4 ms·
I don't think that's what "self" destructs means. You can't self destruct something else. You can only self destruct yourself.
by knorker 3y ago
I don't think that's what "self" destructs means.
You can't self destruct something else. You can only self destruct yourself.
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y agoIt self destructs in the sense that no external force was applied to it.
- dismalpedigree 3y agoTechnically the radio waves provide force, even if it is infinitesimally small
- hn92726819 3y agoThe radio wave force isn't what's causing the destruction. It triggers the device's self-destruction. You wouldn't say a remote controlled robot that destroys itself on (wireless) command isn't a self-destructing device.
- tantalor 3y agoThat's not what's happening here. This device is not designed to "self destruct" with a specific command. It is following normal service commands. The correct analogy would be if you command a robot to move so it falls off a cliff, this is not a "self destruct" command.
- Dylan16807 3y agoIf you order a robot off a cliff, the proximate cause of the damage is the cliff. If you order a robot to turn on and off too fast, the proximate cause of the damage is the internal power circuitry. Which makes "self-destruct" pretty appropriate language.
- planb 3y agoCame here to write this. What a bad headline. And it makes it sound like Flipper Zero is unintentionally doing something wrong here.
- globular-toast 3y agoI thought the same. I think they probably meant "causes meter to self-destruct". Whether that's true or not depends on whether the functionality was used correctly. It's definitely possible to destroy a device by abusing "permitted" inputs. For example, revving a cold petrol engine will eventually ruin it. In that case the title should really be "guy destroys meter (using a Flipper Zero)".