3 ms·

"suffer the consequences" ? You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that these systems will fail. In reality, they largely will be fine and may add margin

"suffer the consequences" ? You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that these systems will fail. In reality, they largely will be fine and may add marginal cost to each system. You could make the same argument for many, many safety related things (seatbelts, air bags, house related code requirements for electrical, etc). It's just the burden we all have agreed to bare.

pdonis 3y ago
> You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that these systems will fail. No, just that it's a risk that I would not choose to take for myself, but would be forced to take because of other people's irresponsibility if this regulation passes. > In reality, they largely will be fine and may add marginal cost to each system. Who gave you the right to make this tradeoff for me? Why can't you focus on the actual irresponsible people and figure out how to help them be less irresponsible? Why put a regulation in place that just gives them even less of an incentive to be responsible (because after all Big Brother is watching over them so they don't need to be)? > It's just the burden we all have agreed to bare. No, it's the burden that do-gooders have forced on the rest of us for no good reason, but simply because, in our current political system, they can.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
p1mrx 3y ago
> You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that these systems will fail. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222366/ "There are more than 38 million residential carbon monoxide detectors installed in the United States. We tested 30 detectors in use and found that more than half failed to function properly, alarming too early or too late. Forty percent of detectors failed to alarm in hazardous concentrations, despite outward indications that they were operating as intended." If you look at Figure 2, some of the sensors failed safe (generators die) others unsafe (people die)

pdonis 3y ago

> You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that these systems will fail. No, just that it's a risk that I would not choose to take for myself, but would be forced to take because of other people's irresponsibility if this regulation passes. > In reality, they largely will be fine and may add marginal cost to each system. Who gave you the right to make this tradeoff for me? Why can't you focus on the actual irresponsible people and figure out how to help them be less irresponsible? Why put a regulation in place that just gives them even less of an incentive to be responsible (because after all Big Brother is watching over them so they don't need to be)? > It's just the burden we all have agreed to bare. No, it's the burden that do-gooders have forced on the rest of us for no good reason, but simply because, in our current political system, they can.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

p1mrx 3y ago

> You're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that these systems will fail. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222366/ "There are more than 38 million residential carbon monoxide detectors installed in the United States. We tested 30 detectors in use and found that more than half failed to function properly, alarming too early or too late. Forty percent of detectors failed to alarm in hazardous concentrations, despite outward indications that they were operating as intended." If you look at Figure 2, some of the sensors failed safe (generators die) others unsafe (people die)