I'll never wear another smart watch.
The laxer on it burnt a pin sized hole on my wrist that has scarred. This broke the straw for me, never again... Don't trust them at all.
Other than the above. Taking it on and off daily to charge. Having to update it constantly. Having notifications constantly (easy solve). Having to touch it to wake. They just aren't designed well.
I had a seiko watch that was nice, but I felt like wearing it daily would damage it.
If I were to get another one, it'd be either a durable mechanical watch, or a dress watch. Wish I'd kept the seiko over the bullshit smart watch replacement.
I'd argue security updates are not needed too.
It depends on what the device is used for.
Most security concerns nowadays are from users giving easy access to nefarious people. Usually easy passwords that can be collected from social media.
I'd also argue that corps like Microsoft, Google, Apple etc, can have far more nefarious intentions than some random hacker. Even if it's just data leaks. There is safety in a crowd. But when corps control the crowd... That's more of a reason to raise security concerns.
Software shouldn't be locked.
The manufacturer should stand by their products.
Products don't need constant updates.
There is a point to repair.
It sounds like we agree on principle.
The difference is you're actively trying to both sides it.
To me, there is a substantial difference in optics and consequence between hitting someone in a car and standing on a road.
The latter is barely worth talking about when the former is the topic of discussion, especially when the justification seems to be - they were in the way.
Justifying something that is deemed illegal is how laws change.
It is true that the world isn't in black and white. But laws are and we must respond in kind.
If it isn't justified, you should be able to come up with a rational argument against me, of which I'm amicable. The argument being about the driver having more responsibility.
To me, a person in a lesser position of control of a situation should be given more leeway in terms of outcomes. This is because with control comes responsibility and failure of that responsibility comes justice.
You would have to argue that the driver had less control over this situation.
Depends on the law.
In other countries hitting someone in a vehicle is considered assault regardless of the circumstances and is enforced as such.
I would condemn the driver, the one with the responsibility to drive a tonne of steel around safely, over the pedestrian being an nucence(?) on the road.
If the law is the other way around. The law needs to be changed.
OK cool.
It was me that said it can't go above boiling, 100. I was just under the impression that it would burn of course, but third degree burns was surprising to me. Burning away the epidermis and nerves of the skin entirely seemed to me to require a much higher temperature. I guess I'm wrong, probably because of clothing holding the heat around the skin.
Thanks.
I don't think I understand how it can be hotter than 100 celcius.
I'm not defending McDonald's here, they can rot.
Like, coffee is mostly water, and water boils at atmospheric pressure at 100c. Milk boils slightly more than 100. I guess the lid would pressurise the steam a little? Maybe the coffee grinds hold the heat far more than the water? I wouldn't have thought it would be diluted too much to make a difference.
I guess this is a stupid question, because it happened. But how can boiling water cause third degree burns in the quantity of 500ml? I thought it'd have to be much more than that and very prolonged?
I have my ideas.
What's your job?
I'd double down and say that maybe we shouldn't be driving cars. There are other methods of moving from point a to point b.
This position isn't exactly practical, yet, but it is consistent.
The car has a number of safety mechanisms to prevent death. A gun does too - but, that is to prevent it's intended use.
The car is regulated to prevent death. Although, not nearly enough. We have licences, registration, regular maintenance and checks. That are enforced with fines, usually.
The car is designed to move people and things from point a to point b. That is it's function. There is a side effect of that function, that it can kill people.
If the cars manufacturer had installed a spiked bullbar in a line of new cars. I think it would be fair for litigation to be directed at that manufacturer to determine the function of that bullbar. Because it seems like the intention is to make it easy for people to kill people.
The guns function is to kill. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to make tools to kill.
The cars function is to drive. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to move people and things around.
I would starve without a job. (without welfare, in some countries, this is not enough)
There is an order of magnitude here. In a way, I'm being hyperbolic. But I do want to highlight the similarity between the two.
Sorry.
Directorship*
Functionally, they are the same.
Yup.
I'm not American. This has been standard procedure for the 3 countries I call home. You need a gun licence - and it's pretty stringently assessed.
I don't need to abide by American constitutional bullshit. There is no tap dancing from me.
Can't hurt their profit margins, of course they would say that.
What is the intention of designing something capable of firing a projectile at high velocity?
Seriously, this argument is so stupid. Let me try.
Im a manufacturer that cuts wood at a specific size with the intention to use it as a door. It can and usually is used as a door, but doesn't have to be.
It is a weapon. That is the intention of the tool.
A spade has the purpose of digging, just as the gun has the purpose of killing.
I'm not arguing about the proportion of guns that kill things or not.
I'm merely stating that the purpose of a gun, is to kill. Otherwise, they wouldn't.
Target practice, is practicing to kill.
I'm not American, I don't need to abide by your bullshit constitution.