Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamkoby | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes legal litigation forces companies to take extra measures and describing the obvious is something that already was tested in court. You feel that's obvious because you understand the tech behind it but some users (maybe the less educated ones) don't understand this, and then they sue apple for shorter than published battery life. By forcing you to include this label in your terms it releases legal responsibility.

For absurdity in warning labels follow one of the most famous cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...

View on HN

That case wasn't as absurd as people think. From the article:

> Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

She got third-degree burns from coffee stored at an unsafe temperature. McDonalds had ample evidence that this was a problem.

Coffee snob here. Optimal brewing occurs at 195-205 degrees F, and is consumed soon after. Good coffee is served HOT, and people in general know this - yet continue to demand it at the drive-thru, and continue to do stupid things with it. Heck, the very existence of the drive-thru is a much bigger problem: dwarfing the 700 complaints of coffee burns, eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving - yet there is no call to eliminate drive-thrus for obvious on-the-run consumption.

Yes, people get severe burns by placing properly brewed coffee between their legs while driving. This is well-known, and there is little to stop it short of people not doing stupid things.

"eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving"

Source?

Google is your friend. (I looked for the authoritative documentation you'd demand, but came a point I've got other things to do than preemptively do research for the skeptical. Suffice to say it's widely referenced, if a bit hard to pin down.)

ETA: I'd prefer research to snide retorts. I researched it to my satisfaction, you research it to yours; comparing the results would be much more enlightening than a put-down.

Lots of things that are widely referenced aren't actually backed by truth.

> Good coffee is served HOT

It's McDonalds coffee, not cat poop coffee served by servants in tuxedos. I suspect purchasers of drive-through coffee would accept sub-par coffee at a temperature that doesn't cause severe burns.

Actually McDonald's has about the best fast-serve coffee available; this fact translates into very large profits from happy customers. That quality suffers fast if brewed under 195F and served under 180F; why opt for sub-par when being nigh unto ideal is easy? Some things that make life better are harmful if you do stupid things with them...don't put hot coffee between your legs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com