I love how the warning just asks you to make sure but doesn’t really try to talk you out of it.
Well that’s their whole business
And really, it’s none of their business
This business kind of sucks. If you make good quality products it will work too well so no one would ever recommend it so you get no exposure. If you make shitty quality ones all the ones that survive is going to bitch about it and lawsuits and blah blah blah.
Anyways if anyone has any ideas on how to turn this business around let me know.
Start a rubber ducky challenge on tiktok, that’s like a guaranteed 500million sales
Would be good for climate change too.
The funny part is that it wouldn’t even work.
If the plug was on a GFCI outlet, it would trip once neutral and hot are shorted.
If it wasn’t on a GFCI outlet, it would be an inefficient water heater. Current is inversely proportional to resistance, and an inch of tap water has a significantly lower resistance than a human body sitting at the other side of the tub. At American voltages of 110V, the worst thing that will probably happen is the wires heat up from the current passing through them.
You assume the neutral wire is present and connected to the neutral prong, as it is in typical appliances. If I were to make this ducky, I wouldn’t connect anything to the neutral or ground prongs in the plug. Indeed, I’d connect all three wires in the cord to the hot prong.
That is my first assumption, yeah. I did note at the end if they intentionally didn’t connect neutral and ground and it was a metal tub, that would work
It’s got a British plug so it’s at least 200 volts.
But yeah, probably ok if the water isn’t too salty and you stay away from touching the electrodes.
I’m still not getting in with one though. At over 6 feet, I take up the whole tub + most of the time anyway.
But yeah, probably ok if the water isn’t too salty
If you’re going to be passing a current through your bath water, you would want the bath water to be as conductive as possible. You don’t want the salt water in your body to be the path of least resistance. You want the current to flow around you, not through you.
Ground fault protection has entered the chat
Hold my breaker!
Do I look like an Iranian maniac? (for the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/user/msadaghd)
That man is insane in a most delightful way.
Everybody said that soldering 5v stuff onto mains voltage could not be a wholesome experience. Apparently, they didn’t tell Mehdi because he just went out and made it one.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/user/msadaghd
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Fun fact, even if you try to hold a breaker in the ‘on’ position, it would still trip the exact same way. Pretty smart design (to stop pretty dumb people killing themselves or others).
Don’t forget the mandatory fuse included in the UK plug.
Can you demonstrate how that works?
I could, but it wouldn’t do much of anything unless a path through my body had considerably less resistance than the water between the conductors in the duck.
Ok, so don’t resist
He’s got a gun!
Even without that it wouldn’t kill.
Really could not have a better demonstration of what a joke the CE label is.
Lol, it looks like an ObviousPlant product.
deleted by creator
Man, racists get around. Never heard of this one.
They just threw racist on there, it’s not referenced in the text whatsoever.
I reviewed the allegation. It’s racist. Why are you defending this?
I think it’s a stretch and I don’t appreciate being painted as a racist.
I think it’s more the accusation than you, but, /shrug. Unless you’re the one who pioneered this whole thing.
You’re not. It’s a stretch and then some.
Damn. Thank you for the cc on that.
I’m inclined to believe that it’s not just “not respecting the proportions” but rather manufacturers putting a fake logo to create the appearance of safety. From your link:
“The Commission was also aware of fraudulent misuse of the mark on products that did not comply with the standards, but that this is a separate issue.”
I’m inclined to believe that it’s not just “not respecting the proportions” but rather manufacturers putting a fake logo to create the appearance of safety. From your link:
“The Commission was also aware of fraudulent misuse of the mark on products that did not comply with the standards, but that this is a separate issue.”
Why would you be inclined to believe that manufacturers of non-conformant products would be intentionally using a nonstandard version of the mark instead of the correctly-proportioned one which they can use just as easily?
And why haven’t you edited your comment to remove that image making the false claim that a CE mark with nonstandard proportions is a “China Export Symbol”?
It was already deleted, you probably just have it cached.
And sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your paragraph. Regardless of why we’re literally looking at one in the OP. Which is, as if I need to repeat this, a literal suicide device.
And sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your paragraph.
Let me try rephrasing it: Why do you think a manufacturer of a non-conformant product (who wants to be perceived as conformant) would intentionally use a nonstandard version of the mark, instead of the standard one? Note that the standard mark is not a certification or proof of conformance of any kind; it is merely a way for the manufacturer to affirm that they are conformant. It is illegal to sell non-conformant products in the European Economic Area regardless of if they carry the standard CE mark or not.
Regardless of why we’re literally looking at one in the OP. Which is, as if I need to repeat this, a literal suicide device.
Did you think we’re looking at an actual non-conformant product, and that it used a non-standard CE mark to deceive consumers? I thought it was pretty clear we were looking at a satirical fake product, and I assume the non-standard version of the CE mark was used unintentionally. If it was intentional, it was certainly not to deceive consumers but perhaps could have been an overcautious artist worried about trademark infringement.
FWIW i looked it up and the image in the post is an artwork titled “electric bath duck for suicidal tendency” created in 2001 by Nicolas Gaudron while he was at the Royal College of Art in London.
It was a brief meme in 2007, being featured on wired.com via ohgizmo.com via ubergizmo.com via gearfuse.com via haha.nu (this was back when there was more of a culture of attributing sources of things on the web). In 2011 it appeared on whokilledbambi.co.uk, and in 2016 it made it to /r/rubberducks.
It shows up as deleted on my side, not sure why it’s not on yours.
Just like your comment showing deleted until I reply to it. It’s a know Lemmy quirk.
deleted by creator
By buying this duck you have already made the wrong decision.
You can buy it as a gift
DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!
As long as it’s not a toaster, everything’s going to be okay.
