Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
RFID tags are great little pieces of technology, but unfortunately, the combination of paper, metal, and silicon means they are as bad as some modern pregnancy tests — single-use electronic d…
OK, thanks headline. I thought all RFID tags were paperless?
A team of design program graduates from London’s Royal College of Art aim to change that. They’ve devised a mostly-paper RFID tag that’s as safe to recycle as a piece of paper with a pencil doodle on it.
So, not paperless? Mostly made of paper. Paperfull?
What the fuck even is this headline trying to say?
EDIT: Thought about it some more and came back. I think the headline really is referring to all standard RFID tags, and not the new RFID tags referenced in the article. It’s just a confusing ass title to go with because it doesn’t reference the new tech at all. It just makes a factual statement about old RFID tech: that they are paperless and produce carbon pollution. Except isn’t it the production of them that makes the carbon pollution, not the RFIDs themselves? I don’t know, still a confusing headline, even though I’ve sort of sussed out what it was trying to say.
TL;DR: Headlines should probably reference what the article is about, not what it isn’t about. Which this headline did opposite here. It tells us in the headline what the article isn’t about.
OK, thanks headline. I thought all RFID tags were paperless?
So, not paperless? Mostly made of paper. Paperfull?
What the fuck even is this headline trying to say?
EDIT: Thought about it some more and came back. I think the headline really is referring to all standard RFID tags, and not the new RFID tags referenced in the article. It’s just a confusing ass title to go with because it doesn’t reference the new tech at all. It just makes a factual statement about old RFID tech: that they are paperless and produce carbon pollution. Except isn’t it the production of them that makes the carbon pollution, not the RFIDs themselves? I don’t know, still a confusing headline, even though I’ve sort of sussed out what it was trying to say.
TL;DR: Headlines should probably reference what the article is about, not what it isn’t about. Which this headline did opposite here. It tells us in the headline what the article isn’t about.
Yeah, titlegore material.