It’s cardboard, not depleted uranium. How the fuck is it so dangerous I must dispose of it if damaged? The entire point of the product is for the furry psychopath that lives with me to damage it. It literally has no other reason to exist.

  • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1·
    10 hours ago

    The damage thing might be intended in the way packaged things intended to be swallowed say not to use if the seal was broken. I think it means if you open the new product for the first time, and it clearly had a transport accident and is soaked with unknown liquid and covered in white powder, don’t give it to your cat.

    If it looks as expected when you open it, and you know later damage was caused by your household and is mechanical only, that’s fine. Like it’s fine to use the sour cream that had an intact seal when it arrived in your house, but if the first time you open it from the store the seal is cut, toss it.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      9·
      22 hours ago

      The last line mentions not using it as a step so maybe someone was stepping on it and after a while it broke down and they fell and sued

      • ulterno@programming.devEnglish
        2·
        21 hours ago

        Yeah, kinda weir on that one.
        It is surprising how people can be unreasonable when they are given the ability to.

        Though I can think of conspiracy theories for this behaviour.
        Guess I should go to [email protected] considering how many of these come to my mind.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    361·
    2 days ago

    I remember a summer about 10 years ago, when I went out at the beginning of summer to buy some new pool noodles. I looked everywhere, and couldn’t find them, all summer.

    The next year, they were back, but they all had new tags that said “Not to be inserted rectally.”

    Suddenly, I knew why they hadn’t been available, as lawsuits and regulatory issues got worked out. All because someone looked at a pool noodle, and got a weird idea.

    • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.todayEnglish
      2·
      10 hours ago

      Easily damaged paper product.

      Is omnipotent,and can do anything unless it is slightly damaged. If attempting to use it while it is not pristine, will lead to a catastrophic cascade of calamity that may or may not result in false vacuum decay destroying everything from itself at the speed of light.

  • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
    107·
    2 days ago

    The whole “discard if damaged” is likely just standard cover-your-ass legalese which the lawyers will copy-paste on every single product they sell, including this one.

    • Heydo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      17 hours ago

      I would imagine this same label is applied to all of their products as a cost savings measure.

    • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
      39·
      2 days ago

      It’s this.

      Lawyers: put the warnings on everything. Managers: what warnings? Lawyers: the warnings. Managers: yeah but Lawyers: on everything.

      • idunnololz@lemmy.world
        19·
        2 days ago

        WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          4·
          1 day ago

          It’s like on medication when it says something along the lines of, do not take this medication if you are allergic to this medication or think you might be allergic to this medication.

          Good now it’s your fault if you have an allergic reaction.

          • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
            1·
            6 hours ago

            All subjects intending to handle high-energy gamma-leaking portal technology must be informed that they may be informed of applicable regulatory compliance issues. No further compliance information is required or will be provided—and you are an excellent test subject.

    • randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
      2·
      1 day ago

      Hey can you give a better Spanish translation? I’m a beginner at learning Spanish and was reading the Spanish version in the picture and going “oh I see, so this is how you say this.”

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        9·
        1 day ago

        “No permita niños que juegen con o cerca de este articulo.” Is pretty jumbled up. “No permita que los niños jueguen con este artículo ni cerca de él.” would be more correct. The way it’s written is like “Don’t allow kids that play with or near this article”, and “juegen” is spelled incorrectly

        “Este producto se diseña para un específico y un uso previsto” - “se diseña” makes it sound like it designed itself? It should be “está diseñado”. Also they’re missing something to go with “específico”, probably “propósito específico”/“specific purpose” as is it just reads “for a specific” which makes no sense.

        “Esto no se piensa para el uso como paso.” Sounds like “This is not thought of for use as a step”, but step in this case meaning like a footstep (action) not a stair step (noun). It should be something more like “No está diseñado para ser usado como escalón”

        Lastly “animal favorito”… It would mean exactly what it does in English. My favorite animal is the dolphin. Pet, however, should be “mascota”. And also why only the favorite? So if one of my cats is my favorite animal then I should only let my other cats play with it? Lol.

        Disclaimer: not a native Spanish speaker, just a self taught learner of several years.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          6·
          1 day ago

          It reminds me of the time at work that we got a piece of industrial equipment. The manual clearly had been translated from Chinese into English via a Tibetan monk who would never heard either language.

          It said things like “ensure when on that the fingers are not found” and “if loud kick immediately and call for help from empowering”. The best bit was the warning at the top that said “DO NOT DANGEROUS”, which was very helpful.

          For some reason it also had a biohazard label on the box. It was a laser engraver. Where’s the biohazard?

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 day ago

        You only hear about the ridiculous lawsuits. Local lawyer used to explain it on the radio all the time.

        • Media doesn’t report on the 99.98% of boring, and meritorious, lawsuits
        • Judges toss frivolous cases
        • Lawyers are loath to bring frivolous cases due to reputational harm, even disbarment

        Our sense of risk is absurdly out of whack with reality.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          2·
          1 day ago

          According to a friend who’s a lawyer she once had to explain to someone that she can’t sue her landlord because she slipped on a wet floor, since it was her house and therefore her wet floor. The landlord merely owns the house, but didn’t make the floor wet.

      • Sludge@sh.itjust.works
        131·
        2 days ago

        These things actually only degrade as your cat uses them in America. Elsewhere the cardboard doesn’t mix with hair and fall off into little cardboard chunks that are attractive for small children to eat. Also, the structural integrity actually only gets stronger in other parts of the world, so you’re actually encouraged to step on it, as after some play and what might seem like structural damage to a piece of cardboard, it can actually support the weight of a fully grown adult.

        • naeap@sopuli.xyz
          10·
          2 days ago

          Doesn’t it?
          The small pieces the cat rips out fill the holes and make the structure stronger, until the cat can’t use it anymore, because it’s too strong for its claws
          Then we use it as bricks for our houses

          Haven’t you seen the cardboard quarries full of cats working their ass off?

          Edit: on a second thought, that’s also why de-clawing is unethical here, because it hinders our never ending demand on bricks…

        • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
          112·
          2 days ago

          Honestly my issue with the way the US handles these things is that if wealth was distributed more equitably and fluidly we wouldn’t need to be half as litigious.

          If getting your car damaged didn’t mean your only transportation to and from work being nonfunctional in a way that would require several months worth of wages from that job to fix, you wouldn’t need to focus as much on who specifically changed lanes wrong, you’d just fix it. And if you could just go to the doctor and get care, and easily take time off work to heal, a little bit of muscle tension would be easy to catch, treat, and heal up from well before the possibility of lifelong and career ending injuries came into question.

          If we were able to have the resources and time to just handle most small things, we wouldn’t have to be constantly holding every individual working class individual personally liable for which direction they sneeze in. Litigation could be saved for serious and repeat offenders. But no, squeezing every last dime out of the working class is a feature, not a bug.

          • Sludge@sh.itjust.works
            34·
            2 days ago

            Ok, I’ll bite. So no warning labels? I understand that this is being interpreted as a result of litigation. If there’s not a warning label on a car seat or crib for your newborn… Honestly, why would I need to make sure there aren’t blankets in the crib or that the mattress isn’t too close to my space heater? If the mattress catches on fire or my child suffocates because they’re too small to rotate onto their back but their airway was obstructed by the comfy furry blankets I put into their crib - look, I just wanted them to be comfortable!

            I may have lost my baby, but there’s no point in suing anyone. I should have known better! There were no warning labels. I’ll just sleep it off - a life lost, but nobody to blame. It’s chill, all good!