• ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m imagining obvious fire damage and a chalk outline of intern Redshirt in front of the machine…

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      you know, i bet it’s literally missing its primary control surface. like a tractor with the entire cab missing and some higher up was concerned someone would try to use it and hurt themselves.

      • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if someone did try to use it, but also don’t see why anyone would think a little red tag would prevent such a person from trying anyway.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The red tag isn’t to stop it, it’s to document the stupidity. Now when it goes to court/WCB, there’s documented proof that they tried to ensure even a moron would understand it’s not safe to use

          • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            yeah, it’s likely for insurance or regulatory reasons.

            insurance will find any reason possible to deny your claim. even if that is a failure to remove the keys from the ignition after the car burst into flames.

            regulators shouldn’t allow slack. with any company in a regulatory situation they will to exactly as much as they’re allowed to get away with. give them an inch, they take a Mile. letting hazard tags slide based on judgement creates space for corruption and abuse. following procedures to the letter with strict documentation can help curtail that.