Hacker News Reader

Comment by berkes | Hacker News Reader

This response is what many non-Americans (at least my european bubble) pityingly look down at. "I heard in America they have to put a warning on the microwave ovens to not put any live animals inside" followed by some hearsay about people microwaving their dog "to dry them" and then winning millions in court.

In any case, this reasoning shows a worrying lack of personal responsibility. Often ascribed to US. Do people seriously consider legal steps against a trail-book because names of trails are confusing? More general: do people actually win a court case because a route-app brought them somewhere "dangerous"?

View on HN

>In any case, this reasoning shows a worrying lack of personal responsibility. Often ascribed to US.

Oh the American people are probably more independent than most and that comes with understanding personal responsibility.

The real issue is the lack of soft unwritten societal rules that exists in most other countries, so everything must be codified into law and if the rules are not specific enough, they are abused by everyone from corporations to everyday peeps who grew up under the opaque system.

Ironically when the laws are too specific, there are also loopholes to be abused.

At the end of the day, laws aren't the solution to every societal issue.

> The real issue is the lack of soft unwritten societal rules that exists in most other countries,

close, but i think it's the other way around. Those soft rules do exist, but they're regionally scoped to about the size of the median european country. We just have several dozen such regions.

The "codify everything" impulse can arise from things like interstate/inter-region commerce alone.

I would hope they don't win if the information is correct and the names are just confusing. The map doesn't set the names, just renders a representation of what legally exists.

There have been cases of GPS directions being wrong and people suing. I think some of the Cades have been successful depending on the circumstances. Wasn't there one in Australia that took someone down a wrong deserted road or something?

For a while during covid NSW was closed, and a few people who had taken a road trip from Victoria to Queensland tried to drive home through NT and SA. The authorities spent a while rescuing people who weren't prepared for 100s of kilometres of dirt road between stops.

It must really be a US thing. I am really perplexed that people even consider seriously that the ones who named the trails are responsible and not this person. And they were 50 miles apart ffs. It is not that they were crossing each other or whatever, used the same colours or whatnot.

"I heard in America they have to put a warning on the microwave ovens to not put any live animals inside"

They heard wrong. Source: looked at my microwave.

Yes, the USS a very litigious Society at the moment and people do win court cases. The wins are rare but I wonder if it is the severity of the penalties which is the issue.

Is there no or little downside risk?

What if I microwave my cat (she was wet, I wanted to dry her. The manual did not explicitly state I could not dry my cat in the oven), and then sue?

Sounds the upside risk is big: chance to win thousands (millions?) but what if I lose? Am I forced to pay thousands (millions?)? It sounds like you are saying the chances to lose are big.

not really any downside that I am aware of. You might be out your legal fees, but if your lawyer works for contingent (gets part of the settlement) or are one yourself, this is lower.

What the hell kind of lawyer is going to take a case where you microwaved your own cat... let alone on contingency? Some of the hypotheticals I see here, which people use to justify their outlooks, are so deranged and distant from reality that it makes me wonder. There is a constant emphasis on what is technically possible (such a lawsuit) while rejecting the reality wherein the other factors enabling such an occurrence don't exist. It's as if certain individuals here have no concept of what is reasonable or not.

I think you are reading too much into a thought experiment. Of course they won't take the case with the cat. It is a hyperbolic placeholder in a greater discussion. The question is what the downside risk is for X case with low chance of success.

Minimal, clearly, given your ridiculous hypos, yet you are here pushing them anyway as if they add anything to the conversations besides being misleading in their absolute ridiculousness and inapplicability to the real world

It seems like you're the one that has the problem and I'm not sure why. You know it's ridiculous so that's clearly not the problem. The answer is the same if it wasn't a ridiculous hypo, so that's not the problem either. I'll also point out that I wasn't the one posing the ridiculous hypo, I was giving the answer that is applicable to both ridiculous and realistic hypos.

Do you think my answer was incorrect for a real world example?

Yeah, I do, and my above post explains exactly why.

OK, you just don't understand who posted the hypo then and are barking up the wrong tree

It was a reference to a famous urban legend¹

Though, reading up on that, I believe it is "famous" in a my age group mostly, so it could be some younger hackers missed that reference. Sorry for that.

¹ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/

No. Maybe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com