I see where you’re coming from, but the alternatives are either that the law isn’t enforced, or the state ramps up its own surveillance, which is more dystopian to me.
I see this as in the same vein as SEC whistleblower awards, which I’ve never heard described as dystopian. Businesses just don’t have the same expectation of privacy that individuals do.
you have like 50 comments in this thread whining about the law and desperately wanting businesses (not private individuals!) to idle their trucks next to schools.
Please don't try to game HN like this. We can easily turn off the flamewar detector when the topic warrants it, and users who post excessive numbers of low-quality comments can have rate-limiting turned on.
There seems to be a whole lot of drama about this project and from what I can see there are reasonable arguments for and against.
How about just respecting the merits of open debate about a topic and let other readers decide for themselves, rather than going to war on the project and on HN to try and swing things in favour of your own argument?
I'm sorry that my project caused you this much distress. If you live in NYC and hate the idling complaint law, lobby your representatives to kill it. I didn't make the law or even the service that lets you file reports under it. I just wrote an API client.
People have filed idling complaints for years, long before this app existed. Even if your comments somehow convinced me that publishing Idle Reporter is an "evil" act (as you claim), and I decided to take it down and go become a Tibetan monk, people would still file complaints as they always have.
> I will absolutely act in good faith and not game the system, but only as long as the mods do that too. As soon as the mods do that in a thread, all bets are off. Could not care less if I get banned for defending myself in such a situation.
Yep and I got an upvoted comment dissenting against all the authoritarian bootlickers in every single thread on this post. People agree with me. Even on the comments of mine that got flagged lol
It even pissed people off enough that one of the mods started commenting about my own personal projects that have nothing to do with this lmao
Oh and I guess it did work because now it's down to 28, almost off the front page. Much lower than where it was before
> Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law.
Congestion was already priced into all goods and services in NYC, it just came in the form of a deadweight loss (paying delivery workers / tradespeople / professionals to sit in traffic) instead of a tax that at least ostensibly will fund better transit.
> Congestion was already priced into all goods and services in NYC
I agree!
> instead of a tax that at least ostensibly will fund better transit.
Telling me that the money will be set on fire by a public organization with good intent doesn't convince me.
What has happened here -- and mathematically, this has to be true, or it wouldn't work -- is that the city has taken what used to be the market cost of congestion, and set an artificial floor higher than that market. They then captured the difference as revenue.
That's the fundamental argument against the assertion that traffic speed increases will offset the costs. It cannot be true, or people would choose to drive.
> That's the fundamental argument against the assertion that traffic speed increases will offset the costs. It cannot be true, or people would choose to drive.
I think the mistake you're making here is assuming that the value of driving and the cost of congestion are the same to every driver.
For some people, driving is an elastic decision. They mode shift, or time shift to off-peak, or carpool, or combine errands in the city into one trip instead of multiple.
For other people, driving is necessary. They'll benefit from fewer of the first type of person being on the roads during peak hours.
No, I don't need to make assumptions about any of that. It's a complex interplay of factors (like any economic system), and everyone has their own reward function.
I'm just saying that if the marginal driver were still choosing to drive, then the system wouldn't work at all. That seems tautological?
The MTA has to set the price high enough above market that the reduction in demand is X%. Whether someone is driving because of speed, or comfort, or some other factor, the cost has to exceed their personally calculated benefit.
> Whether someone is driving because of speed, or comfort, or some other factor, the cost has to exceed their personally calculated benefit.
It's a dynamic system though; as some drivers opt not to drive, the utility of driving for those other drivers increases. Yes, the market will find an equilibrium somewhere where some people will still drive, but that's kind of the point.
I think the better argument for your side is that a large number of people have a utility function that isn't rational -- or at least, not based on commute time saved.
Yes, the market will find a new equilibrium, but if I'm right that the marginal driver is choosing to drive or not based mostly on a function of time saved, then eventually we'll see the market reaching an equilibrium where people are willing to pay up to the amount of money they save by getting somewhere faster via car (ignoring other costs for the sake of argument).
If that is true -- if the market is efficient for time -- then this plan can only ever work by making driving more expensive than the time lost to congestion.
(As an aside, thanks for having a serious, nuanced discussion about this. It's depressing how many people just want to fling insults and downvote/flag/censor stuff that they disagree with. I knew I was going to get ravaged for having a non-canonical opinion, but it's so hard to get people to just engage with the argument in good faith.)
i dont think thats true. the cost can also be much cheaper, but people price differentiate better when they can actually see the number than when they cant.
you can look at 19.99 as an example, vs 20 as example of making people feel a certain way to get them to shop differently, or credit cards - which get people to pay much more for an item than they otherwise would with the interest payments, or with the klarna styled buy now pay later.
its not a tautology that a higher price drives down cost.
i think the government price is likely much less than the cost of congestion, especially once you price in the externalities of pollution, but drivers werent aware of how much cost they were incurring from the congestion, and now that there's a number, they can make decisions based off of it
My experience is that the best LLMs can produce syntactically valid strudel but don't understand the actual semantics of the "mini notation" language, unfortunately.
> Their determination? I wasn't entitled to a $3 refund.
Frustratingly, Lyft’s position on this is that if you don’t like the car that arrives you should reject it when it arrives, otherwise you’re not entitled to a (even partial) refund, even when they know on their end that the car they sent doesn’t match what you paid extra for.
This seems... interesting, legally speaking. I imagine the idea is that you're implicitly accepting alterations to the previous contract by opting to take the car? Would that argument hold water, legally?
If I've learned anything from watching startups on HN, the US is a lawless wasteland where as long as you've got a couple of billion in VC funding you can do anything. I eagerly await the first murder-for-hire startup.
“By visiting our affiliate’s website (adorable-puppy-photos.com), Mr. Doe agreed to our terms of service which specify we may terminate his bodily functions at any time.”
I mean, isn't Disney arguing that court should drop a case about someone dying at a Disneyland resort because their partner agreed to Disney+ terms and conditions?
I ran into a similar arbitration with a condo I rented for a long weekend. There was a significant issue and they weren't able to provide another place. We stayed there and had contractors in and out for the next couple of days. They refused to refund me, so I tried through my credit card to get a refund and they said "well you should have just left, then we would refund you. But since you stayed, the contract is fulfilled."
Credit card disputes don't always match up with the law, so I wouldn't put too much weight on this from a legal standpoint, but good anecdote nonetheless.
Yes, when you’re tired after a flight with heavy bags, you’re very much being forced to compromise. Any consumer could easily argue why they didn’t have a choice and had to go with what was available.
You could but there are multiple reasons why Uber dethroned taxis and probably the most important ones are that you get a route to your destination and a fixed price to get there.
My first trip to Paris many years ago, I felt that I was getting the "scenic tour" to my hotel from the airport but I wasn't sure where I was and certainly didn't know the best way between the two. There were other variations in other cities.
For a while, I lived near an airport and taxi drivers would be angry because they'd waited a long time to do a short ride and now would have to go back to the end of the line.
The parent post made the contention there are no other options.
And according to other comments here, the "fixed price" isn't actually true - it appears some ride-share apps will add fees at the conclusion of the ride.
Part of what makes it seem shady here is that airline ticket prices are pretty opaque. If they advertised it as a group discount, it would be received differently.
Airline pricing in general is pretty opaque. Not hospital pricing opaque, but still pretty opaque. It's one of the few things we regularly purchase where the price changes almost daily (both up and down). For example, bus and train tickets are pretty much the same price each day for the same route. For airlines, I'll often check the price on some future night to see if it is cheaper or not.
Like medicine, the price is a negotiation point in a complex web of probabilities. Air travel can be more transparent because the probability network is simpler and the spread is narrower, but they’re both dealing with realities of providing predictable service under volatile demand and group payer conditions.
Distance train at least may (or may not depending on location/country) be quite a bit cheaper for advance purchase but maybe doesn't fluctuate as much day to day.
As someone who's not overweight I don't think I would care. What I really wish they'd charge for is overhead luggage. I wish they'd charge so much that no one bothers with it.
Is there any reason or are you just generally a sadist?
Overhead luggage is the only place you can take anything fragile. You have no control over how your checked baggage is handled and anything you have to take with you into the cramped seating space will get squished.
One reason that I would value is that it would speed up boarding and deplaning. As you correctly point out, the prevailing overhead luggage system provides a benefit to some travelers, potentially to the detriment of others. It's a tradeoff.
I seriously doubt it would make much difference for deplaning - people already stand in the isle with their luggage out of the compartment long before the doors open.
For boarding it might speed things up but often boarding is done before all checked luggage is loaded so it will probably not let you take off faster either.
I agree that it wouldn't cause the doors to open any sooner for deplaning, but once they did, people could just ... leave. The people standing in the aisle with their luggage out of the compartment are the ones who started in the aisle seats. People in the other seats need to get out, reach up, pull down, get organized. Sometimes they have to salmon their way back from their actual seat to the compartment several rows behind them because that's where they had to stow their carry-on because the people seated in row 30 put their bag over row 16 when they boarded[1].
Similarly, for takeoff I agree that it wouldn't necessarily save time, net. But it would help with the frustration of standing in line, backed up on the jetway while everyone is struggling with setting up the initial conditions for the deplaning scenario I described above. At least people could get seated sooner and be comfortable for longer while they're waiting for takeoff.
What if larger sizes of clothes were priced higher, since they use more material? I wear a small in almost every case so wouldn't affect me, but man it'd be nerve wracking for a lot of Americans.
In most cases the cost of fabric itself is a pretty minor part of the garment price- you're paying for someone to design the clothes, assemble them, ship them, and operate a store that sells them, and those costs are pretty much the same for small and large sizes. Adjusting the price based on the amount of fabric used would probably end up being a dollar or so for the things most people wear on a daily basis.
Unusually large or small sizes can end up more expensive (and/or only manufactured in limited quantities) because they're not commonly bought and they take up space on the shop floor and in inventory which could be used for things with higher turnover. (Edit: Also at the extreme ends of sizing simply enlarging or shrinking the pattern won't work well, you have to redraft it so it sits correctly on a petite or plus-sized frame).
Are you at all concerned the airlines will remove the air from the cabin if you try this, just to emphasize that you’re not going to get a refund this way?
Anyway I’ll be across the aisle with hydrogen balloons paying less than you either way. Enjoy your flight!
Mass and volume both count, in an aircraft, don't they? And many oversize humans present logistical and safety challenges:
- Taking up more than one seat with girth, needing a seatbelt extender.
- Fitting through narrow passages, tight turns, limited headroom
- An unconscious person may need to be lifted, and transported somehow
- Toilets and life vests and other safety equipment, rated for your "standard average man size"
- Total mass of passengers/cargo, and its distribution on the aircraft itself
Elevators in the US have a maximum weight and maximum occupancy rating.
Arguably, if obesity is a disability, then appeal to the Americans with Disability Act or similar regulations, but from a standpoint of safety and the common good, it does not seem unreasonable for airlines to charge extra to cover their expenses above.
Speaking as a fat person, air travel is horrible and I'll happily drive a couple thousand miles to avoid flying.
On a flight to Greenland I spent six hours smashed up between the window and a stranger (constant, sweaty, skin-on-skin contact) because they put three fat guys right next to each other on a full flight. I'd rather have taken a couple months of vacation and ridden the icebreaker in.
I don't particularly want to make life choices based on what's most economically efficient for airlines, but you do you I guess. And while my being fat is definitely a result of my life choices, that's certainly not the case for all of us.
Regardless of what size you believe everyone should be, the airlines have to deal with the size that people actually are. They have made the choice to size their seats in a way that causes this problem. They could have just plastered "no fatties" at the ticket counter, or maybe had a section of seats reserved for fat people at a somewhat higher price point and required people over a certain size to use them, but instead they've chosen to sit us all together. And they do so with the knowledge that judgemental assholes will just blame the fatties instead of them.
But keep playing their game, you appear to be good at it.
The airlines are dealing with the size people are by, in your example, preventing those oversized for their chosen seat from negatively impacting others.
> And while my being fat is definitely a result of my life choices, that's certainly not the case for all of us.
It literally is. No matter the genetic predisposition, you need a caloric surplus to get fat.
> They could have just plastered "no fatties" at the ticket counter, or maybe had a section of seats reserved for fat people at a somewhat higher price point and required people over a certain size to use them, but instead they've chosen to sit us all together.
They do provide bigger seats at a higher price point though. You have chosen not to make use of them and then blame the airline. If you are big enough that sitting next to someone your own size causes you discomfort then you would be encroaching the space of someone smaller sitting next to you. That wouldn't be fair to them.
I mean, it is kind of optimal. Fat guys will experience constant, sweaty, skin-on-skin contact in a flight anyway, so placing them together reduces the total constant, sweaty, skin-on-skin contact experienced.
A fat guy next to a skinny person doesn't experience skin-on-skin contact. Which is why I do everything I can to get an aisle seat and hope the middle seat is empty or has a skinny person in it.
Ask the airline, they're the ones that choose narrower seats than the manufacturer's recommendations. I assume this was a budget flight or one of the airlines like American Eagle that service smaller airports?
Narrowing them further can allow even more people to fit, uncomfortably. The fact that you have any space at all is because larger people have to fit somewhere.
No business class on the Pituffik rotator. The only other option is flying through Copenhagen (good luck getting the company to pay for that) or sitting in a jump seat on a C130 with your shins against the cargo.
You're going to end up sitting next to a stranger anyway if you're flying alone. Nobody says you have to become friends, but I wouldn't mind having in common with my seatmate that we're both the kind of people who don't take the standard option at face value.
If anything, booking together with a stranger would allow you to leave an empty seat between you which is less likely to be filled than if you leave two empty seats next to you.
And the service could even be set up to give you some choice over the stranger (at the expense of less matches) like setting a maximum weight.
Any time I do select a seat in advance, I try to pick my window seat where someone already has the aisle one. It works surprisingly often to get an empty seat in the row!
I've always thought there's a difference between who you book with and who's on your itinerary. Very rarely do I say I'm traveling with anyone unless we're staying in the same room. I guess these fares do specifically state that, but I have a very hard time imagining anyone at the gate would care, they're typically doing the bare minimum as they should.
A company can figure out the premium and just average it out across the pax who book thru them. Further they could risk-manage no-shows or other bad behaviour based on ratings and feedback. It's just wasting everybody's time to go thru intermediaries.
Because they may change their plans. They could be a no-show (which will affect your return flight). They could call and change the flight without your knowledge. They could add extras to the trip and charge it to your card.
People are flaky, and being on the same itinerary with the same PNR as someone else means your trip is in their hands.
Some sort of service that sat on top of bookings would have its own set of terms and conditions that you agree to, which would at least disincentivize them from acting against your interest.
I can foresee that backfiring when you miss your connection and end up having to stay somewhere unexpected overnight, and then the airline will only pay for one room for both of you.
Traveling together does not imply that you're rooming together. It's probably a bit of a fight with the airline to get them to pay for it, but then everything is a bit of a fight with the Airline.
Largely, yes -- one of the big issues with using other people's random MCP servers is that they are run by default as a system process, even if they only need to speak over an API. Remote MCP mitigates this by not running any untrusted code locally.
What it _doesn't_ seem to yet mitigate is prompt injection attacks, where a tool call description of one tool convinces the model to do something it shouldn't (like send sensitive data to a server owned by the attacker.) I think these concerns are a little bit overblown though; things like pypi and the Chrome Extension store scare me more and it doesn't stop them from mostly working.
Unfortunately even though WebAssembly assets can be served statically, you need certain headers to be set to use SharedArrayBuffer, which as far as I can tell is not possible on GH Pages[1]. Pyodide seems to use SharedArrayBuffer for at least some functionality.
I don’t know about measurable effects but I hate when I pass a long-idling truck and can taste it in the air.