Surely this can't be true can it?!
The factory tasked with producing and later recycling the batteries for the self-detonating Samsung Galaxy Note 7 has itself fallen victim to a fire. Defective batteries and other faulty hardware stored in a recycling center went up in smoke at the Samsung SDI facility in Wuqing, Tianjin, in China. No injuries were reported, …
Pat, li-ion batteries don't go on fire when they get wet, and the recommended action in the case of a li-ion fire is to douse it with large amounts of water (or place it in a bucket) to cool the surrounding cells and any other combustibles and stop the fire spreading. See the FAA document here.
There is this odd urban myth that just because it has lithium in it, it will spontaneously combust when it gets wet, but this simply isn't true. The quantities of metallic lithium are very small, and very well sealed in plastic etc.
...Samsung has now seen its phones, washing machines, financial losses, and factories all explode in various ways. Also execs were caught in a massive corruption scandal.
I've heard that arrogant corporations have a tendency to self-destruct. It looks like Samsung is taking that to heart and in a rather literal fashion.
They are! This is a high stakes game of probability, and they made the first move with an in-house fire. By having a great disaster themselves, the probability that further occurrences of similar events is greatly reduced. It happens all the time. I once missed getting hit by a speeding small truck that blew through a stop light, and the car directly behind me was T-boned. I just laughed and unhooked my seat belt for the remainder of the ride, because; luck was with me and the probability of having another accident on the way back was now a HUGE improbability.
It's maths, baby. Get you sum!
I wasn't great at math, but I do remember from the Probabilities course that the probability at a throw of a dice is not influenced by the previous throws. Likewise, avoiding (or having) a car accident does not change the accident probability for the rest of the journey.
Unless, of course, you unbuckle your seatbelt, which will DEFINITELY increase your risk of injury should you have an accident.
However, for all we know (to the best of my knowledge there's no good research on the subject) - unbuckling your seatbelt may also drastically reduce your chances of having an accident.
When I was in school, I had "roadcraft" lessons given by an insurance investigator. He liked to say that if you really wanted to cut the accident rate on the roads, what you should do is (1) ban all drivers'-side seatbelts, and (2) mandate instead a six-inch spike sticking out of the steering column at the driver's chest. That, he opined, would cut the total accident rate by at least 90%.
Yeah, you shouldn't need to explain that, especially here!
You might. I got 6 upvotes for badly quoting from the Robin Williams film The World According to Garp (in the film he was looking at a house to buy and a cropduster flew into the front of it fucking the appearance, but possibly not the structure (it was a big wooden house) and he said something along the lines of "Great...it's been pre-disastered; we'll take it"). Someone -correctly- pointing out that this roll of the dice has exactly the same chance as the last roll of the dice got one upvote. Maybe you really do have to state the obvious these days.
veti- your point is valid; but different...it's about risk assesment and that people will assume the same amount of risk...so if you make them safer in one way they'll act more dangerously in another to bring risk levels to "normal"...I forget the theory name. Add seatbelts, people will drive more dodgily. I was in the transition period and I tried seatbelts a couple of times; self-assessed that I drove like a cunt when I felt cocooned and safer and left them off thereafter, preferring to feel and -let's face it be- more at risk and therefore drive better and not have the accident in the first place. Also I was driving lorries at the time and stepping out of a cocoon into a vehicle with no seatbelts and an acre of glass to plummet through just felt stupid.
My experience with things of this type is that your first impression is usually going to reflect a trend. For example, if you are test-driving a car and you get a flat tire, you're probably going to have nothing but trouble with it.
I know it isn't statistically sound or logical, but it seems to ring true, at least in my life.
If I was cynical which I am, I would guess a fire at a battery plant for note 7's would be a really good way for Samsung to avoid liability on future note 7 fires where the owner keep hold of the device. Any claims of not knowing about the problems would potentially be null and void.
If anyone needs an explanation of irony as noted in previous comments then please listen to the classic "Ironic" by alanis morissette, when you can explain the song then you fully understand irony.
One of many discussions / rants about this.
e.g. Ed Byrne: "The only ironic thing about that song is it's called 'Ironic' and it's written by a woman who doesn't know what irony is. That's quite ironic."
Unless of course, this is exactly what you meant by "explain the song"
Love that Ed Byrne sketch. Saw him do it live back in the 90s.
"A traffic jam when you're already late"
"No, that's just annoying. It would only be ironic if you were a town planner, on your way to give a lecture on how you'd solved all the traffic problems in the city".
I accidentally bought a phone (LG G3) with a removable battery.
Now I realise that there are benefits to having a battery with it's own (thin) case, that sits in a dedicated space, not squashed in, glued, bent or otherwise mishandled. Apart from being able to change it in 10 seconds. Long live my new (old) G3! (The quad HD display is magnificent too.)
It has a new LG battery, BTW.
I wonder if any of the Samsung GN7 fanbhois who were claiming that exploding batteries were "fake news" last year have changed their minds yet? There's been rock-solid evidence that the battery design was not fit for purpose and now this proving that there really is a problem.
Hmm? I know lets get a few million of those things that have a million ot one chance of bursting into flames, pile then all up together and see what happens!
I'm sure there's a film vault full of nitrate-based films they could store them in instead...
Nineteen fire trucks? Samsung's "offshore" battery op has run smack into Chinese reality. 7-4-8 is legendary in China. That magic number = 19 and means Samsung overlooked best practices and suffered the inevitable consequences.
"748: "七四八" In Mandarin this number is pronounced "qī sì bā". If these numbers are stated in certain tones, it has a meaning which roughly translates into: "Why don't you go die?" "去死吧" This combination is more commonly used as an insult to others, or rather, an indirect death threat. Youngsters can jokingly tease each other by saying "你去死吧!". Depending on the mood, place and way of saying this sentence it can confer meanings ranging from joking to insulting or provoking. On the other hand, any 3 digit number that ends with 48 sounds like "wealthy for X lifetimes" (世發) (e.g. 748[七世發] is wealthy for 7 lifetimes"), thus is generally considered lucky, with 448 and 548 being the exceptions since they are also homophones of "死先發"(Wealthy on death) and "唔洗發"(no need/not going to be wealthy)."
Extra credit: "qi" most awesome word in scrabble.. Garçon, more coffee!
This post has been deleted by its author
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021