@aral even if you pay the "full" price (and do away with the subscription model), I sure as hell wouldn't trust an airbag vest that has the ability to turn itself off.

If it can be remotely deactivated by persons other than myself then it's not a safety device.

@rfox @aral

maybe there needs to be action at UN level that commercialising safety devices to this extent is actively legislated against (in the same way that it is agreed we all need road signs and markings, driving licences, and a basic level of vehicle safety features everywhere in the World)

@rfox @aral this is a device that should not have the ability to be deactivated. Remote or local, by me or anyone. I can't think of a single example where this would be beneficial.

@claudius locally might be useful for transport and servicing.

@paalsteek yeah, that's probably right. I'd hope that in this case it's very obvious that it's not in workin condition :-D

@aral not a very good look for your company if someone sees a corpse on the side of the road with your road-safety company logo visible on it.

@aral wow, this subscription abuse and the idea of a person not owning the item that was bought has to stop. In this case it is not a service that is continuously being provided, so a subscription model makes no sense.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!