5 ms·

>should it? Yes, it should, because people expect wireless headphones to be as safe as wired ones, which have exactly 0% (zero, zlich, nada) chance of spontane

>should it? Yes, it should, because people expect wireless headphones to be as safe as wired ones, which have exactly 0% (zero, zlich, nada) chance of spontaneously catching on fire. Wired headphones are still widely used, made, and sold. This would allow the consumers to make an informed choice, and will give the manufactures of safe devices (wired or wireless) the deserved edge in the market. Also, consider the comments just from this thread about the risks: >In the end you're carrying a high energy density power source on your head that would love to just catch fire. Don't they teach kids anything in chemistry these days? >I mean I’m glad it didn’t happen to me, but a billion people are carrying around billions of Lithium-ion batteries. Those batteries sometimes catch fire because Lithium is highly flammable. It’s gonna happen. >Nothing is perfectly safe, that is how lithium batteries fail. You should know so you can properly deal with problems. >Well, at lease EVs are spontaneously catching fire. >Everyone is aware of the risks, there were a bunch of stories about airplane cell phone fires a few years ago. >lithium battery fires are really nasty, and that's why he got a chemical burn. LiPF6 is a contact irritant, PF5 it decomposes to is a gas, and also a respiratory irritant, and HF PH5 decomposes in the air is a dangerous poisonous acid. This is what everybody visiting a lithium battery factory is told on safety orientation. In case there is fire in the factory, run, preferably until you are few blocks away. So, paradoxically, the risks are both negligible and inevitable, something that every consumer should be prepared for because "everyone knows" batteries explode, but no manufacturer should warn about, mitigate, or account for in the design because who'd buy their product then? I hope you agree that the above is self-contradictory. Now, ultimately, warnings are not a panacea, but they do work. At the very least, having their product labeled as "unsafe to use in bed" would make the manufacturers invest in research that would result in a better product that doesn't merit such a label.

jdavis703 5y ago
> So, paradoxically, the risks are both negligible and inevitable, something that every consumer should be prepared for because "everyone knows" batteries explode, but no manufacturer should warn about, mitigate, or account for in the design because who'd buy their product then? I think this can all be true. ER doctors say avocados are one of the most dangerous fruits because of knife accidents. Yet avocados don’t come with any warnings or mitigations. And for the general public, you probably don’t know any one who was severely injured slicing an avocado. Surely avocado farmers should be working on cultivars that have a small or no pit so people don’t get injured preparing these fruits? (I mean that only half sarcastically, I would enjoy a seedless avocado if it tasted the same.)
- throwaway984393 5y ago
  I wouldn't mind a sign over the avocado bin at the supermarket warning consumers about knife injuries and an infographic showing the correct way to cut them. The avocado lobby has enough money to help fund it. I kind of like the giant seeds. It reminds me that this bizarre fruit is a leftover from megafauna eating and pooping out the giant seeds over long distances (you need a big seed to survive dinosaur digestion)
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    Maybe, is there any evidence Prop 65 warnings have reduced people buying carcinogenic foods in California supermarkets?
    - romwell 5y ago
      You seem to ask the question in bad faith, as clearly this is not the right place to find out these statistics. Google is your friend. There is evidence that warnings, in general, do work. There is also evidence that wired headphones, which don't have batteries in them, do not self-combust and therefore will not require such a label. A label that differentiates products is certainly useful. There is also plenty of evidence that most people are unaware of the potential dangers of lithium batteries. There is no parallel with Prop 65 warnings here.
    - neilparikh 5y ago
      The Prop 65 warnings apply to basically everything, so it's difficult to avoid them. That doesn't mean that the warning is bad, just that the threshold is too low. Giving radiation warnings at the level of a banana would be useless. Does that mean we shouldn't use Geiger counters?
    - throwaway984393 5y ago
      I don't think you need evidence. People who are concerned about cancer would be looking for the cancer warning and avoid those products, just like people concerned about the rainforest will seek out Rainforest Alliance-certified products. People who don't care, don't care, but for people who do, they make their decisions based on the information provided to them. And I just think it would be cool if we dropped little hints to people about the best way to do common things, like cutting an avocado. Imagine if the world were filled with little tips and tricks everywhere we went. Tiny changes, but added up, might elevate life as a whole.
Pxtl 5y ago
I would say a step further: instruction manuals are inundated with worthless warnings, and there is no sense to the user which are real threats. If you believe instruction manuals, no device should ever be used for its intended purpose, all filters should be changed once every 14 hours, and anything with a fan should be placed on the floor in the exact centre of a 20'x20' room. There is maybe a quarter page of useful text in the average 20 page manual. Warnings in instruction manuals about novel threats are completely worthless.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  They're a direct consequence of the sue happy American consumer. It's all about legally covering your ass, not about actual risk.
  - romwell 5y ago
    There is no such thing as "sue-happy American consumer". There is, however, an American consumer whose only way to get their medical bills paid in case they are hurt by negligence or harmful actions of a corporate entity, is to sue that corporation. Europe has regulations. We have lawsuits. Lack of regulation is justified by the possibility of taking the offending party to court. Stop shaming people who are doing just that.
- romwell 5y ago
  >I would say a step further: instruction manuals are inundated with worthless warnings, and there is no sense to the user which are real threats... This is not the case. Neither in general, nor, in particular, in the case of Bose QC-35 II headphones. The worst danger the manual explicitly wans about is the potential of "warming sensation"[1], in which case the user is to take the headphones off. Nothing about an imminent fire hazard, or potential chemical burns. Compare this to the labels on, say, two-part epoxy glue about the potential hazards, and what to do. Finally, there are only three possible scenarios: * Including this information in the manual and packaging will scare away people from buying this product because they are uninformed * Including this information in the manual and packaging is pointless, because people don't care * Including this information in the manual and packaging will allow people to make informed choices Arguably, it should be include in either case: - If people become scared, the manufacturers will be pushed to innovate on safety, which is a great outcome; - If "nobody" reads these warnings, there is no reason to add one more about an actual danger that does happen, if rarely; - Correct product labeling is what makes a free market work. I urge you to peruse the Bose QC-35 II manual[1] before responding, and come back with the scariest warning you find there. It is a counter-example to all of your claims. [1] https://assets.bose.com/content/dam/Bose_DAM/Web/consumer_electronics/global/products/headphones/qc35_ii/PDF/811772_og_quietcomfort-35-wireless-ii_en.pdf https://assets.bose.com/content/dam/Bose_DAM/Web/consumer_el...

jdavis703 5y ago

> So, paradoxically, the risks are both negligible and inevitable, something that every consumer should be prepared for because "everyone knows" batteries explode, but no manufacturer should warn about, mitigate, or account for in the design because who'd buy their product then? I think this can all be true. ER doctors say avocados are one of the most dangerous fruits because of knife accidents. Yet avocados don’t come with any warnings or mitigations. And for the general public, you probably don’t know any one who was severely injured slicing an avocado. Surely avocado farmers should be working on cultivars that have a small or no pit so people don’t get injured preparing these fruits? (I mean that only half sarcastically, I would enjoy a seedless avocado if it tasted the same.)

throwaway984393 5y ago
I wouldn't mind a sign over the avocado bin at the supermarket warning consumers about knife injuries and an infographic showing the correct way to cut them. The avocado lobby has enough money to help fund it. I kind of like the giant seeds. It reminds me that this bizarre fruit is a leftover from megafauna eating and pooping out the giant seeds over long distances (you need a big seed to survive dinosaur digestion)
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Maybe, is there any evidence Prop 65 warnings have reduced people buying carcinogenic foods in California supermarkets?
  - romwell 5y ago
    You seem to ask the question in bad faith, as clearly this is not the right place to find out these statistics. Google is your friend. There is evidence that warnings, in general, do work. There is also evidence that wired headphones, which don't have batteries in them, do not self-combust and therefore will not require such a label. A label that differentiates products is certainly useful. There is also plenty of evidence that most people are unaware of the potential dangers of lithium batteries. There is no parallel with Prop 65 warnings here.
  - neilparikh 5y ago
    The Prop 65 warnings apply to basically everything, so it's difficult to avoid them. That doesn't mean that the warning is bad, just that the threshold is too low. Giving radiation warnings at the level of a banana would be useless. Does that mean we shouldn't use Geiger counters?
  - throwaway984393 5y ago
    I don't think you need evidence. People who are concerned about cancer would be looking for the cancer warning and avoid those products, just like people concerned about the rainforest will seek out Rainforest Alliance-certified products. People who don't care, don't care, but for people who do, they make their decisions based on the information provided to them. And I just think it would be cool if we dropped little hints to people about the best way to do common things, like cutting an avocado. Imagine if the world were filled with little tips and tricks everywhere we went. Tiny changes, but added up, might elevate life as a whole.

Pxtl 5y ago

I would say a step further: instruction manuals are inundated with worthless warnings, and there is no sense to the user which are real threats. If you believe instruction manuals, no device should ever be used for its intended purpose, all filters should be changed once every 14 hours, and anything with a fan should be placed on the floor in the exact centre of a 20'x20' room. There is maybe a quarter page of useful text in the average 20 page manual. Warnings in instruction manuals about novel threats are completely worthless.

jacquesm 5y ago
They're a direct consequence of the sue happy American consumer. It's all about legally covering your ass, not about actual risk.
- romwell 5y ago
  There is no such thing as "sue-happy American consumer". There is, however, an American consumer whose only way to get their medical bills paid in case they are hurt by negligence or harmful actions of a corporate entity, is to sue that corporation. Europe has regulations. We have lawsuits. Lack of regulation is justified by the possibility of taking the offending party to court. Stop shaming people who are doing just that.
romwell 5y ago
>I would say a step further: instruction manuals are inundated with worthless warnings, and there is no sense to the user which are real threats... This is not the case. Neither in general, nor, in particular, in the case of Bose QC-35 II headphones. The worst danger the manual explicitly wans about is the potential of "warming sensation"[1], in which case the user is to take the headphones off. Nothing about an imminent fire hazard, or potential chemical burns. Compare this to the labels on, say, two-part epoxy glue about the potential hazards, and what to do. Finally, there are only three possible scenarios: * Including this information in the manual and packaging will scare away people from buying this product because they are uninformed * Including this information in the manual and packaging is pointless, because people don't care * Including this information in the manual and packaging will allow people to make informed choices Arguably, it should be include in either case: - If people become scared, the manufacturers will be pushed to innovate on safety, which is a great outcome; - If "nobody" reads these warnings, there is no reason to add one more about an actual danger that does happen, if rarely; - Correct product labeling is what makes a free market work. I urge you to peruse the Bose QC-35 II manual[1] before responding, and come back with the scariest warning you find there. It is a counter-example to all of your claims. [1] https://assets.bose.com/content/dam/Bose_DAM/Web/consumer_electronics/global/products/headphones/qc35_ii/PDF/811772_og_quietcomfort-35-wireless-ii_en.pdf https://assets.bose.com/content/dam/Bose_DAM/Web/consumer_el...