Hacker News Reader

Comment by ken | Hacker News Reader

I think the viscerality of this response is fascinating. Putting your phone in a case is a "prison", and you must check it every time you go to the toilet, and you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.

> Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave.

Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working. A significant percentage of people are not acting like adults. And you can't deal with 1/4 of the audience intentionally misbehaving like you do with a single drunken heckler.

View on HN

I didn’t say that I must check my phone every time I go to the toilet. Only that being able to check my phone (for example, to check if I have any messages from people I care for at home) is a useful thing.

And I never said that I was worried about terrorism. Only that having ready access to my phone in any emergency situation (again, I pointed out it would be more likely a fire alarm than a terrorists) is helpful.

I don’t think concert venues do anything to enforce any sort of phone etiquette. I dislike that they’ve went for such an inconvenient option when there are softer, policy based alternatives in between doing nothing and locking up phones. Cinemas manage to enforce phone etiquette with much fewer staff per guest. Of course it’s common to see someone light up their row by checking their phone, but if it’s persistent (like the drunken heckler), cinema staff would eject them.

i think the whole point is not being able to check your phone adds to the human experience

What is the "human experience"?

For some people going an hour without checking their phone is like going into the hyperbolic time chamber for 10 seconds.

In this context, the collective experience of the concert, engaging with it as your immediate world, cutting off the outside as would a cult, this is the cult of music, let it consume you as you consume it

Part of my human experience may include checking how the babysitter is doing with the kids. I'm not going to do that in a way that disrupts the show, but I still want that access.

How did people do that before there were cell phones?

My folks used the payphones at most venues to call our landline and speak to the babysitter.

It's interesting they didn't have confidence in the babysitter's ability to take care of you for an evening but still chose to hire them and then monitored them via payphone.

Most times when babysitters are hired, now or a generation ago, they're trusted to make reasonable decisions so the parents don't have to worry.

> It's interesting they didn't have confidence in the babysitter's ability to take care of you for an evening but still chose to hire them and then monitored them via payphone.

No one questioned the babysitter's competence. They're your children -- you're going to want to call and check to see how things are going.

Uhm, yes you are, and pretty clearly at that.

No, not really. If someone goes out for drinks, then dinner, then a show and the night is going really well maybe the parents want to call and check in. They want to see how the nights going for the babysitter and kid. Are the kids asleep? Is the babysitter content to make some more money for a few extra hours? I think that's all entirely reasonable. It really has little to do with the matter at hand but having to wait in a line to submit or retrieve your phone, be sequestered to a penned in area to use your phone, and then to have to wait in line again to put your phone back into that "prison" system again seems like overkill. I know that's the only way we've been able to identify that works but I don't think there is any surefire method that will not only please the artists / performers and keep the viewers / fans / people in attendance happy.

"...having to wait in a line to submit or retrieve your phone, be sequestered to a penned in area to use your phone, and then to have to wait in line again to put your phone back into that "prison" system again..."

The vast majority of the time consumed in that process is simply getting out from where you sit/stand and back, which is the same in the "unjailed" phone scenario.

Unless, of course, you were just going to go ahead and conduct that call right there in the venue anyway.

I'm thinking about how annoying this would be at any sort of venue or music event. Someone said prior the main reason they'd use their phone in that situation is to group up with others they came with or met there if they get split up. I can empathize with that 150% and feel that, as someone who will never do more than snap a quick photo of a musical act for nostalgic purposes, the system in place to leave your phone locked up like coat check is mostly just annoying.

It all reminds me of DRM causing problems for legitimate, paying customers when the DRM should only be targeting those who go outside of the rules. That's where someone else's comment about treating everyone like adults and kicking people out who break the rules seems like the best bet, although they also admitted (and I agree) that this system just doesn't work as needed, either.

Phones aren't even that good in gigs for grouping up, vs just walking around.

A lot of the time your mates aren't looking at the phone at the right time, or there are so many people that you don't get good reception. Looking up and just finding people works pretty well.

But, how many times will you have to call ?

Surely not every time you go to the loo, if it's just the once it's hardly much inconvenience.

You do by phoning home without reason.

> you're going to want to call and check to see how things are going

Yes. If you suffer from high levels of anxiety and don't trust your own decisions about who to trust, this is true. Many people, particularly Americans, are this way. It is not true for every parent, however.

Out of curiosity, do you have children?

I’m not the above poster, but I did babysit for several families in my grad school years a few years ago. The parents would not generally communicate with me when they were out. If they did, it would be to let me know they’d be early or late, and suggestions for food or activity if they were late. There wasn’t a routine check to make sure their kids were alive & well.

Did they not have to wait in a queue of other parents who were similarly concerned? Sounds par for the course in that case.

>How did people do that before there were cell phones?

Trust the babysitter to make wise choices. This is actully really tough as cell phones end up lowering the standard expected of babysitters, like the whole GPS/map thing.

'How did people do that before there were cell phones? reply'

I used to sit for my nieces and nephews before mobiles were in common usage. My sister would give me the number of the place they were going in case there was a problem.

Of course, this was useless if they had gone to somewhere where there may be more than a couple of dozen people?

So, in reality, people used to hire baby sitters and just trust them to be able to cope. It's not as if you could do much from the other end of a phone if there actually was an emergency?

Babysitting probably isn't a great example, but cellphones affect the process of communicating so, unless you're expecting not to have the phone on you, it can actually be detrimental when you don't.

The main difference is that you tend to plan less up front. When our children were younger, and we had babysitters, we'd point out where the obvious stuff was but if they needed something, they'd just text. You just don't bother with the 15 min tour that I'd have got when I was doing the babysitting.

As a tangential, vaguely amusing, anecdote. A few years ago, my eldest's phone was a bit dodgy and kept cutting out. He was going to meet up with my wife in town but was meeting friends first. The two of them, my wife and son, spent about 5 minutes trying to work out how they could contact each other.

I, genius that I am, proposed a radical solution. I suggested that they arrange to meet at an agreed time and place. It had been such a long time since this was necessary that it hadn't even occurred to my wife (for which I still won't let her forget). My son had never, in his 15 odd years at the time, needed to do this.

Is that really necessary? Our parents didn't have that luxury, and we turned out fine...

Except for all the cases in which things didn't turn out fine, but would have if a cellphone had existed, and that you never really heard about. (minor grammar edit)

Nonetheless, humanity was not wiped out by the absence of phones.

> Our parents didn't have that luxury

Yes, they did; before ubiquitous cellphones killed demand for them, basically every public place of any size (and many small ones, and even just public streets) had banks of payphones, and for many kinds of outings people would leave the phone number of the restaurant or other establishment that they were going to for emergency contact in the other direction.

The last generation that didn't have that “luxury” was whichever one was before landlines were ubiquitous.

People really didn't go to a phonebox to phone the babysitter, though.

They did.

Yes, they really did. Both when I was the baby-sat and, years later, when I was the baby sitter. Though more likely about an unexpected delay or need that was omitted in prior communication than just a check-in, IME.

Umm, yea, yea they did. All the time. It was extremely common during those days for an adult at a public gathering or social function to excuse themselves while saying "I've got to go call and check on the kids" -- it was expected and understood.

But again, with Yondr, you simply go out to any unlocking base. It's even easier/fast/ercheaper than the payphone example.

  checking how the babysitter is doing with the kids

...in which case you would simply walk out to the lobby and tap the case on any unlocking base.

I spent my whole teenage babysitting, half a dozen regular gigs and also for families in holiday homes. Not once was there a situation where I needed to call the parents or vice-versa. I suppose they have guns in America so maybe you do need to worry about the kids being SWAT raided or kidnapped. However, the general idea is that the parents go out, drink loads of alcohol and come back around 3 a.m. to be hungover the next morning.

Meanwhile, the deal the kids struck with the babysitter was a simple one - they could stay up as late as they wanted just so long as they pretended to be asleep if mummy and daddy come back early. The next morning the kids sleep in and everyone is happy.

So you have to let go. Trust the babysitter. Trust your seven year old daughter to try and stay up extra late by showing the babysitter daddy's secret porn collection, hidden behind the antiquarian book collection but all too easy to find for an adventurous child. Of course none of these things or the strange noises the parents make in bed get to be an issue, you just pay babysitter and make them feel welcome and all is good.

So Jack White is right.

No idea why you are downvoted for this.

Then you don't go to the show.

Sorry but you talk about checking in on the babysitter as if it's some universal law. It's not you don't have to, and if you feel like you can't go out and enjoy a show without checking in then don't go to the show.

And yes I have kids.

Why do you believe FYGM is an appropriate response?

Because any leisure is a personal choice which you can choose to do or not if you really are worried that you can't get in contact with your nanny then don't go to the concert where they require you to not bring it, don't go to the movies, don't go anywhere you can loose connection and don't go flying.

It's perfectly fine if you don't want to take that chance but it's hardly an argument for why someone shouldn't do a show where they ban cellphones.

Being available for work is part of my "human experience."

edit- I really don't understand why this is downvote worthy...

Because it is pathetic. You're available for work while at a Chris Rock show?

...pathetic, thanks.

I work freelance film production. I get calls for work at random hours and if I don't respond quickly that offer can expire. I also work on high-pressure, quick turnaround jobs a lot, and part of the deal as a freelancer is that I'm always available. As a result, I keep my phone with me.

I'm sorry that my earning a living is pathetic to you.

You've never worked a job where you might be called in during an emergency? We're in a forum full of sysadmins and devops people and this idea is foreign?

Sysadmins and devops people usually have a standby rotation.

Name-calling isn't allowed in comments here. Could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?

Checking phones is part of the human experience.

Compulsive, addiction driven behaviour due to the gamification of apps and basic services?

I say let's remove that from our experience.

You're free to make your own choices, but not to inflect them on others.

The perfect argument against allowing people access to their phones at performances.

Of course it's not quite that simple. People using phones at a concert affects everyone's experience. This is a godsend for some of us. It absolutely detracts from my experience in theaters, concerts, shows, etc when everyone has a phone out.

My feeling is that this is a valid choice for artists to make, and if you disagree then avoid shows where this is the policy.

This is exactly why performers seek to stop video recording in the first place.

Or part of why. There are several motivators:

1) use of the recording that could cost paying attendance in the future (e.g. copyright issues)

2) damage control of statements that they regret later (e.g. Michael Richards' racist rant)

3) Protection of the interests of all the attendees positioned behind and around you. When anybody is recording, view from directly behind is outright obscured, and the experience of everybody behind you, where you are in their field of view at all, is impaired by this lit-up screen facing them. People who are recording are inflicting their choice on all others behind them.

Which is fine. You are not forced to visit a concert where you can't use your phone all the time. It's a decision from the venue host.

I don't think it is socially accepted to use your phone in the cinema/opera/theatre either, so why should concerts be any different?

Someone holding up their large, very bright screen between me and the musicians absolutely is inflicting their choice on me.

That's not my experience with owning a phone...

You can do that outside of a gig.

Why not give your full attention to the music.

Social media should have a health warning, we will look back at this era in the same way as we look at the pervasiveness of smoking in the 1950s.

I think the counterpoint is that for some people, the more human experience is not a selling point, and actually a fairly large negative. Beyond the points laid out before, I have multiple children and multiple pets, and I'm the some person responsible for the technology stack at my small company which (means I'm on call for somewhat infrequent but not unheard of issues). Not being allowed my phone might just mean "eh, it's irresponsible of me to go" depending on the situation, and that's with my phone safely ensconced in my pocket except for an emergency.

Also, let's not let this "human" experience stuff slide, what it really means is "a late 1990's to early 2000's experience". It's not like pyrotechnics, large screens and giant electronic speakers are anything you would experience prior to 100 years ago.

If you don't want people doing certain things with their phones, then make it clear what is and isn't acceptable and combat it directly. For example, give everyone a wristband, and explain exactly what it's for. It's your one warning/get out of etiquette jail free card. If they have to come and tell you to stop doing something you were already warned about, they take the wristband. If they have to tell you again, you're out.

Then perhaps that show isn't for them.

The most annoying thing with phones is that they distract other people. You might be kind enough to not use your phone during a collective event, but other people are not. Frankly I don't care about it in a concert as you go there for the music most of the time, but I've seen people have use phones in every single movie I saw at a cinema and at every single theatre play I've been to, even in post-modern shows in tiny venues with much less than 50 seats. There are lots of idiots that can't look at something interesting without capturing it in photo and video, distracting everybody including the performers, who may indeed not want the performance recorded.

A comment higher up says treat people like adults. Adults are not adult adults. They are more like monkeys that compulsively do things and then maybe, only maybe think if what they did was appropriate or not.

You cannot expect hardened smartphone addicts to follow directives that crossgrain their addiction. The only reason harsh policies like this are being enacted is because wrist-slaps and pleas do not work.

It basically boils down to: if you want to go to the concert, you set aside the smartphone for a while. If not, don't go.

> what it really means is "a late 1990's to early 2000's experience"

Calling it a 'human experience' seems rather apt. When you're plugged into your smartphone frequently, you're not plugged into now; when you're playing on your computer instead of experiencing your immediate surroundings, it'd be more apt that to say that you're not partaking in the human experience, but an internet experience.

'Human experience' is apt, just like 'internet experience' would be apt for those that choose computer interaction.

> 'Human experience' is apt, just like 'internet experience' would be apt for those that choose computer interaction.

Depending on what you're doing on your phone, I would say it's the ultimate human experience, an almost constant connection to a global community. What's more human than being part of a community?

I think the problem is that people assume that more human is better, when any extreme generally has some downsides. Constant connection to the group has its problems. Being spread between many groups and streaming to keep up to date with their news can spread people thin and stress them out.

> You cannot expect hardened smartphone addicts to follow directives that crossgrain their addiction. The only reason harsh policies like this are being enacted is because wrist-slaps and pleas do not work.

I think couching it in terms of addiction and people's inability to control themselves is taking it too far and brushing any problems under the rug. Establish norms. Enforce compliance. Once someone gets kicked out of a concert they spent $100 or more on, they'll think about it before doing it again, and likely do will anyone they tell the story too.

It worked at a Nine Inch Nails concert. I saw a couple people get escorted out for refusing to put their phones away, and that pretty much sent the message that they were not fucking around about it.

If you don't mind my asking, which Nine Inch Nails concert?

It was in San Jose last year sometime, don't remember the details, sorry :/

I appreciate the lengths Trent Reznor is willing to go in order for his fans to enjoy his peformances.

I was lucky enough to win tickets to a NIN concert from a radio station call-in in the late 1990's or early 2000's (it was around the time the "God is dead and no one cares" song was all the rage). These tickets included access to the soundcheck. I went and saw Trent Reznor with a walkie-talkie going seat-to-seat-to-seat in the venue (and this was a 6k+ seat venue, not counting standing-only areas which he visited as well). At each seat he would have his audio techs play ~15 seconds of a test track (i think it was the Dolby sound samples) and then radio in and have his crew adjust whatever sounded off to him then immediately move on to the next seat. Quite some time later I saw Bono from U2 getting some press for doing the same thing at his shows and always wondered if he learned that from Nine Inch Nails. That show was fucking bonkers too, NIN had a really cool light/laser show going on during the show.

6000*15s = 25 hours. Really?

I can understand him checking every couple of rows in each stand or something. For example, every 100 seats but not each seat.

Well, I was at the soundcheck in the morning (not super early, if memory serves me, this was a while ago). The concert was that evening. And yea, he was doing each seat individually, at least while I was hovering around watching everything. I can't say what he did before I got there, but yea for the 3 hours or so that I can remember he was doing each seat. I'm sure he skipped a few rows here and there, he would have to just because of time. Also, it was probably less than 15 seconds of the test track, I'm most likely exaggerating that fact subconsciously because it's a fond memory of mine.

Don't be ridiculous. Fear of terrorism is not the only factor. Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety.

If you want to be antagonistic about the threat of a bombing, how about a more commonplace example: you're a very drunk young girl who's been separated from her friends at the concert and a pushy, aggressive guy you don't know is trying to get you into his car to go home with him. You can't text your friends that you need help because your phone is locked.

Or how about this? You're a parent and you've lost track of your kid in the sea of people. You can't text or call them, because your phone is locked.

Or how about this? You're alone and you have a medical condition and something goes wrong, and you need immediate attention, but you can't call 911 because your phone is locked. Your only option now to hope someone else in the crowd notices that you're passed out on the ground not from drunkenness, but from something much more urgent.

Don't act like cellphones have no practical use and are just social media machines. How absurd. They save lives every day and this policy is insanely dangerous for everyone. People here saying "How did people survive before cellphones," well, guess what, in many cases they probably didn't.

Lets all just bury all of our light up rectangles and move to the woods. Twitter has brought us so much pain it's time to go back to dirt farming.

I'm only half joking. I've given up my phone for a DIY LTE project that barely works but is fun and I'm off social media for 4 years. Sure there is safety and stuff, but if you wanna watch the white stripes shred or some other exclusive art, maybe that's a thing you can deal with. You can also just not go and buy the Mp3s to load on your precious digital leash.

I'm gonna go walk to the grocery store repeatedly hitting refresh on HN on my kludge phone just to prove how much I don't need it.

> Or how about this? > Or how about this? > Don't act like cellphones have no practical use

sigh Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without cellphones. For any new tech, you can continually imagine scenarios where survival "absolutely depends on" having this tech.

How about this? You're sitting in your ISS sleep capsule and suddenly the station starts to depressurize. You hop into your reentry-safe spacesuit and exit the station, set the suit to auto-reentry and then aero-brake from Mach 18 to 0 and touch down safely in your backyard with your parachute. See? A reentry safe single-person spacesuit is absolute essential to survival.

Your example is that you pass out at a concert with literally thousands of people around and no one helps you. Or you are drunk and a guy is hitting on you. Or your kid is missing.

And you call the person you are responding to ridiculous.

Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.

sigh, you are not the Human race. Yes, Humans as a race have survived without cellphones, but that doesn't mean for an instance that the same applies to individuals.

You can't simply brush aside the parent's comments because you don't agree with them. A potential rape situation, or a lost and frightened child are very valid, and very real examples of how having a phone could help.

> Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.

You realise that people can be scared and helpless without being sheep, right? You also realise that simply being able to contact someone can remove the fear and helpnessness?

> You can't simply brush aside the parent's comments because you don't agree with them. A potential rape situation, or a lost and frightened child are very valid, and very real examples of how having a phone could help.

A lot of things could help too. Like a gun or an epipen. My point is that cellphones have become people's #1 indispensable safety blankets to the point that being without fills them with fear. Why are we so afraid of everything? If you've got ID, keys, and a little bit of money, you're mostly golden. And even taking away one or all of those, you won't die instantly.

> You realise that people can be scared and helpless without being sheep, right?

The fact that people become so uncomfortable and literally afraid when they are separated from their devices that didn't even exist 10-15 years ago is not a good sign.

I wish everyone would just stop pedaling fear like this. You'll be fine without your phone for a few minutes. There aren't rapists, terrorists around every corner; aliens aren't abducting people, and you probably aren't going to have a brain aneurysm and be unable to call for help.

The last thing you want to do, when treathened in a crowded place, is to try to text someone. You either fight back or ask loudly for help.

Please don't troll.

I find this argument supremely unconvincing. It’s true that humanity survived, but people died in all sorts of awful and now preventable ways. This argument could be used to argue against vaccines, sanitation, or good nutrition. Is that where you want to be?

When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above “this will not literally drive the species to extinction.”

Thank you.

There should be some sort of public phone that people can use, perhaps in booth format. Or maybe some sort of minimal electronic device where text messages can be passed, where you could, in essence, 'page' someone. Hmmm.

"Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety."

Don't you think that's a bit if a neurotic and control freak way to look at it?

Humans survive splendidly on oxygen and agreeable temperature for days and are really hard to kill.

If we lived in a Syrianesque dystopia all around I would get your anxiety but any above median income metropolis should be just fine for supporting a humanoid lifeform for brief excursions out of ones home environment.

Phones are fantastic for public surveillance, but that's another thing entirely.

I'm a parent and I get the anxiety but worrying too much and helicoptering the children out of all rough spots is really not a skillfull way to worry through ones life.

Why even leave the house then if your life is so terror filled? It's a concert not a war zone.

But you have a choice. Just don't go to the show. If you think 2 hours without your phone puts your life at risk, simply do not put yourself in these dangerous situations. Let other people enjoy the experience.

Alamo Drafthouse does this consistently without a problem.

http://www.ent13.com/entertainment/movies/alamo-drafthouse-m...

Cell phone use = kicked out, banned forever. No oddly spelled startup needed.

> Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working.

Have we? I've only been to one show in the past decade where a performer called someone out in the crowd for being a jerk with a camera. They wouldn't turn the flash off, so the artist asked them to stop, then they took another flashy picture, so the artist mocked them until they put the camera away for the rest of the show.

Post "no recording" or "no phone use during performance", have security remove them with no refund. After a few removals, most will keep it in their pocket.

This has always been quite successful at cinemas (in Scotland, at least).

Every show I've been to that does this has successfully kept people from using their phones. I don't think checking in your phone is a very good solution from a practical standpoint, considering the downsides.

It just depends on your definition of not being a jerk. I've been attending concerts since 1980mumble. Trust me, it's a big difference having absolutely zero devices in the air versus a sea of bright screens and waving arms obscuring everyone's view. That might be the norm for some people but to me everyone's being inconsiderate. And really to what end? Those tinny, wobbly videos will never garner more than a few random views on youtube and quickly be forgotten.

I'm not in the "lock away phones" camp because they're an essential part of everyday life now. But I'm saddened by the social norm of them being in the air obscuring views now. Harumph.

I saw Lou Reed do this in 2003. It might have even been about cameras at that point and the issue was the flash, not audience experience. But he was not. Having. It. Stopped playing both times and really was about to walk off. It seemed a little too much at the time. But now I get it, and I feel a little bad that the current generation, at least the phone addicted ones, are never going to experience the level of emotion you get with fuller engagement. This is even more acutely real in the theater and it will probably wither in the current... attention economy.

I recently attended a Joey Alexander concert at SFJazz. Aside from a clear "no photograph" policy, there are also attendants watching people and reminding them if they took their phones out. It's working but definitely didn't cover all high-profile concerts like the ones featuring Jack White.

Taking away people's agency because it's perceived they can't look after themselves is rarely well-received, with good reason.

Shows are for the audience, not the artist, so if 1/4 of the audience are using their phones then perhaps the artist should be less pretentious.

>you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.

It should be pretty obvious that a terrorist attack is simply one example of many possible emergencies. There are plenty of things that could happen where having instant access to a phone could save someone's life.

What sort of emergencies are you referring to?

Obviously remember we're talking about a public event here with organisers/security and infrastructure so I'd be interested to hear in what cases only the existence of a mobile phone would save someones life.

Taking your phone out at a concern is not misbehaving. It's fine and accepted.

What OP is proposing is to make phones prohibited at a concert. Then it will be misbehaving, and you can eject people who are breaking the rule. I think this would be a fine idea.

> Taking your phone out at a concern is not misbehaving. It's fine and accepted.

No. No it isn't. It's selfish and shows an egregious lack of courtesy to other attendees/the performer. The fact that most people do it just reveals most people are arseholes, not that it's 'fine and accepted'.

Acting like adults is working just fine, unless you get irrationally annoyed at everything that doesn't go 100% the way you want it to.

I went to a movie a few weeks ago where a woman actually took a call and wouldn't shut up for 30-40 seconds while others heckled her. That's the worst incident I can remember in the past decade or so. It doesn't annoy me if someone wants to video a concert on their phone. That's their choice to have a crappy experience.

Having 5% of the audience holding their phones up as high as they can to video tape the concert at any given time makes it harder for everybody to see. Then it's my crappy experience.

I do not have to check my phone every time I go to toilet, but in case performance turns out boring, I like to stay on toilet longer and read on the phone there.

If significant percentage of adults acts certain way, then it is acting like adults by definition. Maybe you are just using "adult" as word of approval and "kid" as insult :).

There are a couple of cool apps on phones called "Telephone" and "Messages" and you can call or text people in an emergency situation.

I'm pretty sure those are the apps one would use during a terrorist attack. But I've never been involved in one, so I could be wrong.

When a whole concert tries to call at the same time it's usually impossible to call because of saturated lines (t least in eu)

Such events usually are used to trigger pre-emptive police and emergency services, so even reaching noone- is quite alarming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com