4 ms·
> [Nerds] sit in a room and dream up every way the device could fail and/or harm someone Well, yeah. And as it happened they postulated the failure mode that
by ajross 1y ago
> [Nerds] sit in a room and dream up every way the device could fail and/or harm someone
Well, yeah. And as it happened they postulated the failure mode that was actually (allegedly) seen in practice. And they were right. So the "no one could have known" side of Sig's defense seems out the window here. They could have known, and they did, and relevant experts told them.
I really don't get your point here. You seem to be saying that risk analysis, in the abstract, as a whole field of practice, has no value because of the lack of certainty? But... managing uncertainty is the whole point. Do you really live your life like this? "I mean, people say fentanyl is dangerous but you never really know, right?"
- dddgghhbbfblk 1y agoI don't understand the snark. It's plain to see that the GP is arguing that the media report is misunderstanding the document. Whether that's a correct critique or not, I don't know, but your reply is certainly misunderstanding their comment.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BobaFloutist 1y ago"Well, we should be aware that brake failure is hypothetically possible if vanishingly unlikely, and it would be a huge deal if they did fail" is not the same as "Yeah our brakes have a known flaw that makes them exceptionally prone to failure lmao IDGAF ship it"
- ajross 1y agoClearly neither of those readings is a correct interpretation of the cited research. Look folks, I know it offends your 2A inclinations, but this is a step in a legal action. One of the arguments made by any defendant in a case like this is "This was not a foreseeable risk". And that is directly and correctly refuted by the cited report. Period. And it's right that the media report on it. Sig guns have a failure mode that is serious and impactful, and was aware of it when it sold the hardware.