, that doesn't share at all?

SoftTalker•36m ago
Now have your grandparent try to teach you something you aren't interested in and don't really want to learn, and see how it goes.
moondance•24m ago
This guy has a flip phone. Seems like that was the last “new” thing he could learn. Its user flows never change and he’s memorized it. The idea that the average old person is so obstinate that they would refuse to learn the new technology if it was easy to do so is not something I can accept. Not being able to communicate and interact with the modern world on its terms isn’t fun for anyone.
SoftTalker•20m ago
There's an older guy at my office who often says "if you don't want to do something, don't learn how" and I think this attitude is common. It's not that they can't learn this smartphone stuff, they just don't want to use it.
this_user•5m ago
That's their choice, but they also choose to suffer the consequences. Expecting the world to cater to your needs specifically is such a typical boomer attitude and should no longer be tolerated.
suzzer99•33m ago
My Dad and I have had about 7 sessions just on copy-and-paste on the computer. He kind of got it for a minute there, but didn't use it enough, so now it's gone and he's back to just re-typing everything.
rchaud•27m ago
At airports and drugstores, the magazine racks will usually have a "Guide to iPhone/Android" type publication with a ton of pictures that are aimed at this market. I picked one up and realized while flipping through it that there is way too much for a brand new user to be able to absorb. The gestures needed on iOS to pull up options that are otherwise invisible in the UI will be nonsensical to someone whose UI/UX frame of reference is an ATM screen or a gas pump (or self-checkout kiosk which they might not use) where every option is shown on screen without needing additional navigation. Just like the first iPhone, come to think of it.
mrweasel•54m ago
There's an amusement park we like to go to. We get season passes, which normally means renewing the small plastic card we got the first year. They've switched to app only this year, with the option of getting a card, if for some reason you cannot or will not use the app. I believe there's a small fee for issuing the card.

I believe their reasoning is much the same. They have some types of tickets, which can technically be handed over to others and abused. Think weekend ticket, where you hand the tickets to someone else for them to use on Sunday, or tickets that can be converted to season passes, if you do it the same day.

Blaming scalping doesn't seem entirely plausible to me, because there was always the option of making the tickets and season passes non-transferable. There are other methods. Especially if you're only issuing paper tickets as an alternative, e.g. yes we will sell you a paper version, but understand that it is absolutely non-transferable and non-refundable.

Some people might not want to bring a phone to these types of events and venues, which I can completely understand, neither do I, but I can live with it. The thing that bugs me is the lack of an alternative, which isn't really that expensive and which most won't even use. Because to some, the app really don't provide value and in those cases they solely exists for the benefit of one company. If you're paying the price of season passes to pretty much anything these days, I think you're entitled to some small level of personalized service and customization.

crazygringo•51m ago
> Blaming scalping doesn't seem entirely plausible to me, because there was always the option of making the tickets and season passes non-transferable.

That's not desirable either. You often can't make it to all the games, so they want you to be able to give some tickets to friends, etc.

They're trying to prevent people who purchase the season pass to almost exclusively resell tickets to individual games.

So you really do need data to tell the difference -- are a third of the tickets mostly going to the same 5 other friends (OK, desirable), or are 95% of the tickets going to a different random person each time (scalping)?

nwallin•37m ago
The last time I had a season pass to something, they printed me the equivalent of an employee id badge with my face and name printed on it. The badge was the ticket. How do you resell an individual ticket?
bikezen•23m ago
You literally hand them your badge. Requires a lot of trust sure, but I did this to see Real Madrid in spain via hotel concierge, their friends just handed us their badges.
mrweasel•36m ago
But you can do that the same way you do with the app. The does this by tying you ticket to your season pass, and to you. If you want to give the ticket to someone else, call the ticket office, ask them to re-register the ticket to your friend. If the ticket office notices that X number of tickets tied to that season pass has been re-registered, just refuse, or better, have the system refuse.

Fans can pick the easy option with the app, or if they really want, the expensive option where they need to go pick up the re-registered ticket if they want to give them to a friend. You can do this without the app, it's just more work, which isn't much of a hassle, as most won't pick this option and the passes are expensive enough that you can justify the extra handling cost of maybe 5% of the tickets.

jjulius•36m ago
>They're trying to prevent people who purchase the season pass to almost exclusively resell tickets to individual games.

Why do you need a smartphone to do this when a white list checked against ID at the door would suffice? As the other respondent says, you either generate a badge for the passholder, or have an approved list of guests that can use the season pass if the passholder chooses to offer it to others.

KumaBear•14m ago
Generating badges has loopholes. (Trust me I’ve used them). And IDing every person can be a mission on itself. Pretty sure they will just start using biometrics in the next decade with or without your consent.
Ucalegon•6m ago
They already do! See Madison Square Garden [0] and The Intuit Dome [1]!

[0] https://www.npr.org/2023/01/21/1150289272/facial-recognition...

[1] https://stadiumtechreport.com/feature/intuit-dome-leaning-on...

IncreasePosts•30m ago
It's pretty common for people who rely on networking to have season passes and hand out various games as "gifts" to whoever they want to get on the good side of.
whartung•25m ago
They could force you to re-sell your tickets through the team MLB site, and to sell them for face value.

If the tickets come in at less than face value because of the season sale (not unreasonable), that can work OK (particularly for good seats for a team like the Dodgers). Most folks simply won't be able to sell all of the tickets. The goal isn't to make ad hoc ticket sales a necessarily profitable enterprise, the goal is to sell season seats, so you have to be somewhat accommodating. Pretty hard for anyone to go to all 81 homes games.

This can only go so far, unless you make the sold ticket not transferable.

They can also allow some margin to be just outright sold at market. I know several season ticket holders who sell the tickets to the big games (like Dodgers/Yankees) at a premium to help offset the entire season ticket package.

Groxx•21m ago
Nothing about this requires an app. Just an ID.

Forcing the app is almost certainly for tracking purposes and justifying the decision for whatever braindead higher-up decided it was a good idea, therefore it must be made to work.

thinkingtoilet•39m ago
>They have some types of tickets, which can technically be handed over to others and abused. Think weekend ticket, where you hand the tickets to someone else for them to use on Sunday, or tickets that can be converted to season passes, if you do it the same day.

This is not abuse. If they sell a ticket for days worth of resources and you use two days of resources it's not abuse at all. That is a very consumer hostile attitude. If their business model relies on you not using what you paid for then they need a new business model.

enlightens•23m ago
The ticket is for “two days of resources that you personally can use”, not “two days of resources that can be used by any number of ticket-holders.”

It’s like the “free as in beer” explanation, I can’t pull up to my local bar running a promotion and fill up a tanker truck. Maybe they’re being hostile to me, a would-be customer, for that, but it’s simply not what’s being offered up.

rrr_oh_man•22m ago
Being advocate of the devil here.

Would you allow doing the same for gym memberships?

tomwheeler•52m ago
> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone.

Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. Maybe he has dexterity issues that make using a smartphone difficult. Maybe he doesn't want to install their invasive app. Maybe he finds that paper tickets are easier to manage. Maybe he recognizes that the vendor made this change to benefit themselves at the expense of the fans, as it allows them greater control of the resale market.

I own a smartphone but prefer paper tickets. Luckily I can (and do) still get them at my team's stadium, although I have to pick them up in person.

LadyCailin•40m ago
I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law, but I really wish they would pass a law requiring supporting people without smartphone apps. Obviously there would be some exceptions where justified, even for things other than “the app is the whole point” and those need to be thought through, but in this case and plenty of others, there’s just no reason they can’t accommodate non app users. “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification.
MarsIronPI•52m ago
> Honestly, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. At some point, you have to cut off previous technologies because virtually everyone's moved to something better. You also can't buy tickets any more by snail mail with an enclosed check.

As long as the technologies you move to are equally freedom- and privacy-respecting. If I have to use a non-free spyware app to buy your tickets I'm not buying. Now, if you let me pay for and download a PKPASS that I can use on my fully-libre GrapheneOS smartphone then sure.

9rx•47m ago
> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone.

Right, but he is wanting to choose the season pass over the smartphone. If he buys a smartphone then he won't have the money for a season pass anymore. It turns out you only get to spend x units of currency once.

lokar•45m ago
IMO, the right thing to do is grandfather in any existing season ticket holders, if they ask. Have them go to a specific entrance where someone can check an ID and mark them off a list. Simple job for an intern or whatever.
layer8•44m ago
> you have to cut off previous technologies because virtually everyone's moved to something better.

It’s hard to argue that having to manage a smartphone and its ever-changing apps and UI flows for purchasing and handling tickets, is simpler than buying a paper ticket with paper money. Is it really better?

comprev•31m ago
It's better for the company not the customer
hypeatei•41m ago
I agree, this is a good way to stop scalping and reduce costs by not having to print physical tickets. It's interesting to see the negative sentiment here given other threads about scalping overwhelmingly suggest we need government regulation to stop it. Well, here's a private solution to that problem but apparently that's also bad and requires threats of government action via the ADA... incredible.
jjulius•38m ago
Nothing's perfect. Some ideas to fight against things we don't like will come up, and then we'll see the collateral and go, "Oh, maybe that's actually not the best way to do it". That's okay! That's the way life goes! It's not "incredible" or hypocritical or whatever else you're trying to imply. What you're seeing is merely folk working through things.

Are we supposed to always jump at the first "solution", consequences be damned?

shevy-java•38m ago
> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone.

This misses the point.

The question is: why would a smartphone be required, to watch a local game?

9rx•18m ago
It is not required to watch a game. At least not unless you are not using it as some kind of vision aid — although even then there are likely reasonable alternatives.

It is required to satisfy the desires of a vendor wanting to sell something. They make a smartphone a part of satisfying their desires because it makes their life a whole lot simpler. Same reason they won't give you season tickets in exchange for 12,000 bushels of wheat. They could, but why would they? If you don't want to play ball, so to speak, they are happy to sell their product to someone else who will.

isatty•35m ago
It does seem pretty unreasonable to me. He’s an 81yo life long dodgers fan. You make exceptions like you’ve always done. It’s what makes human, and sets us apart from computers.

Someone at the soulless corporation fucked up, and there will be no consequences, even though there should be.

suzzer99•32m ago
They could have done this for like 5 game minutes of what they pay Ohtani (~$500).

But it fits with the general trend of MLB being openly hostile to their fans for a while now.

1-more•6m ago
what they one day will pay Ohtani. Eh, they're not not paying him this year too, never mind.
mschuster91•29m ago
> Honestly, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me. At some point, you have to cut off previous technologies because virtually everyone's moved to something better. You also can't buy tickets any more by snail mail with an enclosed check.

The problem is, in the end it leads to a society where you NEED a smartphone to enjoy basic human existence - and yes, access to cultural and sports events is a fundamental part of being a human.

That in turn almost always means: your smartphone must be either Apple or a blessed Google device. And that in turn means: no rooting (because most apps employ anti-root SDKs these days), no cheap AOSP phones, no AOSP forks like Graphene OS. And that is, frankly, dystopian when your existence as a human being depends on one of two far too rich American mega corporations. Oh and it needs to be a recent model too, because app developers just love to go the easy route and only support recent devices on recent OS versions.

And that's before we get into account bans (which particularly Google is infamous for), international sanctions like the one against the ICC justices, or pervasive 24/7 surveillance by advertising SDKs or operating systems themselves.

jjulius•19m ago
I genuinely don't think people making the, "Get a smartphone or be left behind," arguments really understand the magnitude of the assertion.
Lammy•28m ago
> At some point, you have to cut off previous technologies because virtually everyone's moved to something better.

I don't agree that it's better. Why should I have to worry about my ticket running out of battery power or being such a high-value pickpocket target once I'm already in the venue?

The latter is a huge issue at music festivals for example:

- https://old.reddit.com/r/OutsideLands/search/?q=phone+stolen...

- https://old.reddit.com/r/electricdaisycarnival/search/?q=pho...

- https://old.reddit.com/r/coachella/search/?q=phone+stolen&in...

Can't just leave it at home if you need it to get in to the thing.

mzajc•58m ago
For reference, this is the application: https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.bamnetw...

8 trackers, 49 permissions. Whatever reason they gave for requiring the application, evidently they couldn't resist selling out their users in the end. Disgusting.

lousken•14m ago
Of course this is the actual reason they are forcing you to use the app. They dont give a crap about scalping.
MandieD•49m ago
My 75-year-old, retired construction worker dad’s fingers are nearly useless on capacitive screens; half a century of handling cement apparently has that effect. His deep East Texas accent was still only semi comprehensible to Siri the last time I had him try with my phone.

He recently missed several notifications from his truck’s dealership that the part they ordered was in and ready for installation, because they sent text messages that he didn’t read, instead of ever calling and leaving a message when no one responded to the texts. I’m terrified that there’s going to be a doctor’s office sometime that does the same, with more serious consequences.

He’s fine flying as long as one of us can buy the ticket for him and he just needs his ID at the airport; I dread the day airlines start requiring their stupid apps.

sdeframond•48m ago
My late mom couldn't receive the verification SMS from her bank. After investigation, it appeared it was actually an MMS that required a smartphone.

She could still go to her bank counter but service there degraded considerably for everyday things, and she was always told to do things online.

In the end the bank rep was kind enough to give her an old smartphone. But, for her, it sucked because it was much more complicated, had to be charged constantly and so on...

As a technologist, it is eye opening to do the tech support of loved ones...

fffernan•42m ago
Can't imagine Boston or New York doing this. In Boston the'd end up giving the fan lifetime Dunkin Donuts or something on TV and just let him walk into the park since all of the ushers probably know him already. Dodgers are really missing the point here.
shevy-java•39m ago
It's like having a chip implanted. That is, the addiction to requiring a smartphone.

Next step is to re-use the body parts, just as in Soylent Green.

jedberg•33m ago
The Dodgers could have so easily turned this into a huge win. After 50 years they could have just awarded him a paper lifetime pass. Scan this and get in for any game! It would have been so easy.

Or if they really wanted him to go digital, just buy him a smart phone and install the app for him!

jimt1234•32m ago
My concern here is not that a simple transaction like purchasing a ticket to a baseball game requires a smartphone, but that the purchase now binds the customer to a personal and irreversible relationship to multiple entities (MLB, the Dodgers, the ticket agency, etc.) that (1) is not necessary, and (2) adds no benefit to the customer.