4 ms·
I think parent is referring to the useless Prop 65 warnings that are plastered on everything. They're so ubiquitous as to be completely meaningless. No sense of
by function_seven 5y ago
I think parent is referring to the useless Prop 65 warnings that are plastered on everything. They're so ubiquitous as to be completely meaningless. No sense of scale or relative risk. The coffee carries the same warning as the jug of pesticide you spray on your fruit trees. Same warning is on an Ethernet cable as is on a can of paint.
The risk posed by these different items varies wildly, but they're all treated the same from a warning label perspective. And once you realize benign items get the label, you start to ignore it wherever you see it.
What California did for air quality is fantastic. I'm proud of my state for its leadership on that and related things. But that doesn't excuse the failure of Prop 65 warnings. They're worse than just "silly". They dilute real warnings and cause people to ignore the whole lot.
- slowmovintarget 5y agoThat's the equivalent of software monitoring alerts that engineers can't do anything to fix. Alert! A new user has joined. Alert! A user has logged in 47,000 times in the last minute The second gets ignored because of the flood of the first kind of message. It's called Attention Fatigue and policies often don't take the effect seriously enough. Better would be a warning with relative danger. Something like a how-cooked-is-your-goose measure: rare, mid-rare, medium, medium-well, well done, charcoal.