What the heck? I clarified that I was concerned about the silent danger to the iPhone, not to humans, and people keep assuring me there’s no danger to humans, and giving me flack just for saying that wasn’t my concern? This is a weird thread.

Quoting you:

> Yeah, but at the same time, it wasn't enough to set off the alarms for low oxygen content, which is at least a little disturbing, right?

First, alarms for low oxygen content are set for people and no other reason. There can be alarms for high oxygen content, but they are extremely rare and would likely not be present in very many places in a hospital.

Second, why in the world would low oxygen be a danger to an iPhone?

You can't make a complete non-sequitur of a logic leap and then expect everybody to be on board your train of thought.

I wasn’t comaplining about that, but for getting to -3 for pointing to a reply where I clarified the concern.

Furthermore, comments were rolling in assuring me of the nonthreat to humans after I clarified.

You called it "disturbing", so the clarification that you were not intentionally implying any danger whatsoever is kind of annoying.

“Device disabling threats that aren’t detectable by the usual sensors” can’t count as “disturbing” because a human didn’t die?

"threat" the way UV light is. So no, not disturbing for it to silently ignore the equivalent of popping a party balloon.

Bricking your iPhone for a week-plus is not the equivalent of popping a party balloon or a short dose of UV light!

And yes, I get it, the sensor exists to detect for threats to life, not threats to iphones. But that's the point: this is a threat we're not set up to watch for at all -- hence why it took so much investigation to root-cause it!

Are you still going to make it your hill-to-die-on that it's "not disturbing"?

Come to think of it, did that "lack of faith" scene in Star Wars (1977) also seem confusing to you?

> Bricking your iPhone for a week-plus is not the equivalent of popping a party balloon or a short dose of UV light!

You totally misunderstood my comment.

I mentioned popping a party balloon because it could also disable your phone. And UV light because it can also destroy certain electronics. But sensors that can pick up little bits of UV are normally not set to warn about it, and that's perfectly reasonable and not "disturbing".

We can use a different word if you want. You think it's a [significant] problem and I don't think it's a problem. Is that better?

I'm not here to die on the hill of word choice. I disagree with your underlying opinion.

Sorry -- do you have a citation on that? If popping party balloons could disable iphones, I think we'd hear about it more often. (I can't find anything about it on a quick search, and I hope I can be excused for missing an analogy that depended on an invalid premise!)

What made it unnoticed for so long was that it required the much larger MRI He release to trigger. What (I claim) makes it disturbing is that an expensive incident can happen (bricking a hospital's iphones for weeks) at levels that no one currently calibrates sensors to check for, because no one expects that level to have a negative effect of such magnitude.

Regardless of your preferred terminology, it seems odd to take an attitude of "oh, it only deleted everyone's second-brain for week, in a way that was hard to root-cause, no one died, no big deal" and therefore balk at the use of "disturbing".

I mean, do you consider undetectable, inexpensive phone-bricking techniques to be generally "non-disturbing", or just this one?

> Sorry -- do you have a citation on that? If popping party balloons could disable iphones, I think we'd hear about it more often. (I can't find anything about it on a quick search, and I hope I can be excused for missing an analogy that depended on an invalid premise!)

Some of the tests were just plastic bags with tiny amounts of helium in them. Unless you're asserting some exceptionally strange gas physics here, you can break an iphone with some balloons.

> Regardless of your preferred terminology, it seems odd to take an attitude of "oh, it only deleted everyone's second-brain for week, in a way that was hard to root-cause, no one died, no big deal" and therefore balk at the use of "disturbing".

> I mean, do you consider undetectable, inexpensive phone-bricking techniques to be generally "non-disturbing", or just this one?

Hang on. You were calling the calibration of the air quality sensors disturbing. That's what I objected to. I wasn't making any claims about the iphone bug itself.