5 ms·
Poor people may not be able to buy expensive equipment. It may be that having worse equipment is better than none. We shouldn't always apply the same level of "
by jzwinck 13y ago
Poor people may not be able to buy expensive equipment. It may be that having worse equipment is better than none. We shouldn't always apply the same level of "if one person gets hurt it is unacceptable" protectionism to other societies.
- userbinator 13y agoIf your choice is e.g. between using a not-safe-as-a-Fluke meter to help fix your vehicle that broke down in a remote area, or starve to death, would anyone really choose the latter? Some very good examples of this principle: http://mackys.livejournal.com/838591.html?nojs=1 http://mackys.livejournal.com/838591.html?nojs=1 http://www.afrigadget.com/2010/02/28/jua-kali-dressed-in-mitumba/ http://www.afrigadget.com/2010/02/28/jua-kali-dressed-in-mit...
- noonespecial 13y agoI wish people would consider this more often. We seem to have an epidemic of "if we can't do it perfectly, we shouldn't do it at all" infecting many areas of American life at the moment. Unfortunately, this usually results very little perfect and a great deal of not doing anything.
- drdaeman 13y agoDepends on particular niche. For hardware supplies, yes, having a bad device is better than having none. For crypto software - no, it must be state-of-art or we're screwed.