5 ms·
Whoever decided to close his access to the API should be fired.
by rocky1138 9y ago
Whoever decided to close his access to the API should be fired.
- danesparza 9y agoIt sounds like The API changed. But same sentiment -- that was a shit design decision.
- zavulon 9y agoThe API didn't change, they just made it private "for MTA use only"
- strken 9y agoIt sounds like locking down the API was an entirely deliberate decision made at the same time as removing platform data from the website, which means Chesterton's fence[0] applies - we should work out why that decision was made before criticising it. Discussion upthread is about commuters being pushed onto the tracks, which sounds like a good reason not to display data that isn't 100% certain. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence
- camiller 9y agohow about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...
- rocky1138 9y ago> we should work out why that decision was made Good luck with that. I'd be amazed if you got a response.
- 9935c101ab17a66 9y agoI've never heard of "Chesterton's Fence" before and appreciate the introduction to the term. That said, I don't think your application is correct. The OP in this case is not the agent of change — he did not "reform" anything and does not have the capacity to act, he just analyzed/synthesized existing data. (Also, on reflection, "Chesterton's Fence" is an unnecessarily complicated and overly verbose way of saying: "The MTA probably has a reason for the change.")
- troisx 9y agoSad to see you downvoted. I believe that government employees who actively prevent access to publicly-owned data should be fired immediately.