> Seems like you're saying a person who bought a thousand euro phone and couldn't get it repaired under warranty after a month of mild use is "risk-averse" if they dislike that experience.
I'm saying that a person who is risk-averse should probably avoid this. There aren't very many third party repair places yet, so you're completely at the mercy of a single company.
There's also an increased risk if said company is based outside your country (or supra-national political union, should you live in one). It's harder for a country to force a company in another jurisdiction into compliance.
Well yeah. Buying something early is the most expensive time to buy it. The inefficiencies haven't been worked out of the manufacturing process yet, and there's not an established wide customer base to spread the R&D over yet.
Radios in the 1920s cost over 100 hours of wages for a lot of people. TVs in the 50s were stupid expensive. Computers in the early 60s were literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. And all of these things were pretty garbage compared to what you think of today. Hell, the computer from the early 60s could probably lose a math race to a seasoned abacus veteran.
In exchange for the high risk and high payment, you get to play with something that might be cool, and you get bragging rights (depending on your personality type, one of these might excite you more than the other).
> Any decent company would fix it, full stop.
Well, probably. I'm not going to defend samsung here. They're acting pretty garbage.
But the point about new tech being risky, is entirely fair. If something's still exciting, it's probably a good idea for the risk-averse to avoid it.
I think this is an excellent example of what I meant about "how direct the harm is" mattering.
Imagine, if you will, a continuum ranging from absolutely direct harm to absolutely indirect harm.
On the absolute left, imagine person A stabbing person B. That's about as direct as you can get, right? And I also think there's not a ton of people who would disagree that stabbing someone should be banned (let's ignore self defense arguments).
On the absolute right, imagine person A moves a chair. Someone trips over this chair. That person ends up in a foul mood and cuts someone off in traffic. This causes a traffic jam. In this traffic jam, a refrigerated truck breaks down and a bunch of food is ruined. More food is ordered, which takes up space in a shipping container that would have gone to medicine, had the food not been ordered. Person B dies because of a lack of medicine that would have been there had person A not moved the chair.
This was about as indirect of series of events as I could come up with, but I think you get my point here. There's a direct causal chain between person A's actions and person B's death in both scenarios, but I can't imagine very many people really condemning person A in the second one. In fact I think someone trying to ban moving chairs because of this incident would be soundly ridiculed.
So where does going outside without a mask during a pandemic sit on this continuum? Well, going outside without a mask, if you have a high viral load, and someone comes close to you, there's definitely a chance they could die. That's definitely not nearly as direct of harm as stabbing someone. It's also clearly not nearly as indirect as that tortured example I came up with in the second one.
Personal opinion? It's definitely farther to the left than the right. Say, somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of the way to the left. Maybe somewhere around 2/3 of the way there.
Someone's opinion on something such as a mask mandate, is going to depend on if they view that as direct enough harm for the government to have a legitimate interest in regulating.
I don't think there is anyone who actually thinks of these things in terms of "regardless of the harm it causes others". Ok, this being the internet, we can probably find one, but I don't think there's any significant portion of the population. That position is basically a strawman.
I do think, however, that there's people who draw the lines in very different places, or put different weight on different categories of harm.
As an example, physical or financial harm are very easy to verify. There's not a lot of debate about if they qualify. Mental or emotional harm, on the other hand, is very hard to verify. This presents a significant problem for anyone who is worried about the system being abused. These groups will draw lines at very different places around any claim of harm within those categories.
The end result is that you'll end up with one group being labeled as grifters who want to fleece the system, and the other as being completely insensitive to human suffering (sound familiar?)
That's not even to get into the debate of what constitutes harm. For example, is not helping someone harming them? Is ceasing help once you've started helping someone harming them? These are too big of questions for the post, but I imagine you get the idea.
I'm saying that a person who is risk-averse should probably avoid this. There aren't very many third party repair places yet, so you're completely at the mercy of a single company.
There's also an increased risk if said company is based outside your country (or supra-national political union, should you live in one). It's harder for a country to force a company in another jurisdiction into compliance.