4 ms·
> One of the arena's managers later called Lamya’s mother to discuss the issue. And in a statement, the biz said: “The software had her daughter at a 97 percent
by prepend 5y ago
> One of the arena's managers later called Lamya’s mother to discuss the issue. And in a statement, the biz said: “The software had her daughter at a 97 percent match. This is what we looked at ... if there was a mistake, we apologize for that."
A combination of low skill management and poor algorithms is bad. This seems like stupid managers that don’t understand what 97% means.
Also funny that they “apologized” but didn’t say the teen was welcome to come roller skate. And they weren’t able to figure out it wasn’t her at the event.
So this statement seems to be “the computer says 97%, so you can’t come in, sorry that sucks for you.”
I think we need some sort of Uniform Commercial Code for how automated systems hose customers so there is a consistent adjudication method.
- karmakaze 5y agoThe software shouldn't be showing a percentage value that can't be reasonably interpreted by its operator. 97% on an exam is really high. A 1 in 32 chance that it's incorrect (if that's what this even means) isn't proof. It should only say that the person is flagged and requires a human to check.
- prepend 5y agoI agree in that numbers should not be shown unless it means something. But I’m not sure if it even has a way for a human to check. Is there a mugshot the manager can pull up and compare, it seems like that’s not part of the product. Or the managers are extra stupid and didn’t even try that.
- karmakaze 5y agoI presume the banned person had their name recorded, if they can show a photo ID with a different name, that should do.
- runnerup 5y agoThis would indeed be mildly helpful but real problem is: Even a "100% match" shouldn't be grounds for kicking someone out! It should just be a cue to check her ID against a list of banned people. How fucking hard would that have been?