Citigroup fined $7m after legit transactions mistaken for test data for 15 years

Re:Citigroup fined $7m after legit transactions mistaken for... by wpietri on Friday July 15, 2016 @12:53AM (#12099004)

The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about.

I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citigroup fined $7m after legit transactions mistaken for... by TruthAndDare on Friday July 15, 2016 @05:10AM (#12099702)

> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely".

Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citigroup fined $7m after legit transactions mistaken for... by wpietri on Friday July 15, 2016 @11:10AM (#12101525)

Not to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those.

But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.

[ Parent | on HN ]