4 ms·

Is there no or little downside risk? What if I microwave my cat (she was wet, I wanted to dry her. The manual did not explicitly state I could not dry my cat i

by berkes 4y ago

Is there no or little downside risk? What if I microwave my cat (she was wet, I wanted to dry her. The manual did not explicitly state I could not dry my cat in the oven), and then sue? Sounds the upside risk is big: chance to win thousands (millions?) but what if I lose? Am I forced to pay thousands (millions?)? It sounds like you are saying the chances to lose are big.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
not really any downside that I am aware of. You might be out your legal fees, but if your lawyer works for contingent (gets part of the settlement) or are one yourself, this is lower.
- freejazz 4y ago
  What the hell kind of lawyer is going to take a case where you microwaved your own cat... let alone on contingency? Some of the hypotheticals I see here, which people use to justify their outlooks, are so deranged and distant from reality that it makes me wonder. There is a constant emphasis on what is technically possible (such a lawsuit) while rejecting the reality wherein the other factors enabling such an occurrence don't exist. It's as if certain individuals here have no concept of what is reasonable or not.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think you are reading too much into a thought experiment. Of course they won't take the case with the cat. It is a hyperbolic placeholder in a greater discussion. The question is what the downside risk is for X case with low chance of success.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Minimal, clearly, given your ridiculous hypos, yet you are here pushing them anyway as if they add anything to the conversations besides being misleading in their absolute ridiculousness and inapplicability to the real world
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        It seems like you're the one that has the problem and I'm not sure why. You know it's ridiculous so that's clearly not the problem. The answer is the same if it wasn't a ridiculous hypo, so that's not the problem either. I'll also point out that I wasn't the one posing the ridiculous hypo, I was giving the answer that is applicable to both ridiculous and realistic hypos. Do you think my answer was incorrect for a real world example?
        freejazz 4y ago
        Yeah, I do, and my above post explains exactly why.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        OK, you just don't understand who posted the hypo then and are barking up the wrong tree
  - berkes 4y ago
    It was a reference to a famous urban legend¹ Though, reading up on that, I believe it is "famous" in a my age group mostly, so it could be some younger hackers missed that reference. Sorry for that. ¹ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/

by berkes 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

not really any downside that I am aware of. You might be out your legal fees, but if your lawyer works for contingent (gets part of the settlement) or are one yourself, this is lower.

freejazz 4y ago
What the hell kind of lawyer is going to take a case where you microwaved your own cat... let alone on contingency? Some of the hypotheticals I see here, which people use to justify their outlooks, are so deranged and distant from reality that it makes me wonder. There is a constant emphasis on what is technically possible (such a lawsuit) while rejecting the reality wherein the other factors enabling such an occurrence don't exist. It's as if certain individuals here have no concept of what is reasonable or not.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think you are reading too much into a thought experiment. Of course they won't take the case with the cat. It is a hyperbolic placeholder in a greater discussion. The question is what the downside risk is for X case with low chance of success.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Minimal, clearly, given your ridiculous hypos, yet you are here pushing them anyway as if they add anything to the conversations besides being misleading in their absolute ridiculousness and inapplicability to the real world
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      It seems like you're the one that has the problem and I'm not sure why. You know it's ridiculous so that's clearly not the problem. The answer is the same if it wasn't a ridiculous hypo, so that's not the problem either. I'll also point out that I wasn't the one posing the ridiculous hypo, I was giving the answer that is applicable to both ridiculous and realistic hypos. Do you think my answer was incorrect for a real world example?
      - freejazz 4y ago
        Yeah, I do, and my above post explains exactly why.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        OK, you just don't understand who posted the hypo then and are barking up the wrong tree
- berkes 4y ago
  It was a reference to a famous urban legend¹ Though, reading up on that, I believe it is "famous" in a my age group mostly, so it could be some younger hackers missed that reference. Sorry for that. ¹ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/