4 ms·

So if you take all of those precautions, and then I send you a letter coated with (for example) peanut extract... you what... shouldn't get mail? Should you hav

• drdaeman 10y ago
  Nope. Unless I'm misunderstanding English (sorry, I'm not a native speaker), neither of those two are implications of "maybe you need to avoid it" statement. My understanding of the GP statement is taking it at its literal value. I.e. that if it's known that some animations one may encounter at random may be severely harmful to their health, it is possibly smart (a "maybe"-grade suggestion) to take some precaution by disabling animations. Which may be or may be not a good idea - depending on what value non-seizure-triggering animations have. No other things are implied by this (or at least I fail to see it), and I'm sure it doesn't imply that receiver should've somehow foreseen that they would be attacked that way.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    This guy didn't stumble across a dangerous animation, it was sent to him in the knowledge that it might hurt him. Presumably in his daily life he doesn't do a lot of raw Google image searches. What you're saying is, "You have this illness, and you've never slipped up with it. Someone else might maliciously send you an animation though, so no animations for you." That. Is. A. Problem.
    • drdaeman 10y ago
      No. I haven't said that, and I was trying to be really explicit about what exactly I meant. Sorry if I had failed to convey the exact meaning. I'm saying "if you're aware (and now that person is) that you have this illness it may be smart to take disable animations".
      • M_Grey 10y ago
        ...Because someone might try to harm you with one, intentionally... as in this case?