Comment by SilasX
7 years ago
“Device disabling threats that aren’t detectable by the usual sensors” can’t count as “disturbing” because a human didn’t die?
7 years ago
“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?
> Bricking your iPhone for a week-plus is not the equivalent of popping a party balloon or a short dose of UV light!
You totally misunderstood my comment.
I mentioned popping a party balloon because it could also disable your phone. And UV light because it can also destroy certain electronics. But sensors that can pick up little bits of UV are normally not set to warn about it, and that's perfectly reasonable and not "disturbing".
We can use a different word if you want. You think it's a [significant] problem and I don't think it's a problem. Is that better?
I'm not here to die on the hill of word choice. I disagree with your underlying opinion.
2 replies →