I once made a spoof label that started with
WARNING:
The State of California is known to contain legislators, whose effects
are known to be hazardous to your mental health...
On 4/28/26 12:35 PM, Paul Lalonde wrote:
The intent of Prop 65 is that if you have any of those chemicals you
have to declare them. But in practice few businesses will spend to
prove the negative and expose themselves to misrepresentation charges,
and so label everything as maybe containing substances known to cause
cancer.
So the intent is completely defeated by poorly drafted legislation.
Paul
On Sat, Mar 7, 2026, 9:21 a.m. Frank D. Engel, Jr.
<[email protected]> wrote:
At least here in the USA, the packaging of a great many products
carries warning labels that the products contain substances "known
to the state of California to cause cancer". The state evidently
has a list of over 900 chemicals and anything sold in the state
that contains one of those chemicals must have such a warning
label on it. These labels are on practically everything, to the
point of absurdity.
Search for "Proposition 65" on Google (or other search engine of
choice) and look at a few of the articles that come up. I'm
hardly the only one to have noticed this.
There is also a locality within California where they made it
illegal to wear cowboy boots unless you own at least two cows.
Hardly the only place to have insane laws, but California seems to
take it to another level sometimes.
On 3/5/26 19:49, hahahahacker2009 wrote:
Vào 15:39, CN, 1 Th3, 2026 Frank D. Engel, Jr.
<[email protected]> đã viết:
The best solution is probably to move to a different state.
I would never want to live in California. Too many things
are known to
cause cancer there.
Can you elaborate?
On 2/26/26 10:13, Calvin via 9fans wrote:
> What happens next is country X decides you must do one
thing, and country Y decides you do another, and you come to
TECHNICAL problems and BUSINESS problems and ETHICAL problems
trying to comply with varying laws in every nation, state,
and municipality.
>
> The only answer is to distance yourself and engage in mockery.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 26th, 2026 at 9:18 AM,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am writing to ask whether there has been any discussion
regarding California AB 1043 and its age assurance
requirements that take effect January 1, 2027. The law
appears to require applications to request and honor an
operating system or app store age bracket signal at download
or launch. Since Plan 9 and 9front do not have an app store
model, it is not clear how such a requirement would even be
satisfied in this ecosystem.
>>
>> Has there been any consideration of whether this law
applies to distributed Plan 9 or 9front software, or whether
maintainers intend to take a specific position? I would
appreciate any insight into how the community is thinking
about this.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Vester "Vic" Thacker
> ------------------------------------------
> 9fans: 9fans
> Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Mb78bbdfe1e7996ca8fab832d
> Delivery options:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Me4380b0f1de23542f3079956
Delivery options:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
*9fans <https://9fans.topicbox.com/latest>* / 9fans / see discussions
<https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans> + participants
<https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/members> + delivery options
<https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription> Permalink
<https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Mddd847048ba33b90a010bfb1>
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Mbbf30223788bf24115a04dad
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
