I think it's quite the opposite, a judge would mock you for such a lousy attempt. It's pathetic, disconnecting the machine is a simple process and it ensures all patrons are safe, not just the ones who notice this tiny sign.

A decent example would be a elderly customer who is visually impaired. They may already frequent this machine and know what buttons they gotta press for their favourite snack. Sure sometimes they get it wrong and something else pops out but that's ok they aren't too picky.

But now introduce the danger of one of these options being an actual poison and the seller admitted they are aware they are selling poison among food? The judge would use this sign to make an example of you.

[–] Rev3rze@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago

The judge would use this sign to make an example of you.

As they should. It seems like common sense that this sign should be enough and anybody that ignores it "is an idiot that has themselves to blame for the discomfort of food poisoning". But it's suddenly a whole different story when your grandma of 82 has died a painful death from severe salmonella infections just because she forgot her reading glasses that day.

The risk of death is tiny but nevertheless an unacceptable risk to assume just so some other people can keep buying their snack for a couple of days instead of shutting down the machine.