Hacker News Reader

And this is why we can't have nice things. "The rules," as you so aptly scare-quote, are not there solely to govern the actions of a single human being. They are there so that the system, as a whole, functions. A word exists for this: society. Unless the rule is unjust, you are not the final arbiter of whether or not a rule should be followed. What you find sensible and reasonable may not actually _be_ sensible and reasonable beyond first glance.

Yes, this rule appears to be monumentally stupid. However, another person in this very thread has raised a good (though possibly misinformed) point regarding frequency intermod. Sometimes we simply can't test all circumstances and the FAA has made a (potentially dumb) judgement call in favor of overwhelming paranoia for safety instead of letting people fling colored birds at green pigs below 10,000 feet.

Being free does not give you license to discard that which you, in your own self, deem insensible when you are existing in a space where anyone but yourself exists. You operate in a world with billions of other humans, each with competing goals and diverging motivations. The least you can do is play by the rules that we, as a group, have decided are the compromise.

As a bit of site commentary, I notice your post getting more and more grey as people remove points because they disagree. In this instance, I added a point because, though I disagree, I think that your post is a useful addition to the commentary.

I'd personally love it if society had more people like swombat, rather than fewer.

Of course, there is a risk when choosing to ignore rules that you are ignoring them because they you are an inconvenience to you but are generally good for society. Government incented/enforced vaccination would be a good example of such a reasonable though possibly annoying rule. I totally concede that point, and hence, individuals need to be especially mindful about their own self serving biases when choosing to disobey rules.

But on the other hand, imagine if rules that effected tens of millions of people all had scientific studies about their tradeoffs, their risks, and their efficiency. How much less bullshit would we have to deal with?

I think lots of big innovation is done by rule breakers. It's exactly what pg talks about in point 4 about wanting founders who are naughty.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html

> I'd personally love it if society had more people like swombat, rather than fewer.

You might feel differently if you lived next to a rule breaker who had no concept of noise nuisance.

"The Collector Collector" (Tibor Fischer) is a fun read; relevant here because he describes quite nicely the sense of entitlement that some criminals feel.

> You might feel differently if you lived next to a rule breaker who had no concept of noise nuisance.

I'm sure he would. As it happens, I am not typically a noise creator - but you are, today, downvoting my post and then replying to it within a minute of me posting it. I've kindly returned the favour.

I did not down the post you replied to. I did downvote the your post that first replied to. I up voted the post where you said that you're not rude to airline staff.

EDIT:

> replying to it within a minute of me posting

Timestamps disagree with you.

s/a minute/a few minutes/

> "The rules," as you so aptly scare-quote, are not there solely to govern the actions of a single human being. They are there so that the system, as a whole, functions. A word exists for this: society.

That's an interesting equation there. Society = rules? I don't agree with you. Society = agreements. Generally agreements are two-sided. The kind of society where rules are decided by some nebulous organisation that does not respond to argument or criticism and expects everyone to follow them blindly is certainly not a society I wish to partake in.

Being free does not give you license to discard that which you, in your own self, deem insensible when you are existing in a space where anyone but yourself exists. You operate in a world with billions of other humans, each with competing goals and diverging motivations.

None of my actions are impinging on the freedom of others. Of course, my freedom to move my fist stops where the next person's nose begins - but I have not, in my original post, made any suggestions that I would do something that would hurt someone else.

The least you can do is play by the rules that we, as a group, have decided are the compromise.

I think a simple invocation of Godwin's law will demonstrate how retarded this point is. HELLO! YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE A BRAIN! YOU DO NOT, EVER, HAVE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING "WELL, THAT WAS AGREED BY OTHERS".

Either that, or you're not a free human being. Your choice, in either case.

As a bit of site commentary, I notice your post getting more and more grey as people remove points because they disagree. In this instance, I added a point because, though I disagree, I think that your post is a useful addition to the commentary.

Thank you. That is sensible behaviour that, incidentally, contradicts your point about rule. Clearly the majority of people who voted on this issue also felt that I deserved to be downvoted. Why you decided to go against the obvious rule of the crowd is beyond me, but I am nevertheless grateful!

> I think a simple invocation of Godwin's law will demonstrate how retarded this point is. HELLO! YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE A BRAIN! YOU DO NOT, EVER, HAVE THE EXCUSE OF SAYING "WELL, THAT WAS AGREED BY OTHERS".

You left out the quote where I said "[u]nless the rule is unjust." Yes, this does undermine my point somewhat because I'm asking each individual to make a judgement call. I do ask that the level be moved well above "inconvenient to me" towards "bad for society." Mass holocaust? Bad for society, probably shouldn't follow that rule. Turn off your mobile phone because it may reduce the risk of firey death for 170+ people? Good for society, probably should follow that rule.

Nothing I posit takes away your capacity to make decisions. If you can't or won't follow the just rules, as given, then don't partake of whatever requires those rules and, should you feel that passionate, campaign to change those rules. Having 85% of the people following the rules and 15% abusing the system by not following them is neither fair nor equitable. It does serve to desensitize adherence to society in the future.

"Turn off your mobile phone because it may reduce the risk of firey death for 170+ people? "

Does it really?

"Air hosts/hostesses have none of those attributes - they are merely parrotting rules handed down to them, without putting any thought into them."

Seriously? They're required to "parrot" the rules; it's their job. If they didn't do so there would probably be even more disrespectful people like you on the plane. They ask very little of you as a passenger; you can still be "free and responsible" without acting like simple rules don't apply to you.

I'm not sure where this meme that I'm openly flaunting the rules and being rude came from. I just said I make my own choice about whether to follow the rules, not that I act rudely. If politely asked to do something that seems halfway sensible and is not a major inconvenience or problem, by another fellow human being (flight attendant or not), I will of course do the polite thing.

> Speaking for myself, I have no respect for authority that does not stem from experience, knowledge, wisdom, etc. Air hosts/hostesses have none of those attributes..

s/no respect for authority.../no respect/

Flight attendants have experience of being flight attendants, moreso than you I assume, and they're doing the job they're paid to do (which is in part to enforce those rules).

Flight attendants will have encountered turbulence.

Most of them will have seen a major injury because someone didn't have their seat belt on when they were instructed to (usually due to turbulence). Not to mention countless minor injuries.

Most will have experienced sudden stops or changes in direction whilst taxi-ing. Most will have seen passengers luggage fall on to other passengers because they got up too soon.

They have experience, they all have basic aviation knowledge, a lot of first aid knowledge. The grandfather post is disappointing from swombat.

Funnily enough, those are all things I don't do. I keep my seatbelt on during the flight, and I don't actually pick up my bag during taxying because it's pointless (there's a long wait after the plane stops anyway). And, as pointed out elsewhere, when asked something directly by an attendant, I do it, out of politeness if nothing else.

How many flight attendants have observed a plane crashing because of an iPhone? Zero.

I have no respect for those kinds orders, for which they have no authority except that handed down by an organisation that has proven relatively stupid when it comes to that topic.

I have plenty of respect for flight attendants, actually. I actually do wear my seatbelt through the whole flight, and will of course do whatever they directly order me to. I am polite to a fault, and would never get angry at a flight attendant even if they walk past and ask me to "turn off my kindle".

So, yes, I do respect flight attendants, as people.

With that out of the way, I don't respect their authority to decide whether a kindle can interfere with aircraft electronics. So I disregard their suggestion to that effect, I have no respect for their authority to make that suggestion. Of course, I still put my kindle away when asked to, but I know I'm being asked to do something nonsensical and every fiber of me, as a free human being, is annoyed by the stupidity of it, and although I respect the request from another human out of politeness, I do not respect the authority behind that rule.

> and would never get angry at a flight attendant even if they walk past and ask me to "turn off my kindle".

Kindles can be turned off; they also have an airplane mode. Kindles can send and receive WIFI and sometimes 3G traffic. Kindles are electronic devices.

Perhaps the rules are dumb but at least they're consistently dumb.

> So, yes, I do respect flight attendants, as people.

Okay, that's something you should probably have mentioned earlier.

> I don't respect their authority to decide whether a kindle can interfere with aircraft electronics.

They don't have the authority - that's the point. They merely enforce the (potentially dumb) rules given to them. The consequences to them and their employers for not enforcing the rules are severe. They might lose their job. Their company might be fined.

In general you don't want people to need to make assessments. Otherwise you get Ann saying it's fine for your kindle to be in sleep mode and Bob telling you you're going to be taken off the plane unless you turn it off. And if you do give these people that power you also need to give them the training, and the wage rise for the increased responsibility. That cost goes directly to you when you buy a ticket.

Kindles can be turned off; they also have an airplane mode. Kindles can send and receive WIFI and sometimes 3G traffic. Kindles are electronic devices.

Yeah, and most Kindle owners don't know that. I therefore assume that every single flight is a piece of very strong evidence that kindles, ipads and all that lot, do not interfere with avionics, because each flight of 200 contains at least 50 active devices that have not been properly switched off for take-off or landing.

Okay, that's something you should probably have mentioned earlier.

Given my long history on this forum, perhaps you should not have assumed that I'm some kind of inveterate asshole just because I didn't explicitly mention that I'm not.

They don't have the authority - that's the point. They merely enforce the (potentially dumb) rules given to them. The consequences to them and their employers for not enforcing the rules are severe. They might lose their job. Their company might be fined.

I'm not angry at the flight attendants or even the companies for that - though the companies could probably do more to lobby for a change of the rule, on behalf of their passengers. In fact, the companies are probably not entirely blameless in this, but that would require more digging to establish.

In general you don't want people to need to make assessments. Otherwise you get Ann saying it's fine for your kindle to be in sleep mode and Bob telling you you're going to be taken off the plane unless you turn it off. And if you do give these people that power you also need to give them the training, and the wage rise for the increased responsibility. That cost goes directly to you when you buy a ticket.

On the contrary - if they don't need to make assessments, and their jobs are thereby dumbed down to just basically carrying drinks around and checking people's seatbelts, then they add pretty much zero to anyone's security, so your argument is nonsense. I'm happy to pay more for competence.

> In other words, I do what I think is sensible, reasonable.

Do you ignore medical advice because it is delivered by a nurse or CNA instead of the doctor himself? The CNA doesn't have experience prescribing medication, and is simply "parroting" information from the doctor. Does that make it less valid?

Are you an electrical engineer with experience in RF interference and complex avionics? No? Then you have no more knowledge of the situation than the hostess "parroting" instructions. Any rationalization you have is simply an excuse for being impatient.

Also, I hate everyone who grabs their bag immediately and stands up in the aisle. You realize we have another five minutes before the door opens, right?

tl;dr: You're kinda an entitled jerk on airplanes, which is one of the reasons I absolutely hate flying. For whatever reason, people like to pretend that they are god's gift to man when flying on an airplane.

Do you ignore medical advice because it is delivered by a nurse or CNA instead of the doctor himself? The CNA doesn't have experience prescribing medication, and is simply "parroting" information from the doctor. Does that make it less valid?

It depends. I know a couple of doctors personally, and so I double-check medical advice given to me (by nurses or others) with them. Some nurses give pretty awful advice. I have a permanent stiffness in one of my ankles because of crappy medical advice by a nurse.

Are you an electrical engineer with experience in RF interference and complex avionics? No? Then you have no more knowledge of the situation than the hostess "parroting" instructions. Any rationalization you have is simply an excuse for being impatient.

I have a Masters in Physics, and I built electronics circuits before - yes, I have more knowledge of RF interference than the air hostess parrotting instructions.

Beyond the knowledge, simple observation shows that there is no interference problem: most people don't know how to turn off their iPads and Kindles properly, or don't care. Probably about 1/4 of the passengers have one or more devices switched on during take-off and landing - more every month. And yet there has been no recorded increase in airplane crashes.

Also, I hate everyone who grabs their bag immediately and stands up in the aisle. You realize we have another five minutes before the door opens, right?

Yep - and I want to spend that five minutes able to focus my mind somewhere else (e.g. my phone) rather than glancing expectantly at the luggage rack waiting for my chance to scurry and pick up my bag. Once the line starts moving, I want to be one of those people who just moves - not one of those jerks who then proceeds to spend 30 seconds blocking the line to fish out their bag and slows everyone else down.

tl;dr: You're kinda an entitled jerk on airplanes, which is one of the reasons I absolutely hate flying. For whatever reason, people like to pretend that they are god's gift to man when flying on an airplane.

I've made it a policy to not read tl;dr;s. It's a recent thing. Did I miss something of value in there?

I don't disagree with your premise in general....but...The silliness of one rule doesn't, in my mind, invalidate all the other ones. I mean, couldn't you reverse your logic? Find a rule that makes sense (say, no smoking on the plane) and thus summarize that all rules make sense?

I keep thinking to myself that flying is a privilege, not a right. But that's probably more a reflection of my own authoritarian views than anything else. Cheers.

You're absolutely right, and I didn't say they were all invalidated.

All that the silliness of one rule means is that we have to make our own minds up as to which rules are sensible and which are silly. Which was basically my point.

So you're a self centered inconsiderate jerk and you're proud of it, how typical. The rules do apply to you, I suggest you figure that out before someone decides to teach you the hard way that everyone else doesn't appreciate you ignoring the rules.

Jump to conclusions much? Got some passive aggressive issues perhaps?

No one has ever had anything to complain about with respect to my behaviour on planes - not even flight attendants.

> Jump to conclusions much?

When many people make the same assumption you might want to consider whether there's a problem with your post.

Your first post makes you sound like a jerk. Such a jerk that people have down voted you for it; called it disappointing; and called you a jerk.

You likely have a point there, though I wonder how much of the backlash is just people piling on to a post that is fading, rather than thinking for themselves. I'd wager that at least half the down votes were by people who didn't read most or the comment.

No, you just sound like a jerk.

In general, rules either exist for the benefit of an individual or of society in general.

If you think the rules that benefit society in general do not apply to you simply because you disagree with them then you are nothing more than a common arsehole.

Nope. You have a very strange view of rules. Who taught you that that's why they exist?

Rules exist because someone (or a group of someones) decided to make them exist. There is no necessity that the rule be actually for the benefit of anyone, though most societies try to require rules to at least seem vaguely beneficial before adopting them.

A month in any corporation should make it obvious that rules and benefits are entirely orthogonal concepts, much of the time.

First off, to all the downvoters: great to see you piling on like sheep. Ask yourself: is my comment spam? Otherwise offensive? Or is it a reasonably well argued point that you disagree with?

If you downvoted simply because you disagree with it, think about what you've done. Go slap yourself. You deserve it. You should be ashamed of yourself for your gregarious, ostracising behaviour.

> Air hosts/hostesses have none of those attributes - they are merely parrotting rules handed down to them, without putting any thought into them.

Those people cannot - are not allowed to, on pain of dismissal from their job and heavy fines for their company - make allowances for the rules.

Ranting about low wage employees who are forced to apply rules (whether they like it or not) just because you don't see the point of those rules makes you sound like the kind of person who deserves a good solid down vote.

> I don't care one whit for "the rules" except where I have analysed them and deemed them sensible myself.

When's the last time you escaped from a burning aircraft? Why should I trust my life to your "analysis"?

Hold your fucking horses. I'll get to replying to these points as I work my way down the thread. Geesh. Have some patience.