| > And some assumptions about a product should hold true as well. E.g. the assumption should be that if I buy a desktop CPU today I should be able to use it for at least n years. Because how would you know this beforehand? You ask the manufacturer, duh? If they lie, that's fraud. If you don't like the answer, you don't buy. > If Intel made an optimization that turns out to be a security flaw, that is totally their fault and they should cover it. This is nothing any consumer could have known (and therefore avoided buying) beforehand. This is the cost of taking risks in business. Customers and suppliers should be able to allocate such risks between themselves however they like. You can fiddle with what the default should be, in case they haven't negotiated anything. But if both customer and supplier agree, the customer should be allowed to bear such a risk. > It seems to be a popular stance these days to shill for corporations and protect them from ever having their risks realized. Why? I have nothing against any particular allocation of the risks, as long as all involved parties agree. (Otherwise, they just don't make a deal.) > Gotcha, so you are also against electrical regulations like requirements to use tested insulators etc? If you claim they are tested, you better not lie. Otherwise it's fraud and you should be held liable. If a customer wants to buy untested insulators, who am I to keep them? I mean, in the most extreme case, a customer can buy bread and try to use it as an insulator, if they really want to. There's nothing the supplier can do about that. |