[HN Gopher] Southwest Airlines grounds its entire fleet amid gia...
___________________________________________________________________
Southwest Airlines grounds its entire fleet amid giant computer
outage
Author : tosh
Score : 106 points
Date : 2021-06-15 20:16 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nypost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nypost.com)
| bokohut wrote:
| A physical process unable to reach the clouds which has been
| prevented by a logical process maintained in the clouds.
|
| Who's on first. What's on second. I don't knows on third. Where
| are the clouds?
| ta1234567890 wrote:
| Hope they recover quickly. Southwest, in my experience, is the
| local (US) airline with the best customer service by far. And one
| of the best in the world.
| mrandish wrote:
| Having flown SouthWest hundreds of times, their performance is
| quite good when things work. However, in my experience, when
| things fail their performance suffers worse than several other
| airlines. It think it's because they intentionally run their
| systems to maximize efficiency which means less resilience to
| unexpected failures.
|
| Years ago, they compensated for this with generally lower
| prices. However, in more recent years, I've noticed their
| pricing isn't nearly as advantageous compared to competitors.
| Yes, if you're one of the first 20% to book a flight six weeks
| in advance, and can accept little flexibility in terms, and are
| willing to go at a less desirable time, there are still deals
| to be had. But in any other scenario I've found United,
| American, Delta, etc to sometimes actually be cheaper, which
| was previously rarely the case.
| tyingq wrote:
| A mostly point to point flying network is also harder to
| recover than a mostly hub and spoke one.
| lurquer wrote:
| Getting more fragile by the day.
|
| An airline that can't fly planes due to a third-parties weather
| app. (Which, for all we know, is dependent on other third-party
| apps.)
|
| These problems will grow exponentially.
|
| Just wait until Company A goes offline because it relies on
| Company B, which goes offline due to Company C, which (and this
| is where the fun begins...) goes offline because of Company A.
| awb wrote:
| If it's a circular dependency then you still need an external
| event at some point to bring the system down.
|
| I guess what you're saying is what if the weather app crashes
| both Southwest and Kayak. And once the weather app goes back
| online if Southwest and Kayak were both dependent on each other
| then they couldn't recover even though the original cause had
| been resolved.
| yupper32 wrote:
| I never understand people's expectations of companies during
| stuff like this.
|
| There are people complaining that they can't get through to
| customer service on their phone. Like, do they expect them to
| always have enough customer service capacity for when _every
| single customer_ in the world has reason to call them? That 'd be
| insane.
|
| Flight cancelations are always a risk when flying. You need to
| always expect that you'll potentially have to be stuck somewhere
| for a night or two. If the airport floor doesn't suffice for you,
| fly airlines that have a track record of giving hotels for
| cancelations and have insurance/funds to cover a few nights if
| you aren't able to get a room from the airline.
|
| This kind of stuff is unavoidable and just part of air travel. Be
| prepared, be patient.
| FabHK wrote:
| Absolutely agreed. The airline industry has become victim of
| its own success there in a way. Planes are so amazingly safe
| and reliable and even punctual by and large that people forget
| that it's not just a bus going from A to B, and how miraculous
| it really is. (Some stand-up comedian had a bit about that, I
| thought it was George Carlin, but I don't find it.) ETA: Louis
| C K, yes, thanks.
| awillen wrote:
| You're saying that from the perspective of someone who's not
| currently stranded at an airport. Your points are valid, but I
| think the irony is your expectations aren't reasonable.
|
| These are people stuck in strange places who are anxious and
| uncomfortable. Some of them are probably going to miss
| important things. Others have to worry about kids/pets/etc.
| That's not to say they shouldn't be patient (and certainly they
| shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on the airline
| staff), but you're demanding rationality from people in the
| exact sort of situation where it can be really, really
| difficult for someone to be entirely rational.
|
| They're trying to do what they can (call customer service) and
| find themselves helpless - that's not a situation where they're
| going to reason through the economics of call center staffing.
| yupper32 wrote:
| > You're saying that from the perspective of someone who's
| not currently stranded at an airport.
|
| I'm saying it from the perspective of someone who has been
| stranded at an airport. It's very easy to chill tf out for a
| while and wait in line for a while at the service desk to see
| what you've got to work with. You're not dying, it's not
| literal fight or flight. You're just stuck for a while.
|
| > Your points are valid, but I think the irony is your
| expectations aren't reasonable.
|
| I don't think it's reasonable to scream at service reps,
| which I guarantee will happen to nearly every single
| Southwest rep today. I've seen it so many times.
|
| And it's the people who are confused why the customer service
| lines are jammed, those who are irrational, who are more
| likely to be the screamers. That's mainly who my comment was
| directed at.
| jcims wrote:
| The retail veneer is a powerful edifice. Folks that don't have
| any experience with building or operating or manufacturing
| things at scale really have no conceptual footing on just how
| difficult it is. As a result, at least in my opinion, there's
| no reservoir of empathy to tap when things don't go according
| to plan.
| makerofspoons wrote:
| Not having enough human capacity for a random event is
| reasonable enough, but between their app and their website
| there should be a smooth, automated, and easy way for customers
| to rebook or get their money back to book with another airline.
| That shouldn't require going through a person, especially if
| there are not enough people available.
| ksdale wrote:
| How long should that take, for every single person doing
| business with a company to change their plans?
| makerofspoons wrote:
| If you give users the right self-service options, they'll
| resolve it for themselves between the start of the outage
| and when they expected to fly. They'll rebook or take their
| money and go.
| sjm-lbm wrote:
| I'd assume a nontrivial number of customers are calling
| because automated methods to reschedule aren't giving
| them the options that they want, and they assume
| (probably incorrectly) that they will do better when
| talking to a human.
|
| I don't know with Southwest, but I know more than one
| airline has a system that sends automatic "choose one of
| these options" emails when flights are cancelled. When
| _all of your customers_ need new flights, though, the
| issue isn 't how the rescheduling is done, it's the fact
| that almost nobody is going to be able to choose an
| option they like.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > they assume (probably incorrectly) that they will do
| better when talking to a human.
|
| Anecdotally, it has worked enough times for me to
| call/talk to an agent vs dealing with the automated
| suggestion system. Just don't be a jerk.
|
| One automated system gave me a next flight of the
| following day. Spoke to an agent and was rerouted through
| another hub and only delayed by two hours overall.
|
| In another case, a delayed flight caused me to miss my
| connection. Was officially told that I was out of luck
| and would have to wait (as were the jerks who asked) for
| the morning. I went and got a seat on the plane out that
| night.
| nradov wrote:
| In my experience if you complain enough the human agent
| will occasionally agree to rebook you on another airline
| even when the online system doesn't show that as an
| option.
| corobo wrote:
| Would these be working during the giant computer outage?
| ihsw wrote:
| Have you flown with them? They have an absurd priority queue
| system at the in-person flight check-in desk that always
| bumps the normal queue, eg: if there is a constant stream of
| people in the priority queue then the normal queue will be in
| a stand-still until the priority queue is drained.
|
| It's completely asinine, especially since there are some
| services that cannot be done except at their in-person flight
| check-in desk.
|
| Poor planning is one thing but piss-poor customer service is
| rule rather than the exception. Not only that but this level
| of service extends all the way up the chain at Southwest
| Airlines -- walk right up to the line of bare minimum and
| piss all over it.
|
| It is no surprise that their system is poorly orchestrated
| and I am sure the decision-making parties will be happy to
| shove large sacks of cash in the direction of Accenture and
| Cognizant rather than employ competent teams.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| People in shock don't think about the wider issues.
|
| "I never understand people's expectations of other people's
| expectations..." Well, I guess I feel I understand that too.
|
| "Be prepared, be patient..." Good advice, so is "don't have a
| global outage" but do people follow it? Nooooo
| yupper32 wrote:
| > Good advice, so is "don't have a global outage" but do
| people follow it?
|
| People on HN should understand better than anyone that this
| isn't really possible over a long enough period of time. It's
| not like Southwest has to ground its fleet every other month.
| This specifically is a very very rare event.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| Whenever you go on longer trips you need to do at least some
| disaster planning, otherwise you'll get in some wild
| inconvenience sometime
| joe_the_user wrote:
| What can you plan for exactly if you plane gets diverted to
| nowhere's ville?
|
| Should you be carrying a tent and three days food and
| water? That would add to your carrying ons. The only thing
| I can think of is not making appointments on the other side
| where your life is screwed if your plane is diverted. But
| how much you can do that or need to do that varies by
| person.
| monksy wrote:
| People's experiences are mared by bad behavior on the airlines.
| Most airlines lock you into whatever you bought and put so many
| restrictions on it that it's ridicious. (extremely high change
| fees, baggage fees, etc) They give you a false option that you
| can buy out of these things. (Paying more money.. but often
| those options are obscenely over priced)
|
| Different airlines handle misconnects differently: Delta
| sometimes auto rebooks, United and US Airways required you to
| call and rebook.. although US Airways required you to work with
| the gate or call before hand and you got issued a new ticket at
| the kisok. On top of this.. there are different rules you
| aren't explained about what conditions indicate you can break
| the ticket without being penalized. (Schedule change being one)
|
| Lastly, theres the effect of that the airline never takes
| responsibility when they screw up. It's always "eh you should
| know better" .. Leftouthansa sends your bags to EWR on a FRA-
| LHR-ORD flight? Maybe you'll get your bags in 48 hours? Don't
| forget to ask for an amenity kit (that's on you to ask for).
| Bag got lost and you want reimburstment? Please keep your
| recepts from years ago for the jeans you had in there.
| forinti wrote:
| I often see people mad about a delay because they booked a
| flight in order to get to a meeting an hour or two after
| arriving when the car trip would be at least a day long.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| When you've travelled 30 times in a row with near-perfect QoS,
| your expectations get recalibrated. It's an ironic effect of
| success that your customers become less tolerant of failure.
|
| It's the Louis C.K. bit about being (roughly) 'in a chair in
| the sky at 500mph: it's a miracle yet no one's happy'.
| JBiserkov wrote:
| from the same clip "How quickly the world owes him something
| he didn't knew existed 5 minutes ago?"
| tyingq wrote:
| I chuckle a bit when people complain about the slow satellite
| based wifi. So, you're in a metal tube, miles in the air,
| going 500mph, getting internet from a satellite 20,000 miles
| away. And...the wifi is a bit slow?
| moralestapia wrote:
| >do they expect them to always have enough customer service
| capacity for when every single customer in the world has reason
| to call them?
| monksy wrote:
| > fly airlines that have a track record of giving hotels for
| cancelations
|
| In the US those are? United, Delta, and American for the most
| part don't. They'll look for any reason to claim WX issue so
| they won't pay out.
| yupper32 wrote:
| That's what I put "and" and not "or" after that part of the
| sentence. Weather is a big one that they don't usually pay
| out for. You need to be prepared for that to happen, either
| by being okay with the airport floor or have other ways to
| fund a hotel stay.
|
| FWIW I had United give me a hotel in 2019 after a mechanical
| issue.
| dimgl wrote:
| Well dude, they're... stuck. They're stuck in the middle of
| nowhere. That feels horrible no matter what happens. It
| happened to me yesterday at MCO.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Seems like another ransomware event.
| FearlessNebula wrote:
| I wonder what kind of computer issue requires them to ground
| their whole fleet? Can't the pilots just use Foreflight for the
| weather?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| For liability reasons, I assume if they can't use their
| standard systems, they can't fly.
|
| Commercial flight safety is all about standardization,
| reproducibility, and predictability. Switching the weather
| source for the pilots violates all three of those principles.
| aeternum wrote:
| I often wonder if delays like this should also be treated as
| some kind of safety issue.
|
| Somehow we've decided that any loss of life or injury via a
| crash is unacceptable. Yet we treat delays (both airline and
| traffic) that cost millions of human life hours as barely
| newsworthy.
|
| Would it be better if we considered policies in terms of
| human life hours saved rather than human lives? Is that
| already being done?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| That's an actuarial solution. Not without merit, but IIUC
| the thinking is the public will not abide a crash where the
| root cause traces to "yeah it was a little unsafe, but
| think of the time lost if we'd delayed a day!"
| bombcar wrote:
| I mean OSHA basically exists because people are really
| REALLY bad at making the time/disaster tradeoff
| calculation.
| nwallin wrote:
| When an airline has a crash, its stock price drops 1.58%
| that day on average. [0] Southwest's stock is down 0.28%
| today, and it looks like most of that drop happened
| immediately after the market opened, well before this
| incident, and may be related to today's stocks being down
| 0.21% overall. At first glance it appears that investors
| are entirely unconcerned with this delay.
|
| For whatever reason, we as a society have decided that
| airliner crashes are scarier than car crashes. Just like
| we've decided terrorism, nuclear energy, and self driving
| cars are scarier than they actually are. _Should_ we be
| this way? Probably not, but this is the way the world is.
|
| [0] https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1785906
| jacques_chester wrote:
| The optionality value of not being dead is surprisingly
| high, meaning that most folks would trade 1 hour of not-
| death for _many_ hours of not-delayed.
| aeternum wrote:
| Shouldn't the equation be how many hours of delay you
| would trade for one hour of not-death?
|
| Taken to an extreme, suppose we found 5 hours worth of
| airline safety video prior to a flight saved 10 human
| lives per year as it made it less likely people would
| evacuate the plane with their belongings.
|
| If you led the FAA, would you mandate each passenger
| watch this video before each flight in order to save
| those lives? Put another way, is 5 hours * 5 billion
| airline passengers / year worth 10 humans lives / year?
| jacques_chester wrote:
| If I led the FAA, I'd stay the course. Being dead is
| infinite. Delays due to safety are not.
| ihumanable wrote:
| The number of people that are ok dying to prevent "lost
| human life hours" is probably near zero.
| vajrabum wrote:
| The risk of loss of a passenger aircraft isn't the same
| thing as not wearing a seatbelt or being late for a party.
| Nobody sane would want to be personally responsible for the
| death of 200 or 300 people in one go. The FAA has a no
| commercial aviation accident policy and I for one support
| that policy.
| noizejoy wrote:
| I don't have numbers, but intuitively speaking: Wouldn't
| the cost differential in saving lives come down over time
| as the technology and procedures mature and amortize?
|
| In other words, wouldn't the calculation need to be treated
| much like any capital investment with net benefits needing
| some time to kick in?
| nwallin wrote:
| Brings to mind the sinking of the El Faro. The captain was
| relying on the free version of a paid weather app that gated
| up to date information. The 12 hours out of date information
| showed the planned/filed path to be safe, but in reality the
| captain sailed straight into the center of a hurricane, and
| sank with all hands.
|
| Many other factors contributed to the sinking, but one of the
| NTSB bulletpoints was to rely on official weather sources
| only. I wonder if that directive played a role here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15554602
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17160396
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_El_Faro
| dragonwriter wrote:
| You would hope, though, that what is standardized would
| include redundancy; resiliency has to be a concern at some
| level.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Hmmm.
| trimbo wrote:
| Next we'll get to hear that modernizing old software systems is
| too hard, so they're still running COBOL on a mainframe out of a
| single DC that had a fiber cut or something.
| malux85 wrote:
| You take your eye off the ball for 20 or 30 years and _look_
| what happens (throws hands in air)
| hughrr wrote:
| There's a lot of that stuff out there still. I was speaking to
| a former colleague a couple of years back and he discovered a
| NT4 box with a Hayes modem dangling off it doing mission
| critical EDI stuff in VB4 while doing a site migration. Not
| come across anything that old yet. Last one was a single
| irreplaceable VAX doing DHCP for about 200 users about ten
| years after it should have been in a skip.
| stuff4ben wrote:
| A system that is wholly dependent upon a third party weather
| application with no redundancies seems poorly built. I wish we'd
| get more transparency out of airlines when "computer systems"
| crash and cause delays. A post-mortem would be nice...
| rhodozelia wrote:
| Say people with the skills and incentives to build these
| systems all go to faangs where they can make 500k/yr and have
| the budget to build the system since that system is the revenue
| generator.
|
| Everywhere else it is 150k-200k a year with the bare number
| headcount and you are a cost center and treated like one.
|
| So not surprising to me that every company in the world that
| has a large physical plant, so already has large single points
| of failure, doesn't have redundant data centers or cloud based
| systems.
|
| Given the number of hacks anything online literally can't be
| secured, so they are damned if they do and damned if they
| don't.
|
| One answer is to go back to analog systems, which ain't
| happening!
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Why would tech companies be more rational at pricing labor
| than other companies?
|
| Because that's what it is - if your entire fleet is going
| down and you could have spent more to hire engineers, you
| just are irrational at pricing the value of engineering
| labor.
| macintux wrote:
| Yet every other airline is up and running, having
| (presumably) spent roughly the same on engineers.
|
| It's always easy in hindsight to say they should have spent
| more, but opportunity cost is very real, and margins are
| very slim.
| ta991919 wrote:
| _" Yet every other airline is up and running, having
| (presumably) spent roughly the same on engineers"_
|
| That's an odd line of thinking. Other airlines have
| catastrophic outages too. Just at different times/dates.
| They do sometimes share 3rd party dependencies, but that
| happened to not be the case this time.
| slg wrote:
| I'm sorry, but it is laughable to imply that a team of
| developers each making 200k a year can't build a stable
| product. It also isn't like the FAANGs of the world don't
| have downtime themselves.
| bombcar wrote:
| I was going to say the multiple failures at high profile
| cloud systems just in the last year is enough to prove that
| all the FAANG engineers in the world won't save you.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Seems like a profit center to me if the company is 100% shut
| down without it.
| nwallin wrote:
| Southwest's stock price seems to be unaffected by the
| outage. Southwest is down 0.28% on the day, but most of
| that drop happened at market open, before this incident,
| and is probably related to the S&P 500 being down 0.21%
| over a similar time period. Southwest's stock stabilized at
| shortly before 10am, and is actually up almost a tenth
| since then.
|
| Seems to me the MBAs ran the numbers a while ago, and here
| we are.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Actually that's much closer to the definition of a cost
| center.
|
| A cost is a thing you need to pay but if you spend more on
| it you get very little benefit. Thus it has a binary nature
| or at least a nature where "good enough" is all you need. A
| profit center is something where if you make it better you
| generate more revenue. Therefore things like necessary
| infrastructure is a cost, whereas adding more routes is a
| profit.
|
| Whereas I think you are confusing cost and profit to mean
| "important" and "unimportant". Not having your headquarters
| fall down is important. Having HVAC for your office workers
| is important. But no one is going to say "Let's choose this
| airline, have you seen how awesome the HVAC in their main
| office is? And how the foundation to their HQ is going to
| last a hundred years longer than their competitor?" But
| they will say "Let's choose this airline because it has a
| direct flight to where we want to go".
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Thank you. In retrospect, I had a feeling something was
| off about my thinking, but I couldn't articulate where.
| Importance and profitability are different domains. They
| might penny pinch weather reports, and risk management
| probably characterized it as "low risk, high impact", saw
| "low risk" and underinvested.
| SMAAART wrote:
| Ramsonware?
| echelon wrote:
| Imagine a foreign adversary attacking flights in midair. Or
| shutting down energy, transportation, distribution, etc.
|
| We rapidly need to reframe our security posture.
| mrandish wrote:
| > Imagine a foreign adversary attacking flights in midair.
|
| It would suck to have IT systems intentionally disrupted but
| I don't think even modern airliners can plausibly fall out of
| the sky even if they suddenly lose contact with all ground
| based systems.
|
| I think there are procedures in place even if air-traffic
| control systems, comms or GPS fail. Last time I checked,
| pilots can still fly the plane with their eyeballs, on-board
| radar, compass and ground speed. In fact, I recently saw an
| article where some senior safety pilot was concerned that
| with all the nifty automation, today's pilots aren't getting
| _enough_ practice doing, you know, actual flying of the
| airplane.
| bombcar wrote:
| I'm 99% sure that losing the automatic systems would
| immediately result in the situation foretold here:
| https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1988/05/15
| awb wrote:
| Sure, but if you don't use a skill you lose it. There's a
| lot of math I aced in school with pencil and paper that
| I've done for years since with a calculator that would be
| much harder for me now than it was when I originally
| learned the skill.
| pstuart wrote:
| We need to reframe the incentives to reframe our security
| posture.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| IOT could be a big issue which looks like a solution to
| something actually noone wanted.
|
| Like that twitter acc that collects stuff like a shoe that
| needs firmware updates
| ketzo wrote:
| @internetofshit for the curious. some pretty goofy stuff.
| cagenut wrote:
| y'know between the oil pipeline, the meat processing plant, and
| now the airlines, its feeling very like ministry-for-the-future
| lately.
| nwallin wrote:
| Don't forget the ransomware attack at hospitals in Florida last
| week. (AFAIK they paid the ransom)
| tosh wrote:
| tweet:
| https://twitter.com/SouthwestAir/status/1404888980999520268?...
| leesalminen wrote:
| Dang, no update for 2+ hours. Not a good look. I expect this
| from a GCP/AWS status page but that's about it.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| > In the meantime, Customer Service wait times might be longer
| than normal
|
| Might?
| mrandish wrote:
| Yeah, from what I understand of flight operations "inability to
| transmit weather information" via their in-house computer system
| shouldn't be a showstopper for thousands of flights nationwide.
| It wasn't so long ago that pilots weather info was just a print
| out.
|
| I'm not a commercial pilot but would love if someone who is could
| post a plausible hypothesis how this would ground the whole fleet
| (short of a simple bureaucratic decision to shut down if
| everything isn't working exactly normally).
| imadethis wrote:
| Each commercial flight in the US is required to file a flight
| plan before takeoff. This flight plan is created and approved
| by an FAA licensed dispatcher, who then tracks the progress of
| the flight and develops alternative routing as necessary.
|
| An important part of the flight plan is weather conditions
| along the route. There are obvious safety concerns, but weather
| conditions are also responsible for the route chosen, the
| amount of fuel onboard the plane, and passenger comfort.
| Without weather information, the flight plan cannot be filed
| and the plane cannot fly. Keep in mind that there are specific
| regulatory standards that must be met with any information
| included in the flight plan. A pilot cannot simply open up the
| weather app on their phone for instance. The weather info needs
| to come from an approved source.
|
| I have no specific information about Southwest's current issue,
| but my guess is the third party service they use for weather in
| the flight plan is out of service. If they can't transmit this
| info to aircraft in the air or on the ground, then nobody gets
| to fly today. I'm also guessing that an incident like this will
| result in backup solutions being put into place, and that there
| is an IT or systems engineer somewhere who is trying to hide
| their "I told you so" expression.
|
| Edit: an example flight plan can be found here:
| https://www.simbrief.com/system/guide.php#ofpsample. This is
| from a site for sim pilots, but the format of the brief is the
| same as what a commercial airline would file for a flight.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| So if a plane is in flight (and I'm sure some were), and the
| weather system goes down, then what? Stick with the previous
| plan? Divert?
| kayfox wrote:
| In flight weather can be observed (most airliners have
| weather radar onboard) and the pilots can check on weather
| along their route with controllers and at the destination
| or in specific places by electronic inquiry.
| bombcar wrote:
| In-flight weather by radio is an option but it's a manual
| thing. And the airline may not be set up to use that except
| an emergency situation.
| imadethis wrote:
| I don't think the equipment to receive weather updates is
| on the Minimum Equipment List, but if dispatch couldn't
| even update over the radio then I would imagine they would
| start diverting flights. This is just a guess, hopefully
| someone with more knowledge can jump in here.
| mrandish wrote:
| Thanks, that is certainly a plausible explanation - basically
| not being able to sufficiently guarantee compliance with some
| approved process that had a single point of failure
| somewhere.
|
| I also agree that, much like when the Space Shuttle blew up,
| there were engineers somewhere who immediately suspected
| exactly how and why.
| kencausey wrote:
| Pure speculation: perhaps the FAA requirements on weather
| updates has changed since paper weather reports were standard?
|
| edit: s/FFA/FAA/
| papito wrote:
| The book Release It!, listing some techniques for enterprise
| software resiliency has airline booking systems going down as the
| first real-world horror story, and I have to say, that is any
| engineer's nightmare fuel.
|
| I was paying attention after that.
| post_break wrote:
| They were using the darksky api too? Kidding of course, but still
| sour grapes at Apple.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I'm what you might call an Apple fanboy but man did that tick
| me off. We'd been integrated with dark sky for so many years
| and had to migrate to the NWS(?) API. It's free, but so much
| more painful to use than darksky. We lost so much functionality
| in the process. Boo, Apple.
| post_break wrote:
| Yeah the app and the api were amazing. I guess apple extended
| the api shutdown but man, buying it and shutting it down
| really really pisses me off.
| [deleted]
| etrabroline wrote:
| I think these kinds of Cybersecurity issues will be used
| opportunistically to justify regulations that infringe on privacy
| and give more access to governments. I'm reminded of how the lead
| up and aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks were
| used to justify the PATRIOT Act.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-15 23:02 UTC)