It's mostly harmless to spill regular drinkable-temperature coffee on yourself, so she took appropriate level of precaution (i.e. very little) for that reasonable assumption. She shouldn't be to blame even if she showered in the coffee.
To bring it back on topic: when web users are told "we care about your privacy", they should be able to take it at face value. When the company then weasels out of the headline promise on technicalities (we don't share cookies — we share JSON, haha!), then it is violating that promise.
Yes, once again, when an issue is systemic (in this case, all coffees by McDonalds are super-hot), the user is not to blame but the vendor/system designer.
It reminds me of that recent case of 90%+ passengers "putting the oxygen masks wrong" because they are "idiots" - an opinion that seemed to be shared by a lot of people even here on HN, but even more so on Twitter.
To me, someone whose never seen an airplane oxygen mask up-close, it's pretty clear that the design of the masks would make people think that this is how you use it, and not over your nose. When you're going down with your plane, fear for your life ending, and have like 30 seconds to act, it's like not you have time to think about the "proper usage of an oxygen mask" - you use it instinctually, based on the design of the thing.
Therefore, those people were not "idiots". Idiots were the people designing the masks in a way that doesn't make sense for humans in an extremely high-pressure situation with little time to react.
Also, as usual, when the vast majority of people do something "wrong", that's the first and only red flag you need to know that the issue is a system design flaw, not a user error one. Same with Apple's "you're holding it wrong" antenna issue, etc.
Why the hell does that article not include a photo or diagram of a mask properly worn? Even despite knowing that it goes over your mouth and nose, the design of the mask makes it difficult to understand how one would actually do that. Seems like a huge, huge omission.
It seems to me that the safety cards in the seat pockets show the the masks correctly worn, and the cabin crew demonstrate the proper fit when going through the routine before takeoff.
But I agree with you about high-pressure situations and not ascribing idiocy.
Hmm ... I have never though about the masks and just assumed they would cover the nose "automatically" and I would maybe do the same thing.
Which such small masks, people probably believe they are doing something wrong when they are not tight against the skin (like a gas mask or scuba mask) and then puts them over the mouth where they fit tightly.
The mask people probably have experience with are scuba mask or gas masks and they both need to fit tightly.
Well, when you purchase coffee at McDonald’s and you see that it’s super hot, you can return it or cool it down by blowing on it before drinking it. Not commenting on the legal case, but it seems nuts to blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on yourself, no matter how you slice it.
"Hot" is meaningless in this context. People take "hot" showers and it turns their skin red, it doesn't cause serious burns that require surgery. You can absolutely blame someone else if the coffee you spilled on yourself was served at dangerous temperatures. Also, you can't "see" that it is dangerously hot before it's too late. A lot of things have steam coming off of them and don't require hospitilization if you spill it on yourself.
Well, when I buy coffee or tea, I usually can feel how hot it is by touching the cup. My local coffee shop serves it super hot, so I take the lid off and blow on it until it cools down. It simply would not occur to me to sue them if I injured myself with their hot coffee. I prefer it hot in any case, since you can cool down super hot coffee pretty easily. As I said, I’m not commenting on the legal case. The woman could have very well had a viable case. I’m commenting on the culture.
As a thought experiment, let’s replace “really hot” with “poison”. Do you think it’s reasonable to blame the customer for inadvertently drinking poisonous coffee from a chain when all other chains sell poison-free coffee? What if it comes with instructions like “just wait 20 minutes and the poison will evaporate”—does this sufficiently clear the company in your view?
How is unusually hot temperature significantly different from poison in this situation?
Good point. Though I think there’s still room to distinguish an uncomfortably hot coffee spill from a third degree burn causing one, and it’s not immediately obvious to a casual consumer when you cross that threshold.
To bring it back on topic: when web users are told "we care about your privacy", they should be able to take it at face value. When the company then weasels out of the headline promise on technicalities (we don't share cookies — we share JSON, haha!), then it is violating that promise.