romwell

85 ms·

961.
by romwell 5y ago
>Very. In the end you're carrying a high energy density power source on your head that would love to just catch fire. Don't they teach kids anything in chemistry these days? I just love how this comment appears in the same th
962.
by romwell 5y ago
"We know our product is unsafe and shouldn't be used in this way, but this is a huuuuge use case for our product, so we will make it appear as if it's designed for it, while warning the user to not use it in a manner that
963.
by romwell 5y ago
>"Remove headphones immediately if you experience a warming sensation or loss of audio." A "warming sensation" is not what the OP has experienced. When Bose augments this to the following, you may have a point: >
964.
by romwell 5y ago
While I agree with you, if you may, I will augment what you said slightly: >Whether or not the battery started it or something else did, it is clearly the defective Bose QC-35 headphones that provided the serious problem, so if you
965.
by romwell 5y ago
What's clear is that Bose QC-35 II headphones caused bodily damage to the consumer who used it in a completely normal way and in accordance to the instruction manual, without any potential of such damage being indicated on the produc
966.
by romwell 5y ago
Way to write off OP's experience with an insult. If you have a pair of over-the-ear headphones, I welcome you to set them on fire and breath in the Completely Harmless™ smoke emanating from them, and report back here on how you'
967.
by romwell 5y ago
>The remaining 99000 thousand pairs they sold will surely pay the deductable. Not if there's a recall. Which, by all means, should happen , and not just for that particular model.
968.
by romwell 5y ago
What went aflame in this accident was Bose QC-35 II headphones . Not sure what your nitpick is about; address it to the people who argue either. My point is that OP should file a CPSC report (which they did), and contact a lawyer (whic
969.
by romwell 5y ago
>But what would you expect support to do? Here's a response I expect. Take this as a model customer service response if you are in the business of selling (potentially) self-exploding devices: ------- Dear <Customer Name>. Tha
970.
by romwell 5y ago
>It is scary and is something that we should be aware of and is scary Great point! So what I'm hearing is that Bose should recall all wireless headphones they ever made , and continue selling their new products with appropriate wa
971.
by romwell 5y ago
Either way.
972.
by romwell 5y ago
> I think it's pretty ludicrous to expect Bose to design for that eventuality. That decision is, indeed, up to Bose. But should they choose to continue making a headphones that have a 1-in-N-million chance of exploding, this should
973.
by romwell 5y ago
>Okay cool and now the headphones weigh a kilo because of shielding and nobody buys them. The problem here being.. that Bose loses money? Or maybe, just maybe, they figure out a way to make headphones that are both safe and marketable?
974.
by romwell 5y ago
>I'm not entirely sure why this got downvoted Because we are on HackerNews, where the consequences of their own actions only exist for individuals and not the corporations they hope to be CEOs of one day. I didn't realize t
975.
by romwell 5y ago
Yeah, and GM just recalled effectively all EVs they ever made . What's your point? Mine was that Bose should do the same thing with their headphones, and they won't do it out of their own accord. Also consider that there are bill
976.
by romwell 5y ago
>A consumer would learn this by having interest in the world around them And where would they go to fulfil that interest? HackerNews? Or maybe, just consider it, the instruction manual that comes with the device ? >We don’t need cush
977.
by romwell 5y ago
>It would be good to see an autopsy, You do realize that there was a quite real chance of someone seeing the OP's autopsy here? >That sort of paranoia doesn't help I guess you don't. I find it fascinating that we get
978.
by romwell 5y ago
>Nothing is perfectly safe. People should deal with it, and remember that they don't live in a fairy tale. Including the business of selling self-exploding headphones. Corporations should deal with it, and remember that they don&#x2
979.
by romwell 5y ago
>You cannot be certain that this was entirely "spontaneous". Yes, and it's not my business to find out. It's the job of CPSC and investigators to find the reasons. Which is why I insisted the OP should file a report
980.
by romwell 5y ago
>Don't manufacturers do that already? Yes they do, and this is why we have CPSC and lawsuits: to increase the cost of failure to the point where it's not a wise business decision to allow one to happen. Nothing is 100% fool-pro
981.
by romwell 5y ago
>There is an annoying trend among people that expect everything to be perfectly safe. It seems to be a symptom of an overly sheltered existence. Yeah, how overly sheltered to not expect your headphones to not catch on fire and kill yo
982.
by romwell 5y ago
Thank you for helping the public out! Now, if you have energy to simply talk to a lawyer, I suspect it's going to be a slam-dunk case (I'm not a lawyer). They shouldn't get away with offering you a new pair of headphones to
983.
by romwell 5y ago
Alas. Nevertheless, from the article: >“We don’t think every vehicle has this rare manufacturing defect,” General Motors spokesman Dan Flores said. “But we can’t take a chance, so we’re recalling all the vehicles. ” I mean, that comes p
984.
by romwell 5y ago
So you are the OP? Please, don't cut Bose any slack. They deserve to be shamed. If someone were to make a self-exploding car, they'd be out of carmaking very fast. If Bose can't make headphones that don't self-ignite,
985.
by romwell 5y ago
>It’s gonna happen. Yeah, and when it does, the manufacturer of that lithium bomb should pay for it . And not just to compensate the victim, but to make the cost of negligent manufacture higher than the savings it brings to the company
986.
by romwell 5y ago
BMJ sounds like people who've never actually been on Facebook . They complain of nonsensical title: >"Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine
987.
by romwell 5y ago
I really don't think you can blame Facebook for the idiotic decisions of others who're cargo culting its strategies. It's not like Facebook held a gun to Reddit and forced them to have videos. The answer to the "why&qu
988.
by romwell 5y ago
The drawbacks of writing on a computer are obvious (I'm not representative in that regard). What I'm trying to say is that the parent comment has merits comparing it to a car. >You could write the above easily with a typewriter
989.
by romwell 5y ago
My point wasn't that any writing tool is better than the other; I was expanding in the GP comment's observation that it very much does affect writing (as you also seem to agree). And my remark was specifically that I wouldn&#x
990.
by romwell 5y ago
To be fair to reddit, their combo of admin + community moderation has improved a lot in the past 5 years or so. Remember /r/TheDonald? Or /r/jailbait? /r/coontown? I mean, yes, it's a very low bar, but the

More ›