Comment by Dylan16807
7 years ago
You called it "disturbing", so the clarification that you were not intentionally implying any danger whatsoever is kind of annoying.
7 years ago
You called it "disturbing", so the clarification that you were not intentionally implying any danger whatsoever is kind of annoying.
“Device disabling threats that aren’t detectable by the usual sensors” can’t count as “disturbing” because a human didn’t die?
"threat" the way UV light is. So no, not disturbing for it to silently ignore the equivalent of popping a party balloon.
Bricking your iPhone for a week-plus is not the equivalent of popping a party balloon or a short dose of UV light!
And yes, I get it, the sensor exists to detect for threats to life, not threats to iphones. But that's the point: this is a threat we're not set up to watch for at all -- hence why it took so much investigation to root-cause it!
Are you still going to make it your hill-to-die-on that it's "not disturbing"?
Come to think of it, did that "lack of faith" scene in Star Wars (1977) also seem confusing to you?
3 replies →