4 ms·
Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to redesign Fork to prevent user-eyeball interaction.
by denkmoon 4y ago
Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to redesign Fork to prevent user-eyeball interaction.
- lmm 4y agoGiven that the actual rate of fork to eyeball is very low, I think the current design is fine.
- saalweachter 4y agoI feel like the portable sawmill has a place in this discussion, given that the solution to how easy it is to cut something off of yourself with it is to sell them with an amputation kit so when your accident inevitably happens you have the tools to attempt to survive it.
- bitofhope 4y agoI have witnessed and participated in thousands of user-fork interactions and none of them have involved the user's eyeballs interacting with the fork. There is a chance (in my estimate, negligible) that my anecdote is an extreme outlier, but I still dare state with confidence that most forks today are designed in a way that less than 99% of users end up sticking them in their eyeballs. People using forks for the unconventional and usually unintended purpose of impaling their eyes* are a tiny minority of fork users and thus changing fork designs to encourage the intended method of use is not considered a high priority. Most people are naturally disinclined to pierce themselves, particularly in such a delicate part of their face, and as such the design of a typical fork with its pointy tines directs users to avoid this particular usage mistake. The thesis stated above in the thread was, that cryptocurrencies are very commonly used in a way that defeats their intended purpose of decentralization. It seems reasonable to assume there is a flaw in contemporary cryptocurrency implementations that encourages this kind of use, or at the very least, doesn't discourage it very strongly. * Excluding specialized forks for non-mainstream audiences such as very young children