4 ms·
The Manchester and Bataclan incidents are perfect examples. That's the whole point of terrorism. The groups are not effective enough to influence who they want
by monksy 9y ago
The Manchester and Bataclan incidents are perfect examples. That's the whole point of terrorism. The groups are not effective enough to influence who they want without fear tacits. They're going to target large groups of people, and events tend to do that.
The situation of the Bataclan, the emergency services does need to know whats going on inside, and at multiple points of the building. For Manchester, they needed to know what exit was being targeted, and which other ones that popped up as well (there could have been more than one attacker)
I emphitise and understand where you're at with the usher part, it sucks and they're going to try to guilt trip you over it. However, that's the right process to go through. (You're esclating). MLB solves this issue by putting a short code to text about bad behavior on the backs of seats. (Again you have to use your phone with this)
- paublyrne 9y agoI think the point is those types of incidents are incredibly rare.
- jackweirdy 9y agoSome might say as engineers we should know to design for the edge cases.
- monksy 9y agoThat's what the people at the bataclan said.
- Retra 9y agoGood thing they didn't say "impossible."
- opportune 9y agoI'm more likely to get killed by a fall in the tub than by a terrorist, yet I don't fear going into the shower without my phone. Fearing terrorism is a consequence of innumeracy. Do you carry your cellphone in case you or a nearby person get struck by lightning too? More US citizens get struck (and killed) by lightning every year than die in terrorist attacks since 2001.
- girvo 9y agoActually, yes, that’s exactly why I carry my phone: for contacting emergency services when something goes awry. Your lightning analogy sort of falls down a bit here (even though I agree with your overall point of not fearing terrorist attacks)
- larkeith 9y agoThe fact that the risk is comparatively low is no excuse to disregard it. Furthermore, any number of emergencies can be exacerbated by a lack of phone access - medical emergencies, fires, or any other major problem might have significantly higher fatality rates in the absence of telecommunications.
- novas0x2a 9y agoFirst, let me say that I'm not panicking about the probability of this actually happening, but: "I'm more likely to get killed by a fall in the tub than by a terrorist" is only true of an _arbitrary_ attack at an _arbitrary_ venue and time (and an _arbitrary_ bathtub :)). Events that use Yondr announce it ahead of time, waving a big flag that says "no one here will be able to call for help." The probability of an attack at such an event would be much higher compared to an arbitrary one (although, definitely still small, which is why I'm not exactly panicking...)
- valuearb 9y agoYour entire premise is incorrect. Even with Yondr hundreds of people will be able to call for help. Such as ushers, security, ticket takers, concession workers, event management, etc, etc, etc. Yondr means less (or at least less rapid) social media publicity for a terrorist act, so one could argue that it deters terrorists.