Hacker News Reader

Comment by Natsu | Hacker News Reader

Not for naming it that, but for falsely implying the existence of an explosive device on the plane.

I am puzzled by how the headline switched from holding a random smartphone in one's pocket to wilfully carrying a dangerous explosive device.

It's barred from flight by the FAA, presumably because it's known to... you know... explode...

So I guess it would count as carrying a dangerous explosive device.

Except they don't explode by definition and it is just the persistence by the media plus fear and ignorance that continues this stupidity. This Galaxy Note bullshit needs to die.

The Galaxy Note 7 will be outlived by stupidity and ignorance (not that it doesn't catch fire - you know what I mean)

I called it an explosive device because we now know that they literally explode.

I grant that basically any large lithium batter can do the same (or be induced to do the same), but this one was both common and could go off accidentally, making it a more common and therefore likely threat.

It could very well be an honest mistake. Maybe whomever named it was trying to find the network on their Note 7.

Suggesting that someone go to jail over "SSID naming convention contains Note 7" is absurd.

It's all about intent.

Except they don't "literally" explode. They catch on fire and melt, if you think that fits the definition of explode I have some fireworks that I would like to sell to you.

Explosion: A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.

This is definitely a description of what happens to the batteries.

I think he's trying to argue that because they deflagrate instead of detonating, it's incorrect to call the process an explosion. That's the only thing I can see that makes sense, at least, incorrect and apparently disingenuous though it is in this context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com