undefined | Better HN

0 pointsA4ET8a8uTh03y ago0 comments

I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?

0 comments

politician3y ago

If they were known to be unsafe, such as heavily rusted and the handle was loose, then yes, you could be liable.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

If software companies sold knives, this is how it would work:

You market them as iButter knives. They are actually carving knives. Half of the users are 14 years old.

You give the knives away for free, but the knives steal 1% of any food they cut.

Sometimes butter knife needs an software update in the middle of cooking.

If you sharpen the knives you lose warranty. Company says you should buy a new one regularly.

They come with a bug, when iButter knife is used on Cheese, they spontaneously transform into chainsaws.

The company says it's not a real problem because using iButter knife on anything else is against EULA

autoexec3y ago

The company would be knowingly made of lead but neither owners or buyers would be informed of that by the company who is themselves heavily invested in lead.

pcthrowaway3y ago

Of course, by design the knives would also need to take a bit of the user's blood.

paulryanrogers3y ago

Are you marketing it as a safer alternative? Do you have a near monopoly on knives?

chii3y ago

i didn't recall chrome being marketed as a safer alternative. I suppose the original "sandbox" tab is considered safer, but not in the way that this chrome extension is dangerous in.

And why does it being a monopoly matter in this context? Not to mention that it isn't a monopoly.

paulryanrogers3y ago

I said "near monopoly". Companies with an outsized share of the market may be subject to extra scrutiny.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

politician3y ago

If they were known to be unsafe, such as heavily rusted and the handle was loose, then yes, you could be liable.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

If software companies sold knives, this is how it would work:

You market them as iButter knives. They are actually carving knives. Half of the users are 14 years old.

You give the knives away for free, but the knives steal 1% of any food they cut.

Sometimes butter knife needs an software update in the middle of cooking.

If you sharpen the knives you lose warranty. Company says you should buy a new one regularly.

They come with a bug, when iButter knife is used on Cheese, they spontaneously transform into chainsaws.

The company says it's not a real problem because using iButter knife on anything else is against EULA

autoexec3y ago

The company would be knowingly made of lead but neither owners or buyers would be informed of that by the company who is themselves heavily invested in lead.

pcthrowaway3y ago

Of course, by design the knives would also need to take a bit of the user's blood.

paulryanrogers3y ago

Are you marketing it as a safer alternative? Do you have a near monopoly on knives?

chii3y ago

i didn't recall chrome being marketed as a safer alternative. I suppose the original "sandbox" tab is considered safer, but not in the way that this chrome extension is dangerous in.

And why does it being a monopoly matter in this context? Not to mention that it isn't a monopoly.

paulryanrogers3y ago

I said "near monopoly". Companies with an outsized share of the market may be subject to extra scrutiny.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse