ArbiterXero @ ArbiterXero @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

568

Joined

2 yr. ago

Only after they found out it would be unprofitable.

Google has no high ground here, project dragonfly was worked on for a long while until it wasn’t going to be a cash cow.

Fair.

Sometimes it’s “liability”

If putting bad software on it could possibly start a fire or electrocute someone, they’ll put in measures to kill it

It doesn’t.

You could make a figure where you can see that it’s a man, but you’re getting no face. You’re getting no sword, no details at all

A lot of different possible answers.

SSO is the concept, “single sign on” one set of credentials that you can use in multiple places.

Federated id’s are passed in the back end, as opposed to OIDC which works based on “pass back tokens”

Emails are usually used because they make great usernames. They’re definitely unique and people remember them, but it doesn’t have to be emails.

What do you want to know more about?

Thanks webgl

Fair! Neat fact!

Wise.

Mmmmmm fruity loops of wire

I’m showing my age here, but that’s likely dvi, and not serial.

9pin is much smaller and 25pin is significantly larger.

But despite my pedantic statement, the joke still stands. Well played.

If neither of us have proof either way, it’s a stalemate. That doesn’t make me wrong, but it doesn’t make me right.

Given that if a bra has underwire, I may have to remove it for a defibrillator, you can’t perceive a possible misunderstanding?

The risk isn’t necessarily legal, but social so. A court case isn’t required for it to be real.

Kim wright is a case where the man was sued. You don’t see many cases because they’re laughed out of court, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t damage done.

I have 2 REAL questions for you.

1. If there’s zero risk to being accused of harm when you’re trying to help, why do Good Samaritan laws exist? What was the need?
2. Can you perceive a possible misinterpretation when I have to remove an unconscious woman’s garments including bra for a defibrillator?

Best rebuttal is calling people cowards eh?

You win, but I wish you would reconsider that I may have a point despite your distaste for it.

Have a nice day.

I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.

But you didn’t read that, did you?

I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.

But you’re not gonna listen to that either.

😉 have a nice day.

Unfortunately in a panic scenario like that, sometimes people don’t see things as clearly as they might normally.

And people aren’t great on a normal day either.

Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?

You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.

But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.

And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.

Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.

We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.

Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.

But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.

We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.

But I’ll back up my statements with references

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/11/23/why-people-fear-performing-cpr-on-women-and-what-to-do-about-it

Will you do the same? Or will you continue to ask me for information to back up your arguments?

You made the suggestion that it was “near zero” and now you’re asking me for proof that it isn’t near zero.

For sure! But I didn’t say you WERE grabbing titties, just that you’re perceived to be.

I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt…

Can you see that being perceived poorly?

You’ve NEVER seen someone mis-perceive help as harm?

Absolutely!

And what if you’re outside a bar and everyone is drunk?

Unfortunately life doesn’t provide ideal scenarios, not to mention that under the duress of what you’re doing you may forget steps.

I’m not saying that fondling an unconscious person is the same as cpr, but that perceptions are funny things.

Okay but we’ve already established that it’s not about what you ARE doing, but what people think you’re doing.

Perception.