4 ms·
I think this is a bad idea which will lead to fewer and more expensive devices. I do not want the FCC regulating this. It is much more reasonable to have the m
by avsteele 3y ago
I think this is a bad idea which will lead to fewer and more expensive devices. I do not want the FCC regulating this.
It is much more reasonable to have the market impose some discipline on manufacturers and their level of support. Plenty of consumers would favor less costly, less-supported devices.
- thfuran 3y agoAre you in favor of seat belt and airbag requirements? What about the bans on asbestos and lead paint?
- avsteele 3y agoAre you in favor of seat belt and airbag requirements? No. The presence of these features is easy to document, and the harms are limited to the person making the $/risk tradeoff. What about the bans on asbestos and lead paint? This is more justifiable. The harm is very far removed from the manufacture (time, place) and it is hard to evaluate whether a given space has these features when e.g renting.
- thfuran 3y agoand the harms are limited to the person making the $/risk tradeoff That's not really true. Certainly the harm is concentrated there, but it leaks onto their passengers, whoever has to face vehicular manslaughter charges that should've been more minor, etc. and it is hard to evaluate whether a given space has these features when e.g renting. But it's hard to evaluate every aspect of any product, let alone all of them. Do you research the manufacturer of the capacitors in your phone chargers to prepare for the next capacitor plague? Do you perform supply chain analysis on the local sandwich shop to make sure their current veggie supplier isn't one associated with unusually high rates of salmonella? Or do you, at some point, assume that the things around you are generally safe?