6 ms·

I genuinely do not understand how they can sleep at night. Thanks for pushing back.

by Forgeties79 4y ago

plussed_reader 4y ago
"If it were wrong it would be illegal."
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  - ccvannorman 4y ago
    This "wonder" you find yourself with is a result of the mismatch between observable data, statistics, and our intuition. On the news we may read about Arson (or other "angry actions" by individuals) but this is highly negative selection bias - the actual incidence rate is near zero. Because we have a lot of data like this (negative news that you are exposed to) we tend to over-estimate the incidence rate of arson (e.g. 1% instead of 0.001%) So, when you ask the question "Why isn't $action provoking more $arson here", the answer is simple: statistically speaking, each individual is extremely unlikely to do arson (or similar), so even though they've been perturbed, the incidence doesn't really go up. Another way to say it: Everyone knows the ROI on arson is negative, no matter how upset you are, crime is never worth it as a response, because you have zero upside. So almost everyone (overwhelming majority) don't do this (but we might think they would, again because we're exposed to negative bias news data)
  - tehwebguy 4y ago
    > companies doing that Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? I mean if my health insurer, for example, couldn't accommodate a disability of mine, especially something as common as low vision or hearing, I'd certainly feel like getting revenge but doesn't everyone feel that way about every health insurer every year or two? If you meant the other way around, like if someone sued me because I was the one essentially locking people with a disability out from using my service I'd probably just take a really logical approach to handling it (for instance, making the accommodation they request). From what I've read the most common outcome in these cases is that the defendant is ordered to make the accommodation. Getting sued or even just threatened with a lawsuit is pretty scary though, if anyone here is facing threat of lawsuit I'd suggest you consult with several attorneys right away but also find a YouTube attorney to set your expectations of the process. It's super easy to get fleeced by your own attorney unless you direct them pretty intentionally.
    - angst_ridden 4y ago
      I believe in making things accessible, and strive to do that on all my projects. I object to abuse of the ADA. Businesses / organizations should be given an opportunity to remediate their web sites before an automated script files an erroneous lawsuit.
      - jibe 4y ago
        It should be an easy legal fix - you have to give notice and ~120 day window to fix before you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Also, not sure private parties should be plaintiffs here.
        drc500free 4y ago
        Without private action, they would need funding for enforcement. To have funding for enforcement, they would have to either levy fines against offenders or raise taxes. Those are non-starters for getting the legislation passed, and the opponents hope that they can later claim that the private action is an abuse of the legal system.
      - tehwebguy 4y ago
        That is already the most common out come of ADA website suits it would seem: > The most common penalty at the federal level is a demand that the website be updated swiftly to better cater to people with disabilities. [0] https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-compliant/#What_Do_I_Need_to_Do_to_Make_My_Website_ADA_Compliant https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-c...
        hedora 4y ago
        That doesn't apply in California or New York. I heard California is trying to bring back the grace period.
    - knodi123 4y ago
      > Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? You think these people are champions of the disabled? If a disabled person wanted to see the video, and could not, and asked them for help, that would be one thing. This ain't that. They're fucking vultures, they are in this to make money off of as many people as possible, regardless of the harm they cause. This is no more sane than the Texas law that allows people to be amateur bounty hunters and dogpile on anyone who might have played any kind of role in any woman's abortion.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    This is essentially a legal protection money racket. People running a racket never leave you with nothing left to lose. Most obviously because they can't come back for more. But also because people with nothing left to lose will burn down al Capone's house and not care that they are about to be killed in some horrible way. These legal rackets know if they hit you for something you can afford to pay and keep your business running, that you aren't likely to throw it all away for empty vengeance. Cameras are everywhere now.
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      Cameras don't work if the neighborhood transformer is down for unscheduled reconfiguration
      - hedora 4y ago
        These days, they do. Batteries and solar panels cost less then running a cable.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      > Cameras are everywhere now. They clearly aren't, and there are around a hundred arson committed each day in average in the US so it doesn't look like the sheer number of surveillance camera is enough of a deterrent for the typical criminal.
  - verisimilitudes 4y ago
- rat87 4y ago
  It is illegal, that's why they sued.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yieldcrv 4y ago
In their minds they are just chasing alpha to sleep at all. They have probably been burned along the way and just passing the trauma forward. Everyone has to save themselves.
drc500free 4y ago
It's no different from not having curb cuts on your sidewalk. Culturally tech companies have gotten away with selling non-compliant products and websites, and feel like it's unacceptable to be required to follow regulations because everyone has level-set their expectations around not doing that. A competent regulatory scheme would have had the government enforcing this from the beginning, instead of depending on private action that seldom happens, but here we are. Uber ignores taxi regulations, AirBnB ignores zoning regulations, and everyone ignores accessibility regulations.
- Handytinge 4y ago
  For the non Americans: A "sidewalk" is a footpath adjacent to a road. A "curb cut" is ramp from footpath to road.
- extantproject 4y ago
  > If people followed the law, they wouldn't get sued. non sequitur
  - drc500free 4y ago
    Great point, and I just edited that out on re-read because I realized it's simply not true. In fact, it's the core problem with using private action as an enforcement mechanism. You pass a specialized regulatory problem to a generic court and waste everyone's time with cases like this one where the companies may in fact be perfectly compliant - but first you need to spend money teaching the judge what the facts are.
- jacobsenscott 4y ago
  > A competent regulatory scheme would have had the government enforcing this from the beginning If there was a regulatory scheme (competent can't really be defined) at the beginning of the internet we would all still be using aol dial up at best, there would be 3 content creating entities at most, and we would be paying for monthly "bundles" of web sites.
  - 4y ago
sangnoir 4y ago
Discriminating on disability is not cool, and it also happens to be illegal. If people on HN can complain about how some websites are unusable with Javascript disabled (by choice), I think those who depend on screen readers[1] have a more cogent case, as they don't have options. For all the hate the "bloated" web frameworks get, the one thing they usually have out of the box is accessibility. 1. Or other assistive tech.
jbirer 4y ago
We often assume that most people have empathy / conscience. It's simply not true.

I genuinely do not understand how they can sleep at night. Thanks for pushing back.

plussed_reader 4y ago

"If it were wrong it would be illegal."

littlestymaar 4y ago
- ccvannorman 4y ago
  This "wonder" you find yourself with is a result of the mismatch between observable data, statistics, and our intuition. On the news we may read about Arson (or other "angry actions" by individuals) but this is highly negative selection bias - the actual incidence rate is near zero. Because we have a lot of data like this (negative news that you are exposed to) we tend to over-estimate the incidence rate of arson (e.g. 1% instead of 0.001%) So, when you ask the question "Why isn't $action provoking more $arson here", the answer is simple: statistically speaking, each individual is extremely unlikely to do arson (or similar), so even though they've been perturbed, the incidence doesn't really go up. Another way to say it: Everyone knows the ROI on arson is negative, no matter how upset you are, crime is never worth it as a response, because you have zero upside. So almost everyone (overwhelming majority) don't do this (but we might think they would, again because we're exposed to negative bias news data)
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  > companies doing that Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? I mean if my health insurer, for example, couldn't accommodate a disability of mine, especially something as common as low vision or hearing, I'd certainly feel like getting revenge but doesn't everyone feel that way about every health insurer every year or two? If you meant the other way around, like if someone sued me because I was the one essentially locking people with a disability out from using my service I'd probably just take a really logical approach to handling it (for instance, making the accommodation they request). From what I've read the most common outcome in these cases is that the defendant is ordered to make the accommodation. Getting sued or even just threatened with a lawsuit is pretty scary though, if anyone here is facing threat of lawsuit I'd suggest you consult with several attorneys right away but also find a YouTube attorney to set your expectations of the process. It's super easy to get fleeced by your own attorney unless you direct them pretty intentionally.
  - angst_ridden 4y ago
    I believe in making things accessible, and strive to do that on all my projects. I object to abuse of the ADA. Businesses / organizations should be given an opportunity to remediate their web sites before an automated script files an erroneous lawsuit.
    - jibe 4y ago
      It should be an easy legal fix - you have to give notice and ~120 day window to fix before you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Also, not sure private parties should be plaintiffs here.
      - drc500free 4y ago
        Without private action, they would need funding for enforcement. To have funding for enforcement, they would have to either levy fines against offenders or raise taxes. Those are non-starters for getting the legislation passed, and the opponents hope that they can later claim that the private action is an abuse of the legal system.
    - tehwebguy 4y ago
      That is already the most common out come of ADA website suits it would seem: > The most common penalty at the federal level is a demand that the website be updated swiftly to better cater to people with disabilities. [0] https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-compliant/#What_Do_I_Need_to_Do_to_Make_My_Website_ADA_Compliant https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-c...
      - hedora 4y ago
        That doesn't apply in California or New York. I heard California is trying to bring back the grace period.
  - knodi123 4y ago
    > Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? You think these people are champions of the disabled? If a disabled person wanted to see the video, and could not, and asked them for help, that would be one thing. This ain't that. They're fucking vultures, they are in this to make money off of as many people as possible, regardless of the harm they cause. This is no more sane than the Texas law that allows people to be amateur bounty hunters and dogpile on anyone who might have played any kind of role in any woman's abortion.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  This is essentially a legal protection money racket. People running a racket never leave you with nothing left to lose. Most obviously because they can't come back for more. But also because people with nothing left to lose will burn down al Capone's house and not care that they are about to be killed in some horrible way. These legal rackets know if they hit you for something you can afford to pay and keep your business running, that you aren't likely to throw it all away for empty vengeance. Cameras are everywhere now.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Cameras don't work if the neighborhood transformer is down for unscheduled reconfiguration
    - hedora 4y ago
      These days, they do. Batteries and solar panels cost less then running a cable.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    > Cameras are everywhere now. They clearly aren't, and there are around a hundred arson committed each day in average in the US so it doesn't look like the sheer number of surveillance camera is enough of a deterrent for the typical criminal.
- verisimilitudes 4y ago
rat87 4y ago
It is illegal, that's why they sued.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yieldcrv 4y ago

In their minds they are just chasing alpha to sleep at all. They have probably been burned along the way and just passing the trauma forward. Everyone has to save themselves.

drc500free 4y ago

It's no different from not having curb cuts on your sidewalk. Culturally tech companies have gotten away with selling non-compliant products and websites, and feel like it's unacceptable to be required to follow regulations because everyone has level-set their expectations around not doing that. A competent regulatory scheme would have had the government enforcing this from the beginning, instead of depending on private action that seldom happens, but here we are. Uber ignores taxi regulations, AirBnB ignores zoning regulations, and everyone ignores accessibility regulations.

Handytinge 4y ago
For the non Americans: A "sidewalk" is a footpath adjacent to a road. A "curb cut" is ramp from footpath to road.
extantproject 4y ago
> If people followed the law, they wouldn't get sued. non sequitur
- drc500free 4y ago
  Great point, and I just edited that out on re-read because I realized it's simply not true. In fact, it's the core problem with using private action as an enforcement mechanism. You pass a specialized regulatory problem to a generic court and waste everyone's time with cases like this one where the companies may in fact be perfectly compliant - but first you need to spend money teaching the judge what the facts are.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
> A competent regulatory scheme would have had the government enforcing this from the beginning If there was a regulatory scheme (competent can't really be defined) at the beginning of the internet we would all still be using aol dial up at best, there would be 3 content creating entities at most, and we would be paying for monthly "bundles" of web sites.
- 4y ago

sangnoir 4y ago

Discriminating on disability is not cool, and it also happens to be illegal. If people on HN can complain about how some websites are unusable with Javascript disabled (by choice), I think those who depend on screen readers[1] have a more cogent case, as they don't have options. For all the hate the "bloated" web frameworks get, the one thing they usually have out of the box is accessibility. 1. Or other assistive tech.

jbirer 4y ago

We often assume that most people have empathy / conscience. It's simply not true.