5 ms·

I would probably not use the word hacked here, more ruined – Yes, if we use things out of their intended use, block doors, forces switches even though locked, h

I would probably not use the word hacked here, more ruined – Yes, if we use things out of their intended use, block doors, forces switches even though locked, hold switches in intermediate states, it will ruin things. Maybe this is why toilets never work on trains when I need them. What a shame...

rvnx 3y ago
It's a form of vandalism, breaking toilets for fun and bragging about it. Not cool. Of course you can damage or break any physical system if you apply too much force or use it the wrong way intentionally.
- stavros 3y ago
  The author didn't break the toilet. I don't know why commenters here think he did.
  - nsteel 3y ago
    He is intentionally putting the toilet door controller into a state where a vacant toilet can no longer be accessed. That toilet is of no use to people needing the toilet ... he broke the toilet.
    - hlandau 3y ago
      Nothing intentional about it. I certainly wasn't expecting it to get wedged in the way it did. It was back to functioning normally only a short time later in any case.
      - nsteel 3y ago
        It reads as if the first time (of two) it was stuck this way. So, for some reason you tried playing around again with the lock?! Come on. In any case, on behalf of British train users, please stop occupying the toilet needlessly and playing with the door locks. What happens if you or the next person gets locked in there? What happens if someone thinks you're being suspicious and calls the transport police? The services are delayed enough as it is.
jeroenhd 3y ago
If this were a system controlling a complicated device, perhaps. In this case, we're talking about a door and a sliding lock. A mechanical design would not have had any of these failure states. All the system needed, was to connect the locking switch to the physical door lock, and none of this would've caused a problem. If you're automating something as simple as a door lock, you need to be able to deal with this stuff. If you can't, stick to what works instead.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  I mechanical system probably would not satisfy the requirements of a train toilet in a public train - in particular that it needs to be used by disabled people. Unless you have been a part of the design process of train toilets (and please enlighten me if you are) then your beliefs really does not justify vandalism of public amenities.
  - stavros 3y ago
    You're conflating "I found a way this toilet can be disabled and I'm writing about it" with "I disabled this toilet". If someone says "huh, I can just take this gum and walk out of the supermarket with it", calling them a thief is unwarranted.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      what i intended to say was that the current design of the door probably has its reason in order to support disabled people. people who remove things from supermarkets without paying are thiefs regardless of they knew they did something illegal. In law it is never an argument that you didn't know the law this is principally your own responsibility.
      - stavros 3y ago
        The author didn't disable the door, or tamper with it. He pointed out that it can be disabled. I'm not sure what your argument is, but if it's "bad people should stop doing bad things", I agree with you but I don't think it'll be very effective. If it's "people shouldn't point out flaws on things", I have to disagree.

rvnx 3y ago

It's a form of vandalism, breaking toilets for fun and bragging about it. Not cool. Of course you can damage or break any physical system if you apply too much force or use it the wrong way intentionally.

stavros 3y ago
The author didn't break the toilet. I don't know why commenters here think he did.
- nsteel 3y ago
  He is intentionally putting the toilet door controller into a state where a vacant toilet can no longer be accessed. That toilet is of no use to people needing the toilet ... he broke the toilet.
  - hlandau 3y ago
    Nothing intentional about it. I certainly wasn't expecting it to get wedged in the way it did. It was back to functioning normally only a short time later in any case.
    - nsteel 3y ago
      It reads as if the first time (of two) it was stuck this way. So, for some reason you tried playing around again with the lock?! Come on. In any case, on behalf of British train users, please stop occupying the toilet needlessly and playing with the door locks. What happens if you or the next person gets locked in there? What happens if someone thinks you're being suspicious and calls the transport police? The services are delayed enough as it is.

jeroenhd 3y ago

If this were a system controlling a complicated device, perhaps. In this case, we're talking about a door and a sliding lock. A mechanical design would not have had any of these failure states. All the system needed, was to connect the locking switch to the physical door lock, and none of this would've caused a problem. If you're automating something as simple as a door lock, you need to be able to deal with this stuff. If you can't, stick to what works instead.

madsbuch 3y ago
I mechanical system probably would not satisfy the requirements of a train toilet in a public train - in particular that it needs to be used by disabled people. Unless you have been a part of the design process of train toilets (and please enlighten me if you are) then your beliefs really does not justify vandalism of public amenities.
- stavros 3y ago
  You're conflating "I found a way this toilet can be disabled and I'm writing about it" with "I disabled this toilet". If someone says "huh, I can just take this gum and walk out of the supermarket with it", calling them a thief is unwarranted.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    what i intended to say was that the current design of the door probably has its reason in order to support disabled people. people who remove things from supermarkets without paying are thiefs regardless of they knew they did something illegal. In law it is never an argument that you didn't know the law this is principally your own responsibility.
    - stavros 3y ago
      The author didn't disable the door, or tamper with it. He pointed out that it can be disabled. I'm not sure what your argument is, but if it's "bad people should stop doing bad things", I agree with you but I don't think it'll be very effective. If it's "people shouldn't point out flaws on things", I have to disagree.