h a l f b a k e r y
Please listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Most national legal systems place safety responsibility on
the developer/provider of a new product or service.
For technical systems, Engineering Safety Management
(ESM) is the activity of assessing any risk of harm
associated with a system, to ensure that it is acceptable.
assessments total up the risk of harm by
combining severity and probability: that is, if you have a
potential event that causes (say) multiple fatalities, it can
only be acceptable if it is shown to be very low probability;
conversely, an event that causes only minor injuries might
be acceptable at a higher probability.
That gives rise to a conceptual "tariff" table, where say 1
fatality is equivalent to 10 serious injuries is equivalent to
100 minor injuries and so on, but the lowest level of harm
is usually taken as a minor injury.
I'm suggesting an extension of this downward to include
"microharms" - the annoyance and irritation suffered by
users of a poorly designed system/product - as a
quantifiable measure of harm.
Suppose 1 microharm = 1/1000 of a fatality...
Take for instance, the deletion of the headphone jack on
later iPhone models: it causes minor irritation to perhaps
millions of users. It may only be 0.01 microharm, but
affects very many people negatively.
I'm suggesting that apparently trivial harm affecting very
large numbers of users has an overall net impact on mental
health and wellbeing, and should be considered in a similar
way (or in an extended framework) to system/product
safety assessment of more harmful risk.
Assessment of functional safety
IEC 61508 - see Hazard and Risk Analysis for example [Frankx, Jul 16 2021]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
||It's impossible to perform this function better than the market already does. Those who purchased said devices reluctantly or not did choose to do so. You can't protect a man from his own idiocy and poor choices, I should know.
||Voice is spot-on with his comment about markets.
as far as features you know about and choose. And
comes to things people might not knowingly
after they're discovered class action lawsuits often
the assessment of microharm.
||Manufactures colluded on pricing CD-ROM
drives and you unwittingly bought one at an
You might have gotten $10 pay-out some years
a microharm (and micropayment) to me.
||Markets also suffer from oligopolies and other
catastrophes. Hence the reason we still have Oracle.
||Free markets dont in themselves produce safe
products. The incentive to maximise profit means
producers will minimise expenditure on safety,
maintainability and useability unless regulated.
||I could start a list of examples
||Pakaging is going to take a hit.
||But only 5% of the people mentally harmed need
the payment to stop the nervous breakdown. The
harm varies across the normal distribution.
||Nature and our designed enviroments are full of
harms. It is life to navigate them in ones' own
particular way. Experiences, personal fabric on the
traverse to death.