4 ms·
From the article, checking in as "miss" was entirely appropriate. That's not where the mistake was made. The mistake was how their software reasoned poorly abo
by CoastalCoder 6y ago
From the article, checking in as "miss" was entirely appropriate. That's not where the mistake was made.
The mistake was how their software reasoned poorly about passengers with "miss" as their honorific.
So it's more appropriate to say that checking in as "miss" was what exposed the problem, not that it was the root cause.
- jfengel 6y agoThe mistake seems to be in looking at the honorific field at all. It's not the miscalculation; it's the fact that it's completely useless for male passengers who make up half of the flight.
- anamexis 6y agoWell, sure, but I wouldn't call it "severely misleading." It led me right to the point. Anyways, title is changed now.