2 ms·
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 super
by 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 agoThe 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.
- mmarx 3y agofrom the linked YouTube video: > This is the second time I've successfully tested this on a Class 800. For some reason this time I seem to have actually confused the toilet door controller enough that it decided "screw this" and went into out of order mode, which didn't happen the previous time. So, yes, the author _did_, in fact, disable the door.
- andrewaylett 3y agoThey didn't intend to, though, and I can see why they wouldn't expect it to actually break. I mean: why should it? Actually doing the jumping out and leaving the cubicle locked and empty thing would be unethical. Seeing if it would be possible is less of an issue. Accidentally breaking something in the process is a hint not to try it a third time.