It’s spread to being used by more entities than just BP, but the blame-shifting purpose remains the same.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source (e.g. taxing it enough to fully compensate for its negative externalities), not by trying to guilt-trip individuals.
The same trick is played with recycling. Blame the end consumer for a supply chain completely out of their control.
The biggest polluters are corporations and we stop their pollution by regulation. These mega corps would have you believe that it’s really your fault PFAS are everywhere because you shouldn’t have bought those Teflon coated products. Nevermind the fact that Teflon is everywhere a nonstick surface is needed.
The fact that teflon is still everywhere should be proof enough that regulations are worthless in the face of capitalism (a feature of course, not a bug)
Not really, PFAS have been almost completely unregulated. It is just in the last 2 years that we are starting to see PFAS regulations globally. Up until that point, we allowed companies to literally just dump them down the rain or in a lake.
If regulations were so worthless, you should be asking yourself why every single industry fights new ones. Why the supreme court in the US has taken a position to kill Chevron Deference which weakens federal agencies ability to regulate.
The failure isn’t regulations, the failure is a government system that severely neuters the ability of a government to regulate. The failure is a bunch of science denying corporate captured politicians that don’t care how they destroy the planet.
No, the failure is capitalism and those corporations not wanting to be regulated owning the governments making the regulations.
Which is precisely why any regulation under capitalism is toothless bunk, since it is designed by and for the corporations, to make sure they can keep making money despite it.
Once in a while having a regulation actually come in in time for it to have any impact is like a broken clock being right twice a day, not proof that regulation under capitalism do anything (you claim that teflon now being regulated means regulations work, but can you seriously not see that it taking that long to get bare minimum regulation after decades of pollution and poisoning of consumers is proof that regulations are merely a lip service paid by government to the public to pretend like they're acting in our favour?).
The point isn't - don't regulate industry, it's - at the point where industry has control of government, regulation is meaningless and always in their service, otherwise they wouldn't concede (a little like greenwashing - the oil companies commit to producing x amount of green energy, but what they don't tell you is that that x amount is a tiny fraction of their entire production capability, which they'll continue to use oil for. We're never going to get them to stop using oil, because they just don't have to, no legislation will ever be allowed to pass that will stop them. Which is why eating the rich and blowing up their pipelines is the answer, but I digress).
Eh, don’t really disagree with what you are saying. The problem is money and industry influence in politics and it’s something that needs to be eliminated. I don’t quiet take your point that regulations don’t matter. Assuming money and industry influence are removed from politics we’d see laws and regulations more line with the public interest over corporate interest.
Even if we fully ditched capitalism, you’d still need/want regulations setting the bounds on how government can/should operate.
Yep. The personal responsibility gambit (or should I say fallacy?).
It was such a clever idea, starting with Coca Cola’s “Litterbug” campaign (where they campaigned against bottle deposits under the guise of wanting “personal responsibility” over “regulations.”)
It’s “up to the consumer” to make the right choices. It just so happens that the meat from decently treated animals is five times more expensive and that you have to drive 100 miles to buy it. Or that being environmentally conscious has been made into a tiring exercise in futility where you constantly have to inconvenience yourself.
As an added bonus, individuals trying to convince other individuals to inconvenience themselves in the same way can be painted as obnoxious, holier-than-thou and insufferable. A real double win for unscrupulous big business.
Plenty of other ways from a carbon tax -- not least of which because the carbon tax has itself proven to be a convenient industry distraction that sucks air out of the room.
Especially since it's not clear removal tech will ever be able to ramp up sufficiently to cover continued burning.
A carbon tax is an albatross. It's not even worth seriously discussing. It's ten steps beyond politically infeasible -- probably even more infeasible than actual prohibition. It's innately regressive even if you try to do weird structural things like progressively returning the money (because the return is just going to be economically inefficient and complex tax codes ALWAYS benefit the poor and vulnerable the least).
And most importantly, the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground. We have already pumped out too much and we must move towards pumping no more.
The fossil industry would in many ways LOVE for a carbon tax solution because that would be the exception to prove the rule that continued extraction will be allowed forever. That their business model, which has plenty of cash already, can drill baby drill.
And in the meantime, we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
Then why does CCL actively promote carbon fee and dividend as its most beneficial policy? Your logic doesn’t even make sense - you’re saying the fossil lobby would love to be taxed further? Nonsense. If that were true, we’d have a carbon fee enacted decades ago. It’s not innately regressive, and your reasoning doesn’t even make sense because your entire premise rests on complexity = bad, not any actual logic. This isn’t to say it’s politically feasible, but you haven’t offered a politically feasible method for just stopping drilling altogether. All a carbon fee does is offer a revenue neutral way to slowly and surely shift everyone’s behavior by pricing in externalities. It’s very much viable and equitable, and if you think it’s somehow harder than banning fuel and banning capitalism you’re simply not being serious. We have a market mechanism to prevent bad behavior - taxes and fees. Let’s use them. Feel free to ban extraction too, but that’s not where I’ll be focusing my personal lobbying efforts.
Why does CCL, an organization that was founded by a bunch of neoliberal/Reaganomics businessmen specifically to advocate for setting up a carbon tax, advocate for a carbon tax. Hmm, let me think about that for a few minutes and get back to you...
There's so many voices in the climate movement saying the same things I do -- that chasing carbon taxes and similar politically radioactive policies is terrific waste of time and that we should instead focus on building incentives and public works towards research, infrastructure, and energy investment. But chase that white whale, have fun.
You can’t just call any market based solution “Reaganomics”, but ok. It’s logically inconsistent to say that carbon taxes are favored by industry and neoliberals, when those very people aren’t actually pushing for carbon taxes. Since neoliberals and industry have a stranglehold on policy and they haven’t done it, I must conclude you’re wrong. Why don’t you cite some of the voices "in the climate movement " that are against carbon taxes? I’m not seeing them. What I see is trust the science, and the desire to build political momentum that will results in the science based solutions coming into effect. Things like ending fossil fuels subsidies, requiring utilities switch to renewables, increasing vehicle emissions standards, incentives for electrification, and yes, carbon taxes.
I’m really curious what your actual solution is here. How are you going to get everyone to leave the oil and gas in the ground? A white whale is something you can’t actually find - seems like destroying capitalism or whatever your vague idea is fits that description much better than pricing in externalities via a tax, something that can very simply be layered in to our market structures with our current institutions (and something that is actually happening in dozens of countries, but is somehow impossible according to you).
George Shultz, one of the founders of CCL, was literally one of the guys who helped Regan craft his economic policy vision, and I'm sure many of those he brought on with him were part of that field too. I don't just call anything Reaganomics, but I DO call this shit that way.
If you seriously want to hear different voices, I recommend you start with David Roberts at Volts: https://www.volts.wtf/
He interviews everyone, has clear opinions, and backs up his positions with practical politics.
I already told you my actual solution. You didn't listen.
we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?
There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.
As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.
Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee
But it won't. Politically radioactive. And in the meantime, you could've been advocating for policies that actually have traction. That build constituencies instead of tearing them down.
But whatever. You've got Faith in this policy and there's no point arguing with it.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.
It will then turn out to be completely uneconomical to use fossil fuels at their true price, as it should’ve been.
Renewables are ALREADY out-competing fossils joule for joule and learning curves are only making that delta bigger over time. The US has seen a spate of utilities buying up coal power plants just to shut them down because it is so uneconomical to operate them, yet still we have politicians vowing to support coal just because they like it / to own the libs.
The issue is that there are people who want to use fossil fuels. Many nations' entire economies depend on it. So they'll keep doing it. They'll sell and use the fuels in places that don't tax them, if they have to. They'll literally build demand. They'll push to get every molecule out of the ground and sold, even as returns diminish.
Not to even get into the conservative lunatics who want to keep using them on principle, even knowing they are an economically bad deal.
Even if you could get a carbon tax passed in the US (which is a giant, giant, giant "fat chance"), it'll have more leakage than the tattered Depends worn by all of our politicians.
Meanwhile, like with any tariff, the people hurt most by this carbon tax won't be the producers. Saudi Arabia is not going to agree to pay our taxes. Instead, it'll be the end consumers. Regressively, with the poorest and most vulnerable consumers who cannot afford to immediately electrify hurt the worst.
The philosophy of the IRA is the way to win this fight. Invest, incentivize, and do it progressively. Building a constituency all the way.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to be this extremist, there are other ways to solve climate change. But since we’re already trying to fix it getting rid of capitalism would be the best way because we wouldn’t be fixing just the climate issue, we’d also be fixing a whole slew of other issues that are just next in line after the climate issue.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source
I like this. Balance the cost equation of recycled plastic vs new plastic vs glass/metal (since glass and metal are basically infinitely reusable and recyclable) for single use and minimal use items so they’re more expensive and it tips the scales making many things far more financially-responsible to both produce and consume in a climate conscious manner
Yes, they do. Which is why they’re only giving citation for the ones that DID do the work that made them comfortable, instead of the people that capitalized (note the phrasing) on other people’s hard work.
prepared for the downvotes here, but I cut my teeth in journalism in arts criticism and deeply respect some of the people I’ve known in the field.
I think this kind of opinion - and the irony does not escape me that I’m performing a sort of criticism here - is rather misinformed.
Yes, anyone can be a critic in the same way that anyone who can, slowly and haltingly, play a C Major scale, can be a musician.
But I believe, like my metaphor, that if you were to dive into successful and recognized critic’s (/musicians) work you’d find a lot more depth than you’d expect.
If any — Who are the critics you dislike, and why? If any — who are the critics you do like (even begrudgingly), and why?
I don’t believe all critics are unqualified or unhelpful, just that the barrier for entry is so low that any “critic review” shouldn’t facially be held as more valid than an average consumer’s view.
IMO the worst reviews tend to be from large gaming journalism companies. There’s a lot of systemic problems with them like crunch, people writing reviews on genres they don’t have experience with, nepotism, and them inflating the scores of AAA titles so publishers continue to give them early access allowing them to release reviews in time. These aren’t all necessarily the fault of the writer of each of their reviews, but do degrade the credibility of the review.
Sticking with games there’s good journalism that comes from independent reviewers, like Dunkey, but they’ll typically have a specialty in a particular genre. My general go to is usually reading Steam user reviews, but only taking to heart those voted most helpful that actually give critiques and praises. Independent critics or user reviews in my eye have the great benefits of not being beholden like large studios.
Someone did a great breakdown comparing user and critic game reviews and outlining the gaming industry’s issues in this video: youtu.be/YGfEf8-SNPQ?si=
Off of digital media entirely Project Farm is probably one of the best out there if you’re looking for tools.
I’ve worked as a film critic, and I was shocked by other critics. They didn’t have the knowledge of cinema, directors etc to say anything meaningful other than just what they thought. The they have the film a random (seemingly) star rating or dice toss.
Local and national newspapers here in Norway, and as a freelancer for various cinema magazines in the Nordics. I got a master’s degree in film studies. Didn’t pay much, though
I quite like Mark Kermode because he’s a film historian as well as a critic. I don’t always agree with him but every review he harkens back to the director or actor’s previous catalogue and I can get an entertaining perspective on his view.
"Our current posture with respect to the sponsorship of talc safety studies has been to initiate studies only as dictated by confrontation. This philosophy, so far, has allowed us to neutralize or hold in check data already generated by investigators who question the safety of talc. The principal advantage for this operating philosophy lies in the fact that we minimize the risk of possible self-generation of scientific data which may be politically or scientifically embarrassing."
Americans wouldn’t know about it, but Ribena is a popular (blackcurrant) fruit drink in much of the world, produced by GlaxoSmithKline. For decades they advertised how it was high in vitamin C, until in 2007 some school kids in New Zealand were doing a project to show how it was healthier than cheaper brands, when they found out that it contained no vitamin C.
Reading about Real Water poisoning people with hydrazine recently threw me for a loop… Source
After traditional filtration methods:
Then potassium chloride is added and the water goes through a proprietary “ionizer” apparatus to apply an electrical current to the water. This allegedly created positively charged and negatively charged solutions. Real Water employees would discard the positively charged solution and keep the negatively charged solution.
That initial batch of negatively charged solution would then go through the “ionizer” apparatus and be separated again. The resulting negatively charged solution would then be treated with potassium hydroxide (a form of lye), potassium bicarbonate (sometimes used in baking powders), and magnesium chloride (a salt used in nutritional supplements and for de-icing roads); this formed an “E2 concentrate” product, which, when diluted, formed their alkaline water product.
The FDA identified hydrazine in product samples it tested. In the trial, Issam Najm, an environmental engineer who specializes in water chemistry and testing, testified that the hydrazine likely formed in the “ionizer,” which was just titanium tubes electrified with what looked like jumper cables used to charge a car battery. Najm testified that, in the charged water, nitrogen gas naturally found in air could have reacted with water to form hydrazine (N2H4), or, during the electrolysis, ammonia (NH3) was formed first, before reacting with hydroxide to form hydrazine.
According to Kemp, Real Water never tested for hydrazine, and the meters (made by Hanna Instruments and Milwaukee Instruments) the company used to test alkalinity were allegedly inaccurate, leading Real Water to produce yet more concentrated forms of its product than it thought.
“These people were outrageous,” Kemp said. There was “no safety testing, no analysis of the product to see what was in it.” He said that the person who developed the water treatment process for Real Water bought the titanium tubes “from some Russian guy in the '80s” and spent four to five months making alkaline waters in his garage, working until he had a formula that didn’t make him vomit or have diarrhea.
It makes me think of the irradiated water that was marketed for “vigor!” and bogus cures in the 20s. Still too much snake oil and pseudoscience…
To give an idea how serious, the Crew Dragons use it in their abort system, and the first thing when it comes back is guys in full suits and respirators checking the outside of the capsule for leaks. Pretty much no amount is "safe"
My sister was nearly put on the registry when she was 15 for slapping a friends butt in school who had decided she didn’t want to be friends with her anymore but hadn’t exactly communicated it. She chose to communicate that by accusing her of SA.
My sister avoided the registry by a mix of community service and counseling, but I always thought it was wild that she was at risk while under 18.
Yeah, I remember when everyone was starting to get decent camera phones and then news articles started popping up about high schoolers being picked up by the FBI for producing child porn by sending nudes, and their girlfriend/boyfriend for seeing them. There was a bit of panic, that was then promptly ignored because “it’d never happen to us”.
Can’t imagine how different someones life would be if they were tagged as a sex offender before even turning 18.
I feel completely disconnected… do you mean that zoomers are prude compared to previous generations (I didn’t know that) and that’s because of the fear of getting caught on camera for making saucy jokes/comments?
Gen Z statistically is having much less sex than previous generations. But more importantly, attitudes towards sex are much more negative. Being “ace” is cool. “Consent” has been taken to a ridiculous extreme, to the point that women (it’s always women…note the insidious underlying conservative tones) are seen as unable to consent to sex with men under almost any circumstances.
It’s an unholy union of the misogyny and repressive attitudes of the Right, combined with misandry and cancel culture of the Left. It takes some of the worst parts of both.
Plus it capitalizes on the current “pedophiles around every corner” moral panic.
Look around Lemmy and you’ll see it a lot. Being a normal horny teenager is deeply uncool right now.
Yeah I don’t think this is completely true. I’m not in Gen Z but close enough and I do see that they’re a lot more accepting of a broad spectrum of attitudes toward sex, and that includes asexuality, but I think they’re also quite accepting of people being quite the opposite of that. I think where they get more weirded out and are willing to say so is when people - and because of patriarchy, it’s almost always men, but not always toward women - make sexual comments about real people who aren’t explicitly inviting that. That’s something that has been declining in acceptability over time anyway and Gen Z just more commonly takes it a bit farther, and has a better understanding of consent. But I’ve really never seen this “women aren’t capable of consenting” thing outside of a strawman for people who want to pretend it exists by misinterpreting real criticism.
make sexual comments about real people who aren’t explicitly inviting that
Listen, if cat-calling and unwanted comments go away because of Gen Z, they’ll have my undying gratitude. As it stands I’m just waiting to age into invisibility.
There’s definitely been a sort of… new flavor of conservatism spring up on the left. I would say it was more mid and late era millennials who started really demanding people fall in line though. Gen-Z just sorta inherited the mess. I expect there to be a rebound effect here soon, as this over-sensitivity/over-accommodation/censorship culture is unworkable long term. We’re monkeys wearing business suits inside a violent exploitive natural world. Everything we do harms someone somewhere.
Without getting a signed legal consent document in advance, how do you as a young person prove that any sex act was consensual? You can’t, usually. This can breed crippling fear of real life encounters.
The political/sociological climate tends to affect these things. Combine that with the super easy access to porn and other online options, along with financial strain, and it begins to look like a compelling set of sociological pressures. I haven’t gone out an done a research study, but it seems like a possible train of thought.
I also wonder how much effect an abundance of other options to entertain yourself in general has on the frequency of sex.
For Germany there are statistics that children and teenagers go out less and have smaller friend groups for various reasons. One discussed reason is a shift to favour solitary activities at home (video games, YouTube, Netflix, etc.).
I don’t see why the same wouldn’t be true for young adults and adults as well. And then they turn on Tinder and hope that somehow a sex partner falls out of the clouds and doesn’t mind their untrained social skills.
General social dysfunction leading to people being scared of each other, or just giving up on human interaction because of the risks or frustrations we’re creating.
Can you please link to these statistics? Because I only find news articles on web sites with no statistics either, just various degrees of sensationalism without anything backing up their claims with concrete numbers or how and whom they surveyed.
This brings up a pretty surreal question. If an 8 year old is out on the registry how the fuck do they go to school or daycare or anything? If they can’t go within certain distances of these areas. Imagine not being about to take your 9 year old to the fuckin park.
I don’t really think it’s bizarre. Sex crimes and consensual sex are two very different things. The issue here is that some people seem to be facing consequences that last a lifetime for ‘crimes’ that seem pretty insignificant. But if someone raped another person you’d expect them to face consequences even if they are underage when committing the offence.
Oh sure, that shouldn’t be considered a sex crime unless an adult is manipulating a child into sending them pics, in which case only the adult should be charged with anything.
I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that, if someone can’t consent to sex because they’re underdeveloped, they probably also don’t know what they’re actually doing with regards to sex crimes. In that case, yeah, I think charging someone under 18 with a sex crime is bizarre.
She didn’t seek out that much money. She only wanted money to cover her medical costs. If you feel upset about the amount then you should blame the jury. They’re the ones who came up with the amount. (Which the judge lowered.)
There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn’t a person so it’s not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.
I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -
She wasn’t driving the car, her nephew was.
The car wasn’t moving, he pulled over and stopped so she could put in the cream & sugar.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, the coffee that McDonald’s served was not consumable by a human because of the excessive temperature.
She was hospitalized for 8 days with 3rd degree burns, followed by 2 years of medical treatment.
She only sued for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.
Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”
She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.
Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.
Yes, if you read the trial results, you will see that the jury did find her 20% at fault, but found McDonald’s 80% at fault. It doesn’t matter where she was, the point is that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and wasn’t even consumable. If I buy cup of coffee, I expect it to be drinkable, this was not. Further, McDonald’s KNEW that their coffee was too hot, had received numerous complaints, yet did nothing. That’s what puts them 80% in the wrong - when they’re aware of a dangerous problem and they do nothing to fix it or mitigate the issue. They are negligent. Period, hard stop.
I take it you’ve never seen or experienced burns from boiling water – second degree burns happen nearly instantly, with third degree burns taking seconds.
The temperature it was at can cause third degree burns in three seconds. Please tell me how an elderly woman buckled in a car can get all of the scalding coffee off of herself in under three seconds.
Did you know that liquid at 150F can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds? This was 200F, 133% hotter than liquid that can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. The woman, who it would behoove you to recall was elderly, was sitting down, buckled in, wearing jeans.
Please, explain to me how, in this scenario, you would suggest that an elderly woman remove her now-scalding jeans in 2 seconds or less.
You can’t, because it’s impossible. Now fuck off, you complete piece of human garbage. Go suck corporate dick on reddit.
Edit, hey! Just for fun, here’s one specifically talking about the optimal drinking temperature for hot beverages. It only briefly mentions that the usual serving temp of coffee (~180F) can easily and quickly cause significant scalding, but it goes on to show that the optimal - in terms of customer satisfaction, taste, and safety - is a cool ~140F. www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0305417907002550?via%3Di…
Yep cuz she spilled it on herself trying to put cream in and then she sat in it for like a minute. No way some coffee just poured on ur arm is hot enough to instantly fuse flesh .
Mcd should have paid the initial settlement I agree but the vast damage from this lady’s experience was a result of her own actions.
That’s what people can’t get over.
I get how a jury could get it wrong and pay her for her suffering. And I pity her this experience What I dont get is why people completely absolve her of any responsibility here when her own actions were the first contributing factors.
Even if the coffee wasn’t “too hot”. Her own actions still would have left her burned. That is a fact.
The jury also heard evidence how there had been multiple serious injuries before this lady and yet McD intentionally refused to lower the temperature as the bean counters realized they saved money keeping it hot… people couldn’t drink very much of it in restaurant as they ate their breakfast and therfore didn’t ask for refills. Even though they had paid out claims previously, it was cheaper to keep it hot and keep paying them out despite injuries. The jury thus decided on significant punitive damages to motivate McD to do the right thing.
I mean fair. I’m not trying to side with mcds here, really because I do believe they deserve blame, but I also believe it’s not black and white. They don’t deserve all of the blame here.
If an employee had spilled on her then yes but she literally did it to herself.
Consider however that she wasn’t served this coffee in a store, but in a car. The possibility of spilling the drink is significantly more likely, especially since she wasn’t given a lid. This isn’t the woman’s fault at all, it was a horrible accident just waiting to happen. It’s like if a roller rink covered the floor in grease and periodically had spike pits.
I did a bunch of chemistry lab classes in college, I think I had one each year actually. We regularly heated liquids and worked with concentrated acids. If we had spilled a liquid this hot on ourselves in a similar volume, we would have seen similar burns. It would take longer than 2 seconds to rip off a glove (which is probably fused to your skin very quickly anyway) or disrobe our labcoats. The coffee being spilled on us like this would have given us incredibly severe burns too, and that’s with PPE and emergency safety equipment right there. It would take far, far longer to get to one one of the showers and activate it even.
And this is in a controlled lab environment! There was no heightened risk of spills because of being in a moving vehicle nor having an open cup.
Burn damage occurs in less than a second. Go dip your hand in a pot of boiling water as fast as you can if you want to try it, I’m sure you’ll be just fine.
Exactly. My lazy ass shaves every 2 to 3 weeks when it starts itching. In the summertime more often since a beard sucks when you try to wipe your sweat off…
It still ends up being more work than I’d hoped for (which was 0), but certainly less than staying clean shaven. That and my wife really likes it are my two biggest reasons.
Obtaining a barber license means that you have completed a minimum of 1,250 hours of instruction in barbering education within a period of at least 9 months or completed 1,250 hours of training. It takes 1,250 to 2,000 hours to be a cosmologist. Police in Germany get 2.5 years of training, and in Finland, police education takes three years to complete. Police in the USA get 750 hours.
You mean a cosmetology license. I dated a college instructor, there’s more one needs to know than most would guess. Long story short, there’s a lot of chemistry and health training. It’s shockingly easy to fuck someone up.
One example she gave me, “You can’t use $chemical on old people if their hands look like (whatever I forgot). That’s a symptom of (whatever) and their fingernails will fall off.” Heysus!
Or, “You can’t mix this and that. Makes a wildly exothermic reaction.”
And there’s no grouping “police” in America. According to the FBI, there are 18,000 police departments. They range from LAPD gang bangers to Mayberry cops.
This isn’t saying it isn’t hard to be a cosmetologist, it’s saying it’s far too easy to become a cop. I don’t see anyone saying we should relax the regulations for cosmotology, rather we need to raise them on the police. It’s just absurd that an LEO can order you around, arrest you, and sometimes kill you and the requirements for the job are so low.
I feel like a lot of it is really trivial stuff. Like if he shilled for homeopathic flu “medicine”, then told people to wash their hands regularly during flu season, that’s a 50% hit rate
Chocolate bloom can be repaired by melting the chocolate down, stirring it, then pouring it into a mould and allowing it to cool, bringing the sugar or fat back into the solution.
Yeah, ain’t nobody got time for that. It’ll melt while i eat it anyways.
It’s mostly a concern if you’re going to sell or gift them. I did this for some time, considering to do it again this Easter - it’s laborious but a nice way to get some quick cash.
I… may or may not have done this with bonbons in the past, and then sold the failures as “gourmet chocolate”. It doesn’t work for chocolate eggs because people want them glossy.
Then the ones that I’m planning for my family will get some drawings in white chocolate, so if those get some bloom I’m leaving them as is.
No, I usually make them a week or so before Easter. However if you screw the tempering up it blooms just like if you stored it for years, and given my humid city it’s really easy to screw it up with condensation water due to the double boiler. (You don’t want to heat the chocolate directly. Seriously. Burnt chocolate is as awful as non-burnt chocolate is delicious.)
I’d like to think this is just an elaborate prank that got out of hand. One of the researchers got bored, checked the list of upcoming arrivals and recognized the name of someone who was really into linguistics but had a reputation for being gullible. A couple drinks later, the rest of the nerds out there were on board with the plan to gradually shift their pronunciation of certain words but never acknowledge the change.
Time passes, the not-so-cunning-linguist arrives and almost immediately begins excitedly taking notes. Before they can do the big reveal, this guy publishes a paper on the findings and everybody has to maintain the ruse since they’d feel bad about damaging the reputations of those involved.
Isn’t the US famous for their prison for profit, where prisons are privately owned and states need to pay if there are fewer incarcerated people inside?
Yeah, the states is the most country with for-profit prisons, and not coincidentally incarcerates the 6th highest percentage of its population of any country, just about half a percent of the total population at any time, or somewhere under 2 million people.
But boy howdy, do those percentages change when you control for economic class and ethnicity.
They aren’t “airtight”, that would awful. They are well-insulated and designed to take advantage of passive solar heating and air exchange cooling. The way roofs and windows and orientation on the land is usually done for western homes is just terribly inefficient for capturing and releasing heat in the right ways. Just some thick walls, a bank of windows facing the sunrise ,and some proper roof vents that can be opened when it’s hot is all most passive houses really are.
They literally need to meet airtightness requirements to meet the Passive House standard. It’s tested with a blower door test to check the air exchange rate at a prescribed negative pressure. You may be referring to a loose definition of passive house, instead of the standard, though. Airtightness is not “awful” as you suggested - mechanical ventilation provides fresh air
Yes, they certainly have to meet requirements for air exchange. And if you define “airtightness” as that, then yes, the ones that met that definition met that definition. What they are not is the common definition of airtightness, as in a sealed glass jar, steel can, scuba tank, or submarine, which if you look at the comments here was what was confusing a lot of people. I don’t think anyone was contending that there aren’t tests that these houses have to pass, just that the word airtightness, as understood by laypeople, isn’t an accurate term to describe these homes.
I’d bet money that won’t work well here in the southwest USA where it’s been above 110F (43C) for almost 60 days in a row and above 115F (46C) for almost 30 days in a row.
88 is pretty fast, but not really time-travel fast. People frequently drive 80-95 on some roads in the US, especially now that speed limits are commonly 65-75 and as high as 85. I also recall when 55 was the standard.
til
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.