That makes sense, but it’s still strange because it means in the case of a fire the entire building has to be treated the same anyway because there is something in the building that reacts with water even if its separate.

I guess it is helpful to indicate that there are multiple substances that have different reaction profiles, but it still seems strange to me.

The reason for listing them separately is because each individual chemical has its own ratings. You can’t simply take the highest of each and combine them into a single sign. For instance, in this case one chemical isn’t flammable but is explosive when heated. The other chemical is flammable but not explosive. So if you see a chemical on fire, you know it’s the second chemical and isn’t explosive. But if you see something that isn’t burning in a room full of fire, you know it’s a potential powder keg waiting to explode.

Okay, so the two signs on the building have a weird combination.

The sign on the left indicates something that isn’t flammable, but reacts with water. The sign on the right indicates something that is flammable, but there’s no risk of reacting to water. If the building caught fire then a first responder on the scene has to read both signs at the same time. They can’t spray the building with water because the non-flammable substance would react with the water.

So why aren’t the signs combined? They have to be treated the same anyway.

Sure, but I don’t think the building should have two labels. I think it should have one label that reflects a warning for everything in the building.

Imagine you have a crate with two different chemicals. The chemicals are in different bottles so they aren’t mixed, and each bottle has its own label.

Should the crate have two unidentified labels like this, or one? There’s no indication what those labels refer to on the building.

But the building, as a whole, pesents the combined risk of both chemicals.

But it’s just slapped on the side of the building with no indication of which chemicals the labels are for, I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to be done. It’d be like mixing two chemicals into a bottle and then putting two labels on it.

I think there should just be one label that combines the warning levels of both i.e. 3-2-2-W

As others have said, these are NFPA signs.

What I want to know is why there are two different ones. What the hell does that mean?

Any time we use words in a way that’s different from a conversation it requires learning. That ranges from argumentation to story telling to, in this case, search queries. If it’s different from talking to another human, it’s a different skill.

Well either they sell them at a loss or they just let them sit on lots forever.

Tesla would rather recoup some revenue than just scrap all their remaining inventory.

Cynicism. I think it’s important for people to know that these people all belong in prison.

Yes? People aren’t born knowing how to use search engines. You learn this stuff.

Surely you see how using a search engine is a separate skill from just writing words?

Point is, people don’t want to learn. Natural language searches in the form of questions are just easier for people, because they already know how to ask questions.

Do you think you were born knowing what search terms are?

We spend most of our time communicating with humans so we’re generally better at that than communicating with algorithms and so it feels more comfortable.

Most people don’t want to learn to communicate with a search engine in its own language. Learning is hard.

Okay, but you said “doesn’t sound too bad”

Insider trading sounds pretty bad, regardless of the fact that it is normal.

At some point prices will get so low that it’ll make sense to buy a Tesla and rework the body so no one knows it’s a Tesla.

It’s only entrapment if you’re rich.

Communities, or cliffs (cuz lemmings)

Pretty sure consuming carbs makes me sleepy.

I’ll be shocked to hell and back if they would actually use force, even if they’re authorized to do so.

Oh! That makes more sense lol