3 ms·

Gross. I hope this is parody. You seem to have taken the article's point of taking FINANCIAL risks to a company's bottom line, and perverted it to justify kill

Gross. I hope this is parody. You seem to have taken the article's point of taking FINANCIAL risks to a company's bottom line, and perverted it to justify killing a few of your customers for the sake of a beta test. Why not go for human medical testing without consent, while we're at it? Taking risks MUST have limits, especially when it comes to human life.

jiggawatts 3y ago
Have you not seen Fight Club, or watched the news about the 777 MAX crashes caused by MCAS? Big corporations take risks with their customers lives all the time. There's an entire area study dedicated to calculating how many dollars people are "worth" when making such risk calculations. Virtually nothing is risk free. Anything that involves anything you ingest, anything that can catch fire, anything that involves driving, and anything that involves mains voltage can and does kill "customers". Virtually nothing of import done at an industrial scale has a perfect safety record. Consider power generation: Wind mills kill people. Workmen fall off them all the time. They catch fire while people are in them, and they burn to death: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/last_week_two_engineers_died_when_the_windmill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/last_week_two_... Solar panels kill people: again, workmen fall off roofs while installing them and break their necks. Should we stop all progress on green energy because it is totally unacceptable for any corporation to ever risk anyone's life, ever? Is that a net benefit? Should endless studies be done, for centuries if need be, to make sure no windmill ever kills a worker, ever again? Or should we grow up and weigh the pros and cons?
- davidf18 3y ago
  [dead]