Replacing a broken set of blinds in my house and apparently no one sells the old standard kind where you pull the cord to raise them, I guess because kids and/or pets could tangle in the cord? Bit of an education in miniblinds today.

  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Anything is lethal when you give it to a million people. This is the main reason I take issue with pointing out individual examples of for example autonomous vehicle crashes and treating that as an evidence for why they’re inherently dangerous. Almost nothing is 100% safe. I bet there are dozens of people suffocating to their pillows each year.

    • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Username checks out. If they weren’t so awful, maybe people would care about defending them, but there’s just all-around awful. They’re uglier, harder to use, and seem to frequently get damaged (probably mostly from people trying to fight with them or just bending them out of the way because damaging them is worth it to avoid dealing with them…

      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        There’s always roller blinds for the ones among us to whom mini blinds are too difficult to use.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      So by your logic if a collision from bicycle or even from people running isn’t 100% safe, then it’s as dangerous as car?

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

          • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            30 days ago

            Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

            The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

            • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              30 days ago

              so by your logic since nothing is as bad as [choose any cause of death], we should just… give up on improving safety?

                • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  30 days ago

                  I legitimately don’t understand your question. If you’re asking if the cost to improve safety may be too great in some cases, yes that is true in some cases. But you haven’t made that case in this specific instance yet.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Are you saying we should not have safety regulations just because we can’t make everything 100% safe?