If you define failure as a form of victory then success is inevitable. However, in the spirit of some vague sense of accountability, it seems like an unreasonable position.
> The lifespan of a laptop is not tied to a replaceable battery
This applies to me. My laptop is 10 years old, has 16G memory and is running Linux. I have replaced battery once before (and definitely need a new battery again now).
There are no comments/voice on the AA side because they are likely 'accidentally' dodging labor laws (by laying obligation of checking legality on the attendants) through obfuscation of this data. That seems a large part of why it's become a 'must-have.' That kind of behavior merits this relatively 'soft' one-sided take in my opinion.
Then perhaps AA corporate should have responded more promptly to the writer’s request for information had they been interested in being more fairly represented.
By that reasoning, if the company refuses to comment an article should not be published, or if published must be rejected as one sided? That's convenient.
You can always still publish when they don't react within a reasonable time, and add a comment to that effect, as you can often see in newspaper articles.
This would be like claiming you have to use a company-sponsored to-do list app, or a company-sponsored git client, or a company-sponsored text editor, or a company-sponsored FTP client.
I'd hate to be at any job that enforces any single one of those. There are many arguments against this app, but this is not one of them.
I'm not entirely sure that is a nonsensical argument.
I am permitted to use any client I like to perform SQL queries of our customer data, but if the client were to happen to route the data through a third party, I would be in employment-jeopardy breach of our security policies.
Similar rules goes for hardware: I can bring my own device for reading and locally storing our email and chats, but customer data is not to be accessed on any hardware not authorized by the company.
Roster data is not customer data, and there are reasonable arguments to be made that this is not an exact parallel. But in principle, I can understand a company wanting to have control over certain types of data and how it might be exfiltrated from the company, even if it is intended for employees to use to do their jobs.
But in this case, isn't the "third party" just a piece of client-side software that performs a bunch of http requests to systems the client user is allowed to access, on a device the user is allowed to use, in order to aggregate the results and show them all in one spot? It's not being sent to third party systems off the user's phone.
Banning it would be like restricting certain sql clients, like allowing the CLI clients, but banning pgAdmin or MYSQL Workbench.
I also don’t really agree with the ban, and seriously doubt that they have any reason other than, “We dunno what this is, and are too lazy^H^H^H^H busy to think it through, give a decision, and deal this the precedent of allowing screen scraping and/or third-party clients.”
All I was trying to say is that while I may disagree with their call, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “nonsense.” Just wrong :-)
Really? Maintaining consistency across users is a huge part of IT. I can't imagine working somewhere where everyone just uses whatever software they want. Support would be a nightmare.
It is commonsense to use the hardware/software authorized by your employer to do the work.
One side story. It is third party app that is not authorized by AA. Instead of get permission through a contract, the app developer scraped AA's data without AA's permission.
Nope. You don't need permission to scrape publicly accessible data, and that's only on the legal side of things. Data behind any kind of login is not fair game. Apple also has rules against use of any scraped data you aren't explicitly authorized to access.
Apple is of course fine to prohibit whatever they desire for appearing in their store, but scrapping is a different issue.
Copyright etc could restrict copying information displayed on a website, but if someone can legally write down information via pen and paper they can see then they can scrape it. The process being automation doesn’t inherently matter.
App screenshot on the appstore shows a list of names associated with a rota, presumably crew member names scraped from the airlines' password-protected crew portal.
It's not especially surprising airlines don't want unauthorised third party apps accessing and storing personal data from their intranets, even if the third party developer is very ethical about not leaking it to people without passwords and makes beautiful UX
They don't have a right to scrape password protected personal data off an intranet, and AA also have the right to attempt to block an app or its scrapers regardless of whether the scraping is legal or not.
In this context blocking scrappers is probably legal for AA. However it might be illegal in other contexts, such as if there are any concerns around disability.
All the rulings here have enforced employers rights to their data. The google engineer using their login to scrape users private emails and then running it through a third party platform would be fired.
If we look at not only academic, but also sports, i.e. ski, ice skating, soccer, tennis, swimming, ... etc., among competitive teams in middle schools or high schools, the number of Asian students are bigger than what one would expect from their population. You can even see this in winter Olympic:
In any case, the numbers we find are not "bigger" in raw terms (or per capita) in many sports than say, Blacks. How about Olympic sprinting, or NBA basketball?
If work ethic is the primary determinant, why are they so absent from these sports at high levels?
From my chat with friends who work in the area of drug design, AlphaFold is accurate for overall structure, but is not that accurate for predicting structure around interaction locations.
