It's not US-centrism in general. You said only 5% of the population is subject to the law, which made that point. If you're like "we in the EU don't do that", fine. However, you then said that the issue was the company that made your scooter was outside the US. That implies you are in the US.
Look, if I offer you a peanut-butter and raspberry jelly sandwich, and you say "I cannot eat that, I'm allergic", fine. If you say "Well, my doctor said I'm allergic to all tree nuts", I would point out peanut butter isn't a tree nut and you can still eat it. If you come back complaining about how "people aren't sensitive to raspberry allergies", I'm going to claim that was bad communication on your part.
>However, you then said that the issue was the company that made your scooter was outside the US. That implies you are in the US.
I don't agree. Living in the US is not the default state of humanity. People on the internet are not USian until proven otherwise. I never mentioned the US. The US was only in the conversation to begin with because of a faulty assumption, which I attempted to delicately point out, even if I stopped short of outright contradicting it.
In fact, I was trying to avoid discussing my location at all, as I normally do on HN and indeed any other online platform as standard opsec. I wasn't asking for legal advice and it was not relevant to the point I was making.
Now, after a parade of HN commentators just assumed I was in their country, I am finally forced to clarify - no, I am not in the US. I am also in the 95%. What are the odds!
The fact that I need to clarify this at all, never having mentioned the US, is US-centrism. Try rereading the thread, but substitute, I dunno, "Kenya". You'll see how weirdly it reads.
I mean, you're not from the US, and maybe English is not your first language. However, specifically clarifying the company you purchased from is in the 95% implies there is a difference between you and the company and is read by many as "the company is in the 95%, and I am specifying that because I am not".
I never assumed you were in the 5% until you said that phrase (in fact, since you pointed out most people don't live in the US, I assumed you also did not). However, that phrasing implies you're in the US. It's just the way that language works.
I'm happy to summarize the thread using Kenya:
X: There is a law in Kenya concerning contract law.
Y: That law is irrelevant because most of the world is not in Kenya. In fact, in a recent contract my counterparty is not in Kenya.
X: Well, if your counterparty does business in Kenya with a Kenyan they are bound by Kenyan law.
Y: How dare you presume I am bound by Kenyan law! I'm not in Kenya.
X: The way your post was written made it sound like you were in Kenya because you were calling out your counterparty not being bound by Kenyan law.
Y: Why does everyone assume I'm in Kenya? I don't want to tell people where I live.
Look, if I offer you a peanut-butter and raspberry jelly sandwich, and you say "I cannot eat that, I'm allergic", fine. If you say "Well, my doctor said I'm allergic to all tree nuts", I would point out peanut butter isn't a tree nut and you can still eat it. If you come back complaining about how "people aren't sensitive to raspberry allergies", I'm going to claim that was bad communication on your part.