abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm guessing you're not in the US with your thoughts on drink sizes, but remember that this happened in the US.

That part is actually what’s misleading. I don’t know anybody who gets 20 or 30 oz cups of dark roast drip coffee. 10 oz is a more reasonable size

A Dunkin Large is a 20oz hot coffee or 32oz Iced Coffee, and yes you can ask for "no ice" which is common enough they finally had to make it an upcharge. They ALSO sell an XL in my area, which is a 24oz hot. A 10oz here is called a "Small" and they don't sell many of those. Usually just to people like my 80 year old mother-in-law.

A more useful comparison would be that one lemonade is like having two or three dark roast coffees.

...except that Panera's standard size for hot coffee is a 16oz, and the large is 20oz. And we the complaint keeps saying "dark roast" because their light roast coffee matches these lemonades for total caffeine content (384 for a large vs 390 for a 30oz lemonade).

Nothing about this drink is anywhere out of proportion of a typical coffee drink in the US.

He spent it in hopes trump would return the favor. There is no evidence Trump requested it.

There is no evidence he spent it in a vain hope without knowledge he was buying something, either. There's an extremely suspicious money trail, and it should be investigated. There may be a criminal presumption of innocence, but there is at least probable cause of illegal activity here.

I hope you keep the same attitude when looking at people who donated to the Clinton foundation.

The Clinton Foundation is a charity. IF there was evidence of the Clintons using it to launder money, it should be investigated as well. You've already agreed there's one side to the quid pro quo here. Nobody in their right mind would think donating to help children or the environment would earn them favors from the Clintons... but laundering dirty money through the rental of unused hotel rooms is actually the plot a crime show and security articles. Spending $1m on hotel rooms you don't intend to use is a massive red flag on both sides of the equation. I'd go so far as to say that most hotels that became aware that kind of transaction was happening would reject it for liability reasons because it looks too much like a blatant laundering scheme..

In the typical laundering scheme, you then request a refund and receive it in clean money. When it's a payment for something, obviously, you receive that something right at the end of the return window, turning the Hotel into an illegal semi-escrow.

Don't get me wrong, charities can be used for the illicit transfer of money. But there's a paper trail for that and inordinate amounts of money needs to go to someone.

Which is why when people immediately presume it was her fault for not checking, it’s pretty gross

Agreed. Even if it were a simple mistake, somebody died and that fact should be taken seriously. Never blame the dead person. The question, then, is whether to blame anyone at all.

That said, the article is not very convincing to me that Panera did anything wrong. It could be because the argument is truncated, but some of the quotes in the article are dead guilty of giving a fairly one-sided view of the reality.

What I see as a failure would have been missing or hidden signage, as some Panera locations keep that drink behind the counter. The quote directly states that's not the case here. And in the same move, pointing out it was near "less caffeinated" drinks, it's obvious that dispenser was near at least the iced tea and sodas. IF it was sitting next to iced tea and had the standard signage (posted by others here), I don't see Panera having done anything wrong. But we don't know if those statements are all true, that's just what I extrapolate from quotes and explanations about the complaint.

All we really know for sure is that she wouldn’t have drunk it if she knew it were caffeinated + guarana, and certainly wouldn’t have poured a whole 30oz for herself if she suspected it, and that she clearly has a habit of checking already. So either something went tragically wrong at the wrong time, or multiple things did

"Gone wrong" can still be a tragic mistake. As a lot of people said "I don't read signs if I'm in a hurry". I've ordered food items before that the menu clearly said had ingredients I was dangerously allergic to and I missed it until I received the food item. Short of verbally asking "are you able to consume 200mg sugar? Are you able to consume 360mg caffeine?" of every ingredient of every food product in every restaurant, tragic things will still occasionally happen. And if we did THAT, someone might well say "yeah yeah whatever". And if THAT did happen and someone died, it's still not appropriate to bring up personal responsibility.

Also, even just 260mg of caffeine is WAY more caffeine than anyone needs in one drink, even if its considered “safe”.

That's the caffeine content in a large hot coffee from Dunkin Donuts, one of the most popular orders in the my region of the world. Putting it proportion, this lemonade is about 2/3 of the caffeine, oz for oz, of black coffee. Have you seen a 30oz drink? They're fairly massive.

I looked up the picture of the machine where the drink is served, and it says at the very bottom how much caffeine is in it, but if someone is on their way to work or class then they probably aren’t stopping to read the literature on what they thought was just plain lemonade

I've accidentally ordered food I was allergic to, so I get it. There's absolutely nothing a company can do to be 100% sure nobody will ever order food that will harm them.

Panera missed the opportunity for splashy marketing (at least where I was)

Interesting. All I knew about this stuff before this article was that it was highly caffeinated. I haven't tried it (and don't plan to. I like coffee) but it's really obvious in some areas.

If there's a big sign that says "Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract" with "30 fl oz | 530 cal | 389 mg caffeine" on the sign she was staring at when she poured her drink, that might make things a bit complicated.

The Panera signage seems obvious enough about caffeine that (assuming the signage was in place) I can't imagine any more correct action Panera could have taken short of having a person stand there asking people if they have heart conditions.

I mean, imitation crab meat often has trace lobster in it and nobody advertises that. It falls under "let our associates know if you have any dietary restrictions or food allergies". Did she say "I can't have caffeine" and then they let her fill her cup with charged lemonade? This is a beverage that is marketed on being caffeinated, and every piece of advertising, signage, etc features the caffeinated nature prominently because it's a major selling point of it.

Nobody should be blaming her. But unless this Panera did stuff very different from the Panera standard, it was sufficient.

And you're right about the legal implications of her medical condition. But I don't see many people suggesting it's her fault because she had a heart condition.

There's a gulf between "personal responsibility" and "wrongful death" called "tragedy".

I don't think anyone should be blaming the dead girl. But the limited evidence I've seen so far doesn't make Panera look guilty either.

I have a lobster allergy. I am very, very vigilant about it because I don't like being rushed to the ER. I had imitation crab meat that happened to have lobster in it once. Didn't even think to ask. That was my fault.

The charged lemonade was “offered side-by-side with all of Panera’s non-caffeinated and/or less caffeinated drinks

I'd love to see a picture of that. At my local Panera it's right next to the ice tea and has a giant sign on it about being highly caffeinated. There's a few pictures around about them behind the counter with no visible sign, so lacking more info this above quote works in Panera's favor for me.

advertised as a “plant-based and clean” beverage

Let me complete the sentence. It's advertised as "Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract". The quote provided in the article comes from the posted caffeine notice. The other ones are advertised as "Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee". And the plaintiff is trying to argue "it has more caffeine than the dark roast", which is one of those "misleading truths" I've gotten into elsewhere. It's less caffeinated per ounce, and not the highest caffeine drink they sell.

…The charged lemonade also has guarana extract, another stimulant, as well as the equivalent of nearly 30 teaspoons of sugar

For guarana, it's on the sign but not advertised as well. If the entire complaint was that she couldn't have guarana, they might have a point. If the complaint is that the sign was missing or hidden, they would have a point. Every piece of signage online or in-store I've seen they have the word "Charged", they mention that it's caffeinated.

I don't want to say personal responsibility... fuck that. Somebody died. It's a tragedy, but short of more info than in the article, not wrongful death. Thing is, this could be like the McDonalds coffee thing where a lot of people left out that the coffee temperature was calibrated wrong and the lady got third degree burns from it.

why is a quadruple monster sold at a place famous for their soup?

Let me ask the counter-question. Why is a half-strength coffee sold at a place known as a major coffee-and-study spot?

Panera as a business has often needed to ride multiple markets to survive, and the giant coffee setups they've had for the last 20 years when you walk in every door doesn't scream "soup". Have you ever heard of the Unlimited Sip Club? They sell various drinks, but the primary marketing image is a girl holding a giant iced coffee (which has at least as much caffeine as the charged lemonade). And honestly, they've always been fairly open about the fact almost every beverage they sell is caffeinated and there are absolutely (unlimited refill) items on the menu with more caffeine than these charged lemonades.

The only argument that IMO gives Panera any responsibility on this is the people who showed pictures of SOME Paneras where the giant" as caffeinated as our coffee" sign is hidden behind the counter. They literally lie upwards in caffeine content in their warnings (20oz of this drink is only as caffeinated as 8oz of their coffee but they say it's the same content)

If I were an asshole lawyer, I would file a suit that they were misleading by claiming it's as caffeinated as their coffee. In fact, I'm guessing that would be their slam-dunk defense except we all know they'll settle because they don't want bad press.

The larger issue is that caffeine should be regulated to a higher degree than it is

Does that mean you also want to put coffee and iced-coffee dispensers under lock and key? They have a LOT more caffeine than this drink. I've paid for bottomless coffee before and taken generous advantage of it. The issue was this girl had an underlying medical condition and was supposed to avoid caffeine. Period.

And their lawyers argument is that Panera doesn't sell a dark roast coffee with 390ml total caffeine because they're 16oz cups (with unlimited refills)

Honestly, it's a tragedy. But Panera is only to blame if there's information we don't have in the article that makes them so.

It's about as caffeinated as an equal-size Dunkin iced coffee. It doesn't seem insane to me. Panera has a non-coffee option for people who want to study with the cafe experience.

...which is why the sign also says it's as much caffeine as coffee.

I mean, the label already says "has as much caffeine as coffee". Short of only selling caffeine at a dispensary with giant warnings, I'm not sure there's any action that could or should be taken.

the fact remains that no one would drink 3000 ml of coffee a day

This sounds like a lot, but it's only two pots. I used to do that all the time. I'm kinda surprised that "no one would". I know it wasn't healthy and I stopped because it was affecting my health.

Maybe it's just my area. A Dunkin Large is 700ml, and I know people who pound 2 in the morning and have one over lunch on a normal day. Then actually (their/our words) drink coffee on the tough hangover days.

That I'm on board with. I worked IT at a company that processed overdraft debt and it was a breeze because the Banks have disgusting amounts of leverage against the poor customer.

But I also think this is a case of "we don't care about the poor people, even enough to come up with ideas to hurt them". They came up with this process that works well for middle-class and provides reliable profits, and they won't actually look into the fact that it fucks with poor people because they don't care. A few banks were giving my previous employer up 40% of their overdraft revenue to collection companies for years without a second thought. It's not a lot of money for them, but it's profits and they don't care to change what makes money. And for most lower-middle-class folks, a rare fee because a bill doesn't quite overlap with a paycheck is "better than being SOL"

I'm not gonna defend banks very often, but in fairness, it's opt-out because most people prefer a $35 fee to having a payment rejected. There's multiple reasons for that:

1. Payment Rejection or "returned check" fees usually exceed $35 and have worse consequences
2. They don't always know whether you're about to spend more or less than you have until they've committed to pay that for you. Most people would not prefer they reject all holds at places like gas stations just because you don't have enough money on hand to cover the maximum.
3. Emergencies are just that. If you keep a perfect checkbook (lol), then you're overdrafting because whatever is happening to you is worse than the $35 overdraft fee.

Now to put on my "but fuck banks" hat:

The REAL problem, IMO, is that the fee amounts to usury and should be regulated like any other debt. In most cases, your overdraft is equivalent to thousands of percent interest on the overdraft amount. Some "more honest" banks will limit your fee to the total amount overdrawn, making only 100% in fees (still over 36,000% effective APR if it's all reconciled the next day). A few banks have come up with "small overdraft forgiveness" where they'll just bloody not charge you a $35 fee over a dollar or two (like the guy in another thread has). But the DDA/overdraft market is so badly regulated, they can basically do whatever they want and then can collude to keep you from opening a bank account with another bank.

Fair enough. I think my arguments still stands less the obvious anecdotes. I decided to explain my thoughts a bit deeper in another thread if anyone's interested.

IDK, I think that form of argument is a bit like reading tea leaves, up to interpretation and easy to align with preconceived notions.

I'm utilizing established psychological and business concepts and applying them to the gaming industry only to recognize that the outcome is a number I would have predicted. But, I never mind a good cup of tea either, I just use those leaves to guess the stock market (kidding, obviously). The stock market, ironically, seems to agree with me on this. CK3 released 9/2020 in the middle of COVID. Paradox stock went up $10 per share coming up on release date, held for a few months, and then broke falling to pre-CK3 levels fairly quickly. Compare to other gaming companies. Blizzard/Activision grew 20% in the same timeline with no coinciding game releases at all.

Obviously, you have to take any stock change with a grain of salt, as news and random events can affect stock prices. But product expectations (both internal and external) drive stock. Of course, one could just say "maybe CK3 underperformed against expectations, but it's not related" but if I have to pick between the model that predicted reality and a model that has to say "maybe", I pick the former.

What we need to make a strong argument is a comparison with similar games where one set follows a release model and the other follows a DLC model. Then look at initial sales vs lifetime sales, development budgets, how much discounts impact sales, etc.

Are you suggesting that games are somehow "different" from other market segments in this way, despite prima facie being affected by exactly that?

That said, a game like CK or EU targets a niche audience, so they want to get more value from the initial game development, so DLC makes sense

I don't disagree. Any niche product with a highish budget needs to consider creative monetization strategies. If you can't sell the product for enough to make a profit, then you can't really justify developing it. That doesn't mean the strategy paradox used for CK2 wasn't going to affect sales for CK3. I don't know what I'd do if I were a decisionmaker at Paradox because it's not an easy problem. I'm not saying they didn't do the best they could, only that I am fairly convinced CK2's model influences the sales of CK3.

Better send that bully to juvie than letting them keep on bullying other innocent children.

Unless you plan on locking that bully up for a long time or overhauling several systems, you're statistically creating worse than just a bully with juvie. The current legal system doesn't have a good measured response for bullying. You either do almost nothing or dis-proportionally (and ineffectively) punish them.

Fuck bullies and their future.

And fuck their victims, too? Because bullies only have a slight chance (still much higher than non-bullies) of becoming adult offenders, but if you put them in juvie, that number skyrockets.

Look. I have no sympathy for bullies, and had to deal with my share of them. But when someone decides the answer in a broken system is to increase the suffering of minors, that's when I put my foot down.

I don't have kids, but I know some teachers AND some cops... police don't like to get involved in bullying because it could ruin some kid's future for being "young and dumb". Putting a kid "into the system" for shoving a younger kid in a locker strikes them as "could make that kid not grow up to be a productive adult".

And they have a point. Juvie does bad things to kids, according to everyone I know who has been there or who has had a kid go there. They're as likely to be scared-violent as scared straight.

And as you and I know, it's about scaring the school straight, not the kids. But the school often knows all this. Especially small-town schools.

So when considering whether to pull the trigger on CK3 or spend more time in your beloved CK2, where does your head go?

It's not a bad thing that you think CK2 was worth every penny. I think my espresso machine was worth every penny. But I don't buy lattes or make drip coffee because I have it and it cost me more than I thought I'd ever spend.