No law is ever going to be perfect, but perfection is the enemy good here.

It’s pretty well researched, understood, and established that your average 9 year old has so much more critical mental development they still need to undergo than your average 18 year old in order to become functional adults, regardless of what actual official age we define that as being.

Yes, some 18 year olds may still be taken advantage of, abused, hurt etc., but those 18 year olds, on average, will have a much better chance of defending themselves from and overcoming the damage done by an abusive “suitor” than the average 9 year old would. That is both physically and mentally.

In this case, I think it is a good albeit imperfect law as it serves the majority of the people and cases. Of course there will still be those outliers it fails to protect, but it is still a “net good”.

As an American, I can ride my mobility scooter for 74 hours and still be in Walmart. Comprend that.

We should all just collectively aggree to boycott the products of whatever ads we see. Make it known to advertisers that this is our stance. “Next product that I see in an ad that interrupts my video today gets a 3 month boycott”, etc.

In addition to that, they’re suggesting a government stake, which likely means using taxpayer money to help him subsidize it. Hmm. Where have we seen that before?

Correct. The original patent makes no reference to any sort of cam out / torque limiting feature.

I like to imagine the shitboat floating away in flames like an epic Viking burial.

Paying for the privilege of using AI to sift through the vast bleak sea of AI generated garbage. What a time to be alive!

I agree. The vast majority of people don’t know the difference, and have never used a pozidriv driver with a pozidriv screw. It is a vast improvement imo.

I’m seeing a lot of people here claiming that the Philips head was originally designed to cam out/strip to prevent a transfer of force sufficient to twist the head off. While I agree this does sound logically plausible, I could find no reference to such features in the original patent: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0f/28/e3/3e3075abbb9779/US2046837.pdf 🤷‍♂️

I read that the thing about them being designed to strip to prevent worse failure is just a myth. Or at least they weren’t originally designed to. It said that the original patent never contained any feature for that. Wouldn’t surprise me though if modern companies do use screws designed to strip to prevent disassembly/repair.

Same. It says on his Wikipedia he quit drinking in 2018. I’m surprised he quit but glad for him.