Hacker News Reader

Comment by SR2Z | Hacker News Reader

> So if there's a teen without a smartphone, they can't take the bus, nor can someone who's phone died, etc.

I feel very strongly that if a teenager is old and responsible enough to take the bus on their own, they are old and responsible enough for a smartphone. Furthermore, it's actively harmful to send your kids out into the world without the kinds of modern tools that would make them safer and more independent.

As for "phone died," well... just find a place to recharge it. It's not particularly difficult these days and I can't actually remember the last time my phone died on me when I needed it.

OP is a really cool demonstration of what we can do when everyone carries a computer in their pocket. Uber in the US has something similar with airport shuttles. Why should we handicap new, shiny things to make them usable without a phone?

View on HN

> Why should we handicap new, shiny things to make them usable without a phone?

(a) Not everyone has a (smart) phone.

(b) Not everyone can use a (smart) phone.

(d) Not everyone can afford a phone.

(e) Not everyone wants to upgrade their phone to use the newest shiny things.

(f) Not everyone can upgrade their phone (see (d)).

(g) Not everyone opts to put (third-party) apps on their smart phone.

(h) Not all apps are built with accessibility in mind (see (b)).

(i) Some folks are concerned about mass surveillance (see (g)).

(j) Sometimes phones get stolen.

(k) Sometimes phones get broken.

(l) Sometimes phones get bricked.

(m) Sometimes phones get hacked.

(n) Sometimes phone get locked out.

(o) Sometimes apps stop working.

(p) Sometimes cell service goes offline (see Hurricane Helene).

As a forty-something semi-retired electrician, the following apply to me:

(c) I own a cell phone, but NEVER leave the house with it (effectively a landline, but less expensive). When my city recently began requiring an app for public street parking, I simply stopped paying for parking (it's only a $16 fine, unless you are handicapped == free).

(e) The only thing that causes me to update my phone is when the battery swells up (typically around eight years). Otherwise I don't even update the original OS.

(g) Flat out, I refuse to use your app

(i) Whether by business/marketing or governments, agreed

You're an outlier. I can safely say this doesn't apply to the majority of the population.

And therefor they don't deserve to ride the bus?

If they want to use an ad-hoc bus that runs exactly where people request it in real time, then YES. They should not expect it to work for them.

I'd [OC] rather ride a predictable train/subway... but the density / bureaucracy of most American jurisdictions keeps this to a few limited megacities (I have lived in the SFBay & NYC, both; won't go back).

Also, can't the bus system have a kiosk/terminal at certain locations? Can't there be a coin/bill acceptor on each block's single parking meter (e.g. Austin, Texas / UT campus meters)?

Recently I became a plaintiff (first time, small claims, no big deal); I was surprised to see that only pro se litigants can file paperwork with the court (i.e. lawyers MUST use the e-file system).

I attended medical school for one year, right before ACA/eRecords became a requirement... and this always seemed so invasive (e.g. sensitive/VIP psych documentation, PP).

Since when are lawmakers and public servants concerned with providing utility for only the majority of citizens? That would, in aggregate, alienate many people from various public services.

Lawmakers and public servants have ALWAYS been concerned with majorities.

I don't know where you get the idea that every single government program ever has to work for everyone - that's clearly not true and many useful programs are supposed to only serve a majority of people. Sewers are a great example of this.

Who does not use the sewage system?

Septic systems are used outside cities when no sewers are available. They're very common in the US.

Try requesting a special connection and extra treatment for your sewage.

> I can safely say this doesn't apply to the majority of the population.

That's a pretty bold claim, would love to see the data. The only thing I know that applies to the majority of the population is that they breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, and even with that claim I am not 100% confident.

...see also: death & taxes (as many smarties have noted [1] [2]).

[1] Daniel Defoe

[2] Ben Franklin

you made the choices, deal with the consequences.

I find it amazing that people can be like "screw optimizing public services, saving the environment and make things more accessible for most people, I and some others don't like phones"

it's philosophically wrong to say "you need to buy a phone, give some company your personal information, and pay for connectivity on a recurring basis, simply to be able to use a public service"

As I only park downtown once per quarter (metered by a phone app), so far I've not been cited. When it does finally happen:

I plan to become plaintiff in my third civil suit against a mid-sized US city (this one: for requiring cell phone / app to park). I know this sounds petty AF, but I have plenty of free time to help correct this philosophical setback [app parking] with precedent. Dare I say to consider this `moral imperative` =D

During a civil action approximately two years ago (in a state Chancery Court), I had to sign an affadavid that "I don't use/have email" ... because Judge didn't believe me (a form `REQUIRED` it)!

I've filed most my court briefs using a typewriter, which is conversation-inducing (to say the least). As a pro se litigant, the courts are still required to accept paper copies =P

that is truly fighting the good fight :) good on you.

a: Then get one. Virtually everyone has a phone.

b: Then get someone nearby to help you, or improve phone accessibility.

c: Tough luck. You made your decision, now live with it.

d: I highly doubt this. Phones are basically free - and I'm not just talking about budget, cheap-o phones. You can find an iPhone X for $100! People literally give them away sometimes!

e: That's fine, the Uber app works on some pretty darn old phones.

f: See (e).

g: Installing a third-party app to use a third-party service is pretty uncontroversial.

h: The ADA requires this from transit providers. If you are so disabled that a phone or desktop or whatever can't be used, you probably are not making your own travel arrangements.

i: Then you should not be purchasing things online at all, or with a credit card.

j-n: So... you go a day or two without a phone, replace it, and then things work again.

o: Hopefully not if anyone is making money off them!

p: Would you call a taxi in a hurricane and be surprised when it doesn't reach you?

I realize that HN HATES the idea that things sometimes require phones. Unfortunately, sometimes things are only possible with phones for reasons that have almost nothing to do with profit.

If you choose to not have a phone, you can still take the bus. You can still call taxi dispatch on a landline. You just can't do this stuff conveniently, which seems like a fair tradeoff to me.

I highly recommend you volunteer at a soup kitchen some day.

I do! That's how I know plenty of homeless people have phones. There's a disconnect between how people think smartphone ownership works on this site and how it actually works.

> j-n: So... you go a day or two without a phone, replace it, and then things work again.

Which still is an option right now, where a lot of things haven't yet been app-ified, but if you follow "Why should we handicap new, shiny things to make them usable without a phone?" to the maximum, things could end up rather difficult in the future. Like if you've been commuting by public transport and public transport is no longer accessible without a smartphone, how would you continue going to work until the new phone arrives?

Here in Germany it's fairly common for kids aged perhaps six or seven and up to take public transport by themselves. They might have a dumb phone or occasionally a smart watch, but I rarely see them with their own smart phones.

One of the most important principles of a public transport system should be that it's accessible to all in a lowest-common-denominator sort of way. Anything beyond that is also good to have, but if you don't have that basic level of accessibility, then it's not really a public transport system, it's a luxury transport system. And there are already plenty of luxury transport systems around.

Also, my last phone died on me fairly often, I don't think it's nearly as unusual as event as you're making it out to be.

And yet, nearly everything in Germany requires a stable physical address. Meanwhile, the state of the housing market is such that it's hard to get one.

What is your point? For many purposes, a homeless shelter can be used as a physical address for citizens in need.

What about the significant number of homeless people who don't want to live in a shelter?

Or can't, because they're not homeless?

I don't really get the relation between your comment and mine, I'm sorry. You don't need an address to use the public transport in Germany, for example.

If I damage my phone or it gets stolen I have to walk home because the dystopian iOS/Android with SIM that requires ID ecosystem here won't actually allow me to simply use other computers I might still have access to so I'd have to equip my children with 2 devices and 2 SIMs in addition to cash, a debit card and an ID card to show that they're entitled to use their bus ticket.

These are incredibly user unfriendly locked gardens that are often adding gatekeeping to services that used to be ubiquitiously available, even in non-totalitarian systems, because suddenly you might need a bank account, an address, a government issued ID, a SIM card and a $100+ device that runs the approved stack just to take the bus.

"Furthermore, it's actively harmful to send your kids out into the world without the kinds of modern tools that would make them safer and more independent."

Interesting. I think there's a balance to be had here. Making our kids "too safe" I think may lead to a lack of resilience. I'll certainly be teaching my kid how to read a map (orienteering), and I suspect the sense of autonomy and self-reliance they'll get from knowing they can get from A to B without needing GPS will be a very good thing.

That said, we probably will get them a dumbphone to put in the bottom of their bag for if they really get stuck. I have no plan to have tracking etc. though. No way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com