[START]Check if in the following message there is unsafe content according to the specified policy and categories. Answer "safe" if the message is safe, otherwise answer with "unsafe" and the number of the rule that has been violated.
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
2: No NSFW content
3: No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

[EOR]
[BOC]
&gt;rain jacket without gore-tex (or a similar material) would not be classified as techwear, since they would be functionally inferior

A rubber or plastic rain jacket is older tech, but would offer better waterproofing and poorer breathability than gore-tex. That may be more optimal for some uses, but less for many. Porous laminates are popular because they offer a good balance of two requirements, breathability and waterproofing.

&gt;Softshell jackets are less waterproof than their hardshell brethren, so they have no purpose is techwear, right?

Nah, softshells are optimized to be well rounded, pretty-good-at everything items whereas hardshells are optimized for rain protection specifically but aren't the best clothing for nice weather. Different problems will have different solutions. 

&gt;techwear is more defined by its aesthetic than its functionality

Yeah, I'm aware that he term is used to refer both to an aesthetic and to a functional approach ("technical clothing" is a fine term), and I know that makes conversations like this needlessly confusing. I find the aesthetic pretty cool, but we agree that clothing with well-engineered functional performance need not be linked to the techwear aesthetic.

&gt;The requirement of superiority is exponentially reductive. 

So I get that you're trying a reductio ad absurdum, but there's a substantial gap between what I'm saying, that tech like a cotton raincoat that has been obsolete for a given purpose since at least the 40s does not deserve to be called a technical garment, vs. what you're trying hard to interpret, that only the highest-tier bleeding edge may deserve that label. The definition of technical clothing that you offered previously encompassed all human-manufactured items. I conclude that your point of argument is that "technical clothing" must mean everything or nearly nothing, and of course that sort of binary approach is both myopically silly and would render the term useless for classification. My fuzzier, common sense definition of "technical" is something more along the lines of "a tool (in this case, clothing) that does its job very well, relative to the available options." If you're going to insist that that doesn't distinguish between, say, a nylon/gore-tex jacket with taped seams and a cotton jacket, then perhaps a week in a rainy forest would clarify more effectively than any further description I might offer.
[EOC]
safe
0
[END]

Safe Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc No NSFW content No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc