upvote
Another angle is kids who have been given a tablet as a pacifier. Their parents are often on autopilot, having checked out months or years earlier.

On topic (and discussed already on HN): https://github.com/Pankajtanwarbanna/stfu

reply
I'm not a fan of the tablet as a pacifier approach but it's not my business. What is my business is when the parents do so without providing a way for the child to indulge without annoying everybody else. I consider that to be absolutely unacceptable in that if they can afford a tablet they can afford cheap headphones.
reply
Yes, only the open-air noise-making kind (per the article topic). Don't care what the rectangle is as long as we can't hear it.
reply
When young children are on airplanes you cheat in whatever way you can.
reply
I have a three year old and would still never subject others to tablet noise. Yes they’re the literal worst to fly with but don’t export your misery to others.
reply
Perhaps people can cheat while still giving them headphones or turning devices on silent mode?
reply
Tell me you don’t have kids without telling me you don’t have kids
reply
That's rather defeatist. Surely you believe there are other options.

We traveled with a single Nexus 7 and one pair of headphones shared by three kids. Having to take turns taught them to be OK with having entertainment, being a spectator, or being bored. And they understood that if we ever heard it, they'd all have to be bored for a while.

reply
I’ve brought a tablet on airplanes to watch movies with kids on long flights, but we bring headphones. Flights are the only time we do this.

There is nothing about a tablet or a flight that requires letting them blast audio at full volume. It’s not even a good experience.

reply
deleted
reply
The idea someone doesn’t know they bothering everyone around them is absurd. It is 100% malice.
reply
I don’t know if anyone remembers the movie Inside Man where at the beginning they are waiting in line at the bank and the woman is having a loud conversation on her phone and the guard comes and tells here to keep it down. It’s this kind of person that I see not using speakers (when the movie was made I don’t think they contemplated humanity could sink that low), at best it’s entitlement, but I still think in most cases it boils down to not thinking about others vs actively trying to annoy them.
reply
I’m sure it is, much of the time. But I also believe many people are just completely self absorbed and devoid of empathy.
reply
I am self-absorbed and devoid of empathy but it is still easy to logically deduce that other people don't want to hear my games, videos, or phone calls.
reply
Being devoid of empathy would mean you may realize that people don't want to hear your shit, but you wouldn't care what other people want
reply
Hanlon's razor applies. Yes, some people have a bad case of the main character syndrome simply because nobody has ever called them out on it.
reply
Usually they have been called out on it a time or two. They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence, and look -- no one or almost no one is willing to do that.

There are a couple of us who have actually seen someone call them out that are warning folks here what commonly happens. I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him when they asked them to stop. It isn't about the loud music itself, it's that they're openly saying they are king shit, that no one is willing to challenge them, and broadcasting their eagerness to deliver violence upon anyone that might.

The other side of this is that they often do it on places you can't easily escape, like a train car with stops only every 5 minutes. This gives them a very long time to go to town on anyone that might challenges them. Something I've seen with my own eyes when they were asked to tone down the music.

reply
> They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence

I'm well aware of the types you're talking about, but in my experience this has largely changed. It used to be that these sorts were the most common offenders. But now it's just, well, everyone and anyone. For instance I don't think the little, old lady in front of me on the bus the other day was challenging people to violence.

reply
I think we're talking about two different groups of people. The ones I mean don't look dangerous, just self-absorbed. The ones you mean I don't have much experience of, they're not common around here. And they're certainly not common on airplanes.
reply
> I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him

I though the discussion here was about people not using their headphones on airplanes.

reply
A lot of people don’t get a lot of things; you know the adage about stupidity being a more likely cause than malice. Just last week I had to explain to a grown adult why spitting on the sauna floor was disgusting and rude to the other gym members. He was shocked.
reply
It's apathy
reply
I experienced this in real life and this creature was unable to understand the bus driver telling her to stop. It's like they didn't understand English nor social signals. To me it seemed to stem from a lack of intelligence than from intentionally being malicious.
reply
They understand English. They just don't want to stop doing what they want to do. This is a quality that they share with everyone else on the planet by definition, but they think they're more important than other people.

There are angry people playing dominance games on one hand, and on the other people who simply don't care what anybody else wants and will do what they can get away with. There's no difference in intelligence between the two, but only the first type can actually be reasoned with. The second type will only pretend to be reasonable until the person that they're intimidated by leaves the room.

Everybody says "social cues," but as you said, the people who "don't get social cues" also don't seem to "get" direct requests or orders.

reply
Sorry to disagree -- stupidity and self-centeredness have a plan in that too.
reply
> no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.

Okay this is ridiculous. One is a fire hazard and the other is not. Do you really need the hyperbole here?

reply
The lack of cigarettes on a plane isn't due to the fire hazard.
reply