Comments
-
@Natural Sarcasm , it is, the only class he taught that was decent was industrial safety. But the subject went into about designing things to make sure people don’t assume they can which can lead to lawsuit. For example: a company designed a baby carrier with a handle that WASNT supposed to be used for load bearing and carrying the carrier and child. For whatever reason they were adamant to make this product with a handle even though it’s not for carrying use. They put a big warning on the box explaining this to buyers and guess what happened?
-
@megamanx181x, the thing i don't get about that is that it costs that company extra money to even have the handle on there, because they need to pay an extra few dollars for the materials for every handle for every baby carrier. So they're actively paying more to add a nonfunctional part that they know they could get sued over. And this means a whole room of executives had this design pitched to them, and saw absolutely nothing wrong with this part that only reduces their profits.
-
@Your Waifu, my guess is (which is fvcked up if true) is that it was all about design and appearance. Making a functional load bearing handle would cost more money but making a purely aesthetic one would be cheap. And their hope was that the consumer would be too dumb to read the fine print. Which would allow them to look like their more expensive/ better functioning competition while being able to undercut their price using cheap materials
-
@Your Waifu, bingo! Instead of removing the joke functional handle they went with it and in a few short weeks lawsuits came in from parents as their baby’s feel to the floor. No matter how much they argued that the box stated it was a non functional handle you can’t take away the human instinct to show because it’s simply there.
Common sense aint quite so 'common'