Nick Szabo  🔑

Here's an example I ran into the other day: https://www.petzl.com/CA/en/Sport/Ropes/RAD-LINE-6-mm … That product is fucking dangerous; 6mm is insanely skinny for a rope. But it has it's uses, and Petzl makes perfectly clear what they are and how to use it safely. They've done their part.

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.

Nope. The gun is doing what it was designed to do, what the user knew it would do, and there are strong societal arguments for guns to exist from bigger picture freedoms.