zlacker

> You just have to inform user of the risks

Warnings aren't always enough, sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves.

It's not always people being stupid. I recall reading an article by someone who got scammed who seemed generally quite knowledgeable about the type of scam he fell for. As he put it, he was tired, distracted, and caught at the right time.

Outside of that, a lot of the general public have a base assumption of "if the device lets me do it, it's not wrong," and just ignore the warnings. We get so many stupid pop-ups, seemingly silly warning signs (peanuts "may contain nuts") that it's easy to dismiss this as just one example of the nanny state gone mad.

>>scott_+(OP)
Please read again the sentence you just typed.

> We have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves.

You can apply this argument to literally anything, and taken to its logical conclusion, this is exactly what will happen.

>>scott_+(OP)
> sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves

Seriously ill people as an exceptional last resort though, right? Or just everyone?

>>alexvi+Tc
> sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves

I highlighted the word you missed, deliberately in my opinion, as it completely changes the meaning to exclude your frankly idiotic assertion.

>>Y_Y+Jq
I’ll take a real world example where I watched someone start to climb over the side of a bridge. Luckily my words stopped him but I did consider whether I should pull him back and pin him to the ground for his own good.

Is your position that it would be better for his freedom for me to let him jump if I couldn’t dissuade him?

>>scott_+lA1
I would consider that an exceptional case for a person who is very unwell.

That said, I think suicide is a complicated case because some people want to be stopped, and some people will just try again the next night.

>>Y_Y+T12
> sometimes we have to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves

So where does my statement suggest we should make locking people up for their own good the norm?

I can come up with even more mundane examples of where we physically prevent people from harming themselves. High barriers to stop people getting into the tiger enclosure. If a member of staff saw someone dumb enough to try and climb in, rest assured they'd be physically dragged out for their own safety.

Or do you suggest we allow the general public to wander into the tiger exhibit to pet the animals? Personal freedom and all that.

>>scott_+7W2
Yes, I just want people to pet the tigers

>>scott_+yz1
The idiotic statement is yours. If the "sometimes" is important to you, you can have it - you're not the first person on the internet to play word games.

But unless you can come up with a very detailed list of when it's acceptable "to lock people down and physically prevent them from harming themselves" and when it's not acceptable (it never is, it's a crazy statement), and I don't think you have such a list, your "sometimes" just means "whenever I, as the person writing the software judge", rendering it completely meaningless.