I like that you’re complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I’m going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.

People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it’s objectively fucking insane to claim it is.

Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.

You’re not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.

Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.

Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don’t have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.

This isn’t an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.

I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that’s why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.

I’ve directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You’re literally just making shit up now. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to engage with you anymore. You’ve notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would’ve been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is “they didn’t chose it, and they couldn’t possibly have been wrong”. According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must’ve been the right decision.

Come back when you’ve learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.

~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~

Dude. You’re reacting like someone murdered your mother to people down voting your meme, that’s not normal. Go touch grass.

You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t mention the arguments you made and just called it a “contemporary source”. I can’t take you seriously anymore, you’re arguing on the level of a C- high school student.

You’ve also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I’ve said. Every single time I’ve pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you’re right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t even mention the word “disclaim” or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.

Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they’re just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don’t want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That’s not a legal arguement, that’s an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can’t be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.

You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.

Just a weird, coincidence I’m sure.

No it doesn’t. They’re explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.

Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing, you don’t need any personal relation to the prior art, and having one doesn’t strengthen your legal case. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.

That logic applies identically to a valid patent. For the issues you mention, there is no distinction between the patent being filed at the PTO and still valid, or being filled at the PTO and disclaimed. In terms of the enforcibility, and patentability of a ““new”” inventions with prior art, there is no legal distinction whatsoever between the prior art being a disclaimed or a valid patent, so I don’t think that’s a valid reason to not disclaim it.

Anyone who wants to repatent the process and harass people using it, would have an equally hard/easy time doing so, if the patent is disclaimed or valid.

The only real legal distinction between a disclaimed and valid patent is that the orignal patent holder can’t enforce the disclaimed one. And since that was the intended goal here, disclaimment feels like the obvious best choice.

A lot of them been so indoctrinated into mistrusting authorities and instutions, that they basically disbelieve anything they say on principle.

And al the evidence, all the scientists telling them they’re wrong just ends up reinforcing their belief in some giant conspiracy.

It’s sadly been shown in more than one study that changing the mind of conspiracy theorists with reason, argumens or evidence is basically impossible. It’s almost a self preservation instict against cognitive dissonance. They were so sure they were right, and now so one is telling them they’re not. That feels shit, and it feels shit to accept you were wrong about something you so fervently insisted was true. So their brains basically go into self defense mode, and just reject and attack anything that threatens the shaky fundamentals of their entire belief system. The best thing you can attmept to do is to distract them. Get them to talk and think about other things. When they mention the conspiracy, don’t engage, don’t argue how they’re wrong, they’ll just dig their heels in deeper, just change the topic to something else. Force them to spend less time in their delusions. Eventually, if you’re lucky, they might gain enough distance to the topic, and stop caring about it enough that they’re ready to start accepting how batshit insane those conspiracies are.

To quote Hbomberguy:

“The anti vaccine movement had next to no evidence [27] years ago, and they have even less today”

Ok, that is a fair point I hadn’t previosuly considered. Though disclaiming a patent doesn’t loose you all legal recourse.

If someone else tries to repatent it, even if it gets approved, you can still file a challenge against the new patent with the PTO. You (or anyone else, really) would also have a virtually guaranteed court win, even if someone got the patent through and tried to enforce it. All you’d have to prove in court is that prior art of the invention exists, therefore the patent is invalid and unenforceable, granted or not, so it’s unlikely someone would even bother trying to enforce such a patent. A previous, diclaimed patent, of literally the identical technology being on record is pretty iron clad and unavoidable evidence that the patent isn’t original.

The spark plug only works on tempered glass, on which these hammers also would also work great. The issue the article is pointing out is that many modern cars use laminated glass, not tempered, which is much harder brake, and on which the spark plug trick would porbably work even worse than one of these hammers.

Also, carrying around a tiny piece of a broken spark plug in your car, in manner where you can quickly and reliably access it in an emergency is probably difficult.

No it isn’t. The article is about how they RARELY work, and you’d be rarely in a situation where you can effectively use them. Sarcastically calling someone genius after they’ve repeated the same, wrong, point for the 3rd time in a row isn’t an insult dude, that’s ridicolous.

Please quote the exact part of the article which states these tools will literally NEVER work, in any possible situation. Because that’s what you’ve repeatedly claimed, and I’ve repeatedly repudiated. So since I apparently missed that part of the article, do please quote it to me so I can verify.

Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.

You could just admit that you’re unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.

Very very few. But in the incredibly unlikely case that it DOES happen, boy am I going to be fucking glad that I have a seatbelt cutter.

Also, these devices don’t have to be used on yourself. If there’s acute danger to someone ELSE stuck in a crashed car (e.g. fire, sinking or unstable ground), you can use YOUR cutter to attempt to extract them from the vehicle.

Most common fission reactions today release most of their energy in the form of neutrons. The only way to extract energy from neutrons is heat. But there are fission reactions which release a large portion of their energy in the form protons. And since protons are charged, their energy can be electromagnetically converted directly into electricity, with no need for intermediate process steps.

There’s already at least one company building prototypes like this, Helion, using D+He3 fusion, rather than the more common D+T fusion in other reactortypes like Tokamaks.

Real engineering has a video on Helion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38

Because the tool does work, that’s the whole fucking point genius.

It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.

I would never recommend a tool that doesn’t do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.

Your stance is literally: “if it isn’t guaranteed to work in every single situation possible, then I’d rather have nothing”.

I’m curious what your stance is on Aircraft carrying life vests. Those are arguably even LESS likely to safe your life than one of these tools. Should Aircraft all stop carrying life vests because of that ?

Let me give you a hypothetical: You’re stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. All doors are crushed and can’t be opened. The passenger seat has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you’re unable to unbuckle. There’s a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.

Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?

Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds if survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?

You don’t know, because there isn’t one. If the doors are too deformed to be opened normally, there are only three possible axes of ingress or egress to the car. You either break a window or screen, you violently force the door open, or cut the columns and remove the roof. And since I doubt you’re suggesting everyone start carrying hydraulic shears and heavy duty circular saws, in their car, window it is.

And if I’m in a situation where I have to break a car window, even if it’s only a 1 in a million chance I’ll ever be in that situation, I’d rather have one of those hammers than nothing.

Same thing for a seatbelt cutter. I bet if your truck had caught on fire, and the fire was about to breach the fuel tank, you would’ve loved a seatbelt cutter to quickly free yourself and get out.

Waiting for trained paramedics to extract crash victims is obviously ALWAYS the best options, but if there’s an acute threat to the vehicle, like fire, unstable ground or sinking, you CAN’T wait. You HAVE to extract yourself or die. And like I said, in that situation I’d much rather have a hammer and seatbelt cutter than have nothing. In a situation like that, there is no “doing more bad than good”. You are dead if you don’t extract yourself immediately. Nothing the tools do or don’t do at that point could possibly make the situation worse.

This is like arguing that people should be told to not perform chest compressions on people having heart attacks, because it’s incredibly unlikely to ever be needed, and the average person won’t do the compressions hard or fast enough to be effective anyway.