Google+ post by Adrian on 2016-11-03 22:09:45 UTC

That is a double negative. It means someone did die.

I agree the telegraph’s headline is misleading, but a kid died while doing his hobby.
I don’t understand why some feel the need to defend an inanimate machine rather than take this as an opportunity to teach others about proper workspace safety and ventilation (often left out of tutorial videos).

@Alexander_Gryson because the title is replacing human stupidity with a machine. It’s like saying it’s a gas station 's fault if there’s an explosion because someone decided to make a barbecue between the pumps.

It’s not the first attempt at making 3d printing a paraya.

@J_Miller ​ there’s a comma there, implied. And someone did die. Just not because a printer exploded. Because highly flammable, improperly stored materials were ignited by a spark, which most likely did not originate from the printer.
But hey, a 3d printer was there. Oh and he used hairspray. It had to be that! EVEN IF THEY EXPLAIN IT’S NOT.

I started my comment by agreeing the headline was misleading @Adrian_Ciubotariu ​, but I’m still perplexed as to why you feel you need to defend an inanimate machine.
You’re just compounding the problem by focusing on the same thing as the telegraph headline rather than focusing on the real problem of workspace safety.

Don’t worry, 3D printers aren’t going to have their feelings hurt by a tabloid headline.

@Alexander_Gryson you’re in a parallel universe.
Again: pointing out that human stupidity is replaced with “it’s a machine’s fault” is retarded on its own.
It’s similar to “an electric car bursts into flames, are they safe?!” When regular fuel cars burn down daily.
It’s about steering the public away from a beneficial technology with enormous potential because the masses are retards who can’t take blame. Of any kind. “It’s the microwave oven manufacturer’s fault for my cat dying cause it does not say to not dry live animals in it” - catch my drift?
You’re the only one anthropomorphising a machine.

OK, I’ll say this a third time, I agree that the headline is bogus.

But feel that you’re getting distracted by the headline rather than taking any real constructive steps to helping people avoid death.

(Your last comment also comes dangerously close to a straw man argument, I didn’t make any crazy analogies, not did I say it was the machine’s fault so please avoid “it’s like you saying” arguments)

@Alexander_Gryson ​ reducing my argument to "defending a machine’s emotions " is a straw man.
And I believe “don’t store this in close proximity of electrical sources or high temperature devices” is written already in the flammable products. So… Human stupidity remains. i.e. steps were taken to prevent the average Joe from dying, buy average Joe “knows better” and does what will dictates.

Dude, ffs, where did I provide a summary or reduction of your argument?
You’re getting all mouth foamy, chill out.

You are now, genuinely, calling the 17 year old’s death an act of human stupidity. That’s just awful.
Ignorance, yes, which we can fix with education, but calling it stupidity is a bit far.

Many self-built 3D printers are potentially unsafe but there’s no argument here that the boy’s working environment was fundamentally unsafe.

Placing a heat source, and using flammable materials, in a place where highly-combustible flash paper is stored is nowhere near safe working practice.

The boy died from inhaling the fumes from the burning flash paper and the fault lies with the regulation and storage requirements of that material.

All true @Neil_Darlow ​. My understanding to date is that if he hadn’t had the flash paper there, he’d still be there.

@Alexander_Gryson I should have just said it’s his own fault… you are right. Because him dying does not absolve him of guilt. It’s tragic a teen died. A series of bad choices and decisions got him there. His, his parents’.
I wouldn’t call it ignorance. That would imply him not knowing. Stupidity is when you know but still act.
As dad an event as it is, closure fur family and friends does not come with omitting his involvement altogether

@Alexander_Gryson so he had the flash paper there… He knew it was there and thought “nah, it’s not dangerous!”

And talking about regulations… Who will inforce them in a home?

Saying everything but acknowledging his own fault… Damn.

He was ignorant, there is no debate on that point, but I’m just trying to say we should focus on educating people to avoid similar mishaps rather than wasting time and effort on any other tangential issues.
You talked about regulations, I’ve only talked about education (which does not require enforcement).

@Alexander_Gryson the regulations comment was for @Neil_Darlow

Apologies, I misunderstood the paragraph break.

The need for regulations and the enforcement of them are separate issues.

But, for example, if it were a requirement that this flash-paper material is stored in an air-tight fireproof cabinet then there would be no ambiguity as to where to place blame if the material had not been stored correctly.

there you go.
a better explanation