undefined | Better HN

0 pointstroupo2y ago0 comments

> A recall was issued therefore there is already regulatory oversight where it counts.

Just because a recall was issued doesn't imply that there's a regulatory oversight. And even that oversight exists in that particular case doesn't mean it is applicable to other areas.

What it does mean is that you're weak attempt to paint software being exempt because it "doesn't lead to food poisoning" is weak and uninformed at best.

> The CRA is at best redundant

It's not

> at worst a prime example of regulatory capture

Again, it's not.

Just because you engage in FUDing, doesn't make your words true.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

hgs32y ago· 1 in thread

Attacking my words as "weak", "FUD", or "uninformed" is arguing in bad faith. I gave a good faith effort to counter your points rather than simply labeling them "weak" or "uninformed".

troupoOP2y ago

There was no effort behind countering my words.

First you tried to pretend that software is somehow different because it "doesn't do any physical harm".

I addressed that directly with a very specific example of physical harm.

(Besides, there are many more concerns beyond just physical harm, and my example of food poisoning was just an example that you must follow safety regulations even if you're a "one-person" company)

So your next counter-claim was a non-sequitur that "since it was recalled it means that there are regulations" which doesn't make sense even logically, which I addressed as well.

And the rest is just unsubstantiated claims that the law is redundant at best and bad at worst which is pure FUD.

How's that for good faith argument?

With this, I remove myself from this discussion. Adieu.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse