Nick Szabo  🔑

People *will* incorrectly use Petzl RAD LINE for higher energy climbing fall arrest and get themselves killed when it snaps. I'm OK with that, because Petzl has made a good product for its niche and explained that clearly.

I'm less OK with one of their older products: https://www.petzl.com/CA/en/Sport/Lanyards/SPELEGYCA … The SPELEGYCA is a bad idea: doesn't meet it's niche well, and is very easy to misuse even without intending too. Petzl makes some effort to explain that. But I could buy an argument that it's not due care.

Petzl knows their users are going to buy SPELEGYCA lanyards and accidentally climb above their anchors, *and* they know that a dynamic rope solution would weigh about the same, work better, and not kill people. So in a lawsuit I'd be happy to see them shoulder some liability.

See, this stuff isn't black and white: I'd rather see these decisions made based on what a company could have easily done. AT&T getting their customer service techs some basic anti-social-engineering training, *or* discouraging 2FA, is easy and would prevent a lot of harm.

I buy the argument that got passed around in the media a lot: that McDonalds served their coffee unexpectedly hot. In that case I'd say yes, they should have some liability. Problem is, apparently that's just not true; the only unique thing about McDonalds was big pockets...