Hacker News Reader

Comment by dghlsakjg | Hacker News Reader

Your understanding of how liability works is flawed.

Manufacturing products overseas doesn't exempt you from liability for selling t-shirts that are too flammable. I can still sue The Gap for selling me a dangerous item that they made in Bangladesh as easily as I can sue them for selling me a dangerous item that they made in San Francisco.

View on HN

You can test clothing for flammability, then again if the design materially changes.

Food doesn't work this way - each jar has a low chance of contamination, so spot testing won't catch the problem. Small changes in manufacturing procedure can result in big changes in safety.

source: worked in the wholesale food industry, across 300+ categories.

Is the spot we're testing the blood and mold on the factory wall?

Try suing LOBNDX for their faulty charger you bought on Amazon.

> Try suing LOBNDX for their faulty charger you bought on Amazon.

That's why I don't buy LOBNDX, I only buy LUOATIP, sold with 【No Burn House Down】feature.

Really, that's why I try to just never shop at Amazon.

The odd rounded-inside-bracket-things that show on these product listings are kind of funny. I wonder if future archaeologists will track them like pottery shards, haha.

I am curious to the usage of those. Like, why that character instead of the more common square brackets? Why do these sellers commonly choose that symbol? To me it's often kind of a flag of potentially questionable quality, so I'd like to know why they do that.

If anyone has insight to share I'd love it.

I have no actual insight, but I’ll offer this theory up in the hopes that I’ll learn something by being corrected.

I assumed they were the default on some Chinese site (alibaba or temu or something like that), and just got copied over by default.

I wouldn't doubt it's some default from whatever cross listing tool that's common but I have no knowledge of. Definitely a deep world to explore that I currently only have a surface level knowledge of.

Always another rabbit hole to explore.

And yet manufacturer liability was a significant causal factor in domestic textile production collapsing

Making sure they employees don't all die in horrendous fires is why US textile production collapsed? Do you have a citation for that? Because that sounds insane. I thought it moved overseas because they can pay children pennies, not because they literally want to roast their peons alive.

I linked to the cited case in my comment; it's an interesting read, and I suggest that you check it out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42452760

The suit you cited happened in 1961. However, in the 1950s every domestic textile category had seen at least double digit declines (97% for wool!), while imports had seen triple digit growth (cotton fabric imports tripled). The industry was already well on its way to failure, so I have a hard time believing there is a causal relationship.

As I stated before, the liability still exists even when you manufacture outside of the country. There are no net cost savings from a liability lawsuit standpoint to be had by moving production overseas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com