[dmitriid]

See, the remain side is interested. That's why they ask: "can you give examples of ridiculous laws". And the leave side... cites laws that cut the use of hazardous materials in electronics.

Perhaps you want to return to asbestos, too?

[cyberdelica]

> See, the remain side is interested. That's why they ask: "can you give examples of ridiculous laws". And the leave side... cites laws that cut the use of hazardous materials in electronics. Perhaps you want to return to asbestos, too?

Nice try - but I gave three examples of ridiculous regulations/legislation/law - not one.

Your cherry picking, and attempted distortion of my example(s), only demonstrates my previous statement.

The quantities of lead, in solder, is not hazardous to workers assembling boards. With the current state of electronics recycling, there is no danger of the “lead” being leeched into the ecosystem.

The higher temperatures required to solder, non leaded varieties, are also antithetical to the so called “energy conservation” rhetoric, favoured by the EU borg.

You provide no response to the ridiculous vacuum cleaner wattage limitations? Lower wattage cleaners, with less “suck”, take longer to clean the same surface area. Not only a waste of human effort, but electricity, too.

Also, no response(s) to my EU/IFRA perfumery example?!

These were just examples that came to mind, immediately. I’m sure if I could be arsed, I could completely eviscerate the comments from you, and others here - but I already know, that you’re not interested, and it’ll simply result in more “drive by quips”, and probably admin warnings, from your ilk.

That’s how Hacker News works. Flagging, downvotes, drive by ad hominem attacks, from pseudo intellectuals...

Where’s that picture of a teste in an egg cup, when you need it?!

[dmitriid]

See, you accuse your opponents of the tactics you yourself employ.

Second, it takes significantly more effort to disprove misinformation and lies than to produce those.

Yes, I latched on to just one of the examples because if one is not a valid example, why am I to believe that the other examples are somehow good?

To continue with the first example, no, our methods of recycling are not enough. The vast majority of electronics end up in landfills, so it makes sense to both a) reduce the amount of hazardous materials in them (this "ridiculous law") and b) improve recycling (possibly other regulations).

The same, undoubtedly, goes for other "ridiculous" examples: misinformation, uncritical quotes from biased parties, and possibly outright lies.

However, it costs you nothing to spew this. It costs a lot of time to disprove you.