418_im_a_teapot @ 418_im_a_teapot @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

130

Joined

12 mo. ago

The problem isn’t consumer education, it’s implicit market collusion.

Nailed it. And this is why your comment about notifying customers is also correct. Consumers barely have a choice. Everything is overpriced.

they aren’t going to spend 5 minutes comparing the prices of soda bottles so they can squeeze out less than a dime’s worth of savings.

It’s all about those percentages. My favorite chips went from 60¢/oz to 85¢/oz. Clearly not worth my time in terms of absolute price difference, but that’s a 41.67% increase. If I just ignore the amount through my whole grocery trip, the difference at the checkout line is huge. It becomes worth my time very quickly.

Ok, but how do you see the proposed legislation playing out? How do you expect congress to set a specific amount of product that can no longer be reduced? It’s not like anyone can trust congress to revisit the law when changes are needed. Companies will just start making “six packs” of individual things that used to be sold as a six units per container in order to maintain flexibility to shift quantities in the future. This will lead to way more packaging.

Regulating capitalism is a very good thing, but I don’t see how it makes any sense in this case with the proposed legislation.

Are you surprised???

Implied in your question is the notion that a billionaire or corporation can never be right about a given topic. That just isn’t true.

Also, on any given topic people will have differing opinions for different reasons. Having an opinion that happens to align with a billionaire or corporation isn’t the same as defending those entities. Often you’re stuck siding with one of those entities no matter what side of an issue you fall on.

I like Mark Cuban’s efforts to lower prescription costs. Does that mean I’m siding with a billionaire? If you don’t agree with me should I be able to dismiss your opinion as support for the pharmaceutical industry?

Life isn’t black and white. Opinions can be nuanced and complex. I rarely see any comments defending companies for the pure love of capitalism. Reducing people’s opinions to an easy-to-villainize stance is just that – reductive. It doesn’t aid in meaningful conversation.

This one caught me (emphasis mine):

Investigators said they saw officers repeatedly use force against Black people but NEVER against a White person.

He’s a fucking legend.

Ransom is underrated IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

Absolutely

It’s very likely

https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/german-authorities-apparently-cracked-tor-anonymity-but-onion-heads-say-its-still-safe

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/01/the-fbi-identified-a-tor-user.html

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/use-of-tor-helped-fbi-finger-bomb-hoax-suspect/

Plus, you aren’t disconnecting a person, but a whole family or business.

And since many areas in the US only have one provider, you force that family to cancel all streaming services they might have. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation.

One of these outcomes is irreversible. Preventing that outcome should take precedence over any other factor in the case.

NRA stickers are probably way more effective.

Over 400 school shootings since Columbine. We as a society have failed our children.

Why do people downvote others who are just asking questions? I’ll never understand the mindset. You ask an honest and genuine question and people just downvote it for no reason. I don’t get it.

I take offense to the teapot joke. Leave the teapots out of it.

Exactly.

https://youtu.be/sx2scvIFGjE?si=hha-D5q9yBH8oqW_

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is not going to be jail time in this case, so how would it even be election interference?

The lettuce image and joke arose from the final days of Truss’s premiership, when the Daily Star launched a live stream of a lettuce to see whether Truss’s battle to survive in No 10 could last longer than a 60p iceberg lettuce from Tesco.

Epic.