Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
todayilearned	It still works with fractions and decimals. Think of it like tracing your hand with a ruler, if you choose to draw in segments of say 2cm the outline is on the scale a bad approximation but the total distance of line may be 45. If you do the same with something like 0.2cm the approximation comes closer and the perimeter increases, you can keep decreasing the ruler size and get a closer approximation but you could always decrease the the ruler size and get a closer approximation all the while increasing the perimeter
todayilearned	By "measure in km" they mean if you took a ruler that size. If you convert the units to meters, it would disagree with the measurement if you measured with a ruler of a meter. Does that make sense? Basically, measuring something is different than stating the length. All "measurements" of a coastline are estimates is basically the reason behind this. The way people are using "measure" here is as the most basic meaning of the verb "to determine the length of." Your last section should be: >The fact is you can state the length of something in kilometers without using a kilometer long stick to measure it.
todayilearned	This is why we should never sell our water. And a big _FUCK YOU_ to Nestle, who has stolen it. I hope one day, you get payback by an avalanche crushing one of your factories, and others get sucked into a hole in the earth, and others become destroyed by flooding. Nestle makes Dick Cheney seem almost human in comparison. And it reminds me of this old passage : “When the Last Tree is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize You Cannot Eat Money” https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/ _Canada NEEDS to tell Nestle to stop stealing our water, or get the fuck out of our country._ ಠ_ಠ
todayilearned	Dying by moose is a real cause of death on Canadian Highways. I don't know that anyone has ever assembled an actual annual figure but it would not surprise me if the annual total was greater then 50 people deceased in moose/car accidents per annum. My dad was driving through Alqonquin Park about 15 yrs ago and a moose just jumped right out in front of the car. He was only going about 25km/hr - the speed limit in the park is low just for such reasons but the car was declared a write off by the insurance company. Their air bags went off so they were not seriously hurt by the moose, which bounced off the windshield among its many bounces and kicks. It walked away relatively unharmed. Any Canadian who lives in a rural area will attest to what moose can do. They are gorgeous majestic creatures but freaking dangerous in more ways then one would imagine. &#x200B;
todayilearned	From Vic, getting educated in Van, here's my $0.02 Vancouver is pay to play. It takes ages to get anywhere, and its uber expensive to own a car here and it'll still take ages to get anywhere. The transit is way better, no contest, and booze in bars is actually approachably priced (around half what they charge in Vic). Closest natural beauty is up the Sea to Sky, very pretty and very expensive. Very international populace in Van. Being on the mainland brings you a ferry ride closer to any given mainland road trip destination, eg California, the Okanagan, interior ski resorts. Victoria is very laid back, way less conspicuous consumption than Van. Considerably more natural beauty that is considerably closer. You need a car way more in Vic cause the transit sucks, but it rains 100 fewer days per year than Van so riding a bike is more consistently non-horrible. Vic has superior outdoor lake experiences to be had, all of Vancouver's swimming lakes are >40 mins from DT. However Victoria is insanely homogeneous compared to Vancouver. For living, if you can get a really good job as a skilled professional in Vancouver, it's a fine place to be. For a vacation, Victoria/VI outshines Vancouver due to it's proximity to superior outdoor adventure areas. Vancouver wins in rock climbing, skiing and fancy bougie shit. For raising a family, Victoria hands down. It's growing fast so it's liable to change over the course of time that a family is raised, but I think you can't beat the more relaxed pace and simpler lifestyle that Vic has to offer.
todayilearned	Yeah, the banana harvest might be late this year. Lol. Oh, no, wait, Vancouver really is terrible, Americans! Actually, all of Canada is! The geese are vicious, the dogsled traffic on the 401 is unreal, and between the wild moose and grizzly bears ripping up the igloos all the time, it's unreal. Not to mention the damn elk assaulting you at the bank machine, and wolves on the golf course.... You're better off where you are.
todayilearned	Common sense would in terms of what was described above relate to a particular frame of reference. Common sense would have no value in measuring your yard in terms of ant foot falls to cross one end to the other nor would it value the time relative for an orbiting satellite in LEO to pass its length projected into the orbital path. A civilization made up of self aware satellites or ants however may not agree.
todayilearned	Eli5 here: the thing about the coastlines is that they are infinitely "rough", which means that the smaller ruler you use, the better. Imagine measuring a country on a map, if you use a 30cm stick, it's not as accurate as using a 10cm stick, and not as accurate as using a 1cm stick. And the coastlines using 1cm stick maybe TWICE than using the 30cm stick (just and e.g). So measuring the coastlines indeed all depends on different methods.
todayilearned	I'll agree it's not a real paradox. It's counterintuitive though. Say you've got an island that's roughly circular, one mile across. Its circumference should be roughly 3.14 miles, right? But then you look closer and there's a lot of inlets and fjords, peninsulas and estuaries. You factor those in, and all the sudden your island is 300 miles in diameter. Measure closer and it's 30,000 miles in diameter. Clearly not a logical conclusion when you assume the answer would be roughly pi from the geometry of the thing.
todayilearned	>You have that hard of a time accepting you were wrong? Lol Ok listen buddy. It's very obvious by your comment you thought there were grizzlies all over the island. That or you're terrible at grammar. Either way you're clearly the one in the wrong, you literally cited an article that said exactly what I said, they sometimes come over from the mainland, so how am I 'wrong'? I tried to give you an out by saying I don't really care to argue about something so petty but you kept going, despite your comment literally being right above, showing that you're bullshitting this whole time. "Grizzlies and cougars aplenty" not "We have cougars aplenty and sometimes grizzlies". You need to grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong. It's the internet, it does not matter this much. You've clearly dug yourself in so deep so I'm assuming this is just going to keep going until I give up, so that's it, I'm done wasting my time on this lmao.
todayilearned	I mean, stuff like this bothered me way back when I was in school. But now, I've realized that that language is always changing. Ain't is a word now and it is in the dictionary. The thing is, words in a language are not made by dictionaries; they are made by people using it and giving it meaning. It's not dumb for a language to evolve. In fact, it's healthy. The only languages that don't evolve over time are dead ones.
todayilearned	> The coastline isn't "the entire stretch of sandy beach", it's "where the water touches the coast". Fine, that's a fair way to look at it but then it becomes entirely impossible to measure the coastline at all because it's constantly changing dramatically at an atomic level. For practical purposes, I think it would be fair to say that the "coast" is the section of land that is typically covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide. Which, depending on the beach, might be 0 meters wide (vertical cliff) or 100+ meters if it's shallow, but it's fairly straightforward to define. Within that defined stretch of land, if you try to trace some path through the center of it, any resolution smaller than 1 meter seems like it would be fairly useless
todayilearned	I'm the kind of person to spends a lot of time in my head, thinking, over-analyzing. When I perceive negative social cues from someone, I rack my brain trying to assign a reason for them. Over time this has become a list of (confirmed & unconfirmed) reasons why people might not like me. We're raised from childhood that if you're nice and a good person, people will like you. You'll have friends. When that doesn't happen, it's obviously your fault. You didn't do something right. Fast forward to having 2-3 decades worth of (possible) reasons built up... You become hypersensitive to how others might be perceiving you. Now it's not even just when I get a negative reaction from someone, but also a neutral reaction. My brain goes "what did you do that they don't like you?" and searches its database for the most minute infraction I could have commited. Now it becomes a self fulfilling cycle. People like people with confidence. So when you lack confidence, you receive fewer positive reactions from people. This lack of positive reactions further fuels the idea that something is wrong with you, and pushes you're confidence even lower. It's an incredibly hard cycle to break out of because all the evidence you see points to something being wrong with you. Why else wouldn't people like you more?
todayilearned	ahh i see your self esteem hasnt suck to the level where you dont even bother worrying about it anymore because you feel entirely powerless to make change, which results in your being perceived as being extremely self confident, leaving you needing to cross a valley in self esteem gains to resolve said discrepancy - too little a gain takes you back in to thinking you can control others judgment of you :( under the right circumstances, i can project a persona of myself that is confident in ways that would make the Fox Tv Lucifer jealous because i am so low literally nothing matters. the second i receive a little too much positive response and self esteem boost, i crash and withdraw back in to over analyzing and despair. shits vicious!
todayilearned	I think one of the worst things we do to kids is lie to them about human nature. Telling them all you have to do to make friends is "be nice," is misleading. You need to be respectful, but you also need to be aware of social cues in order to do that effectively. They also don't tell you that if you don't fit in properly, other kids won't be able to empathize with you, and you have a high probability of getting shunned. They don't tell you that socializing is a skill that needs to be developed, and kids think there is something wrong with them if they can't do it naturally.
todayilearned	This is really relatable. It sucks. I don't know how distinct social anxiety is but I suffer from it pretty bad and between the outright fear and constant overthinking due to low self esteem it's really hard to want to socialise. I don't lock myself away anymore but even when I do go out it's rare that I'll enjoy it or not have something happen that I spend the next week agonising over. The irony is that I hate insecure people who bitch about others, but am probably the most insecure person I know. I suppose on the plus side this allows me to be hyper aware of when I'm being an insecure little bitch and hide it, even if I can't overcome it or deal with it.
todayilearned	TBH I don't think it's the confidence that makes people stay but rather the neediness to explain themselves all the time to people with zero confidence that yes they like you and no they didn't mean XY in a bad way. I also wonder whether Americans are more prone to depending on happy reactions since the pursuit of happiness is literally part of your declaration. At least I remember quite vividly from my stay there that people asked me if I'm not happy because I don't smile and I was like "ummm no, it's just that I'm " only feeling "neutral" right now which is why I make a neutral face. Sun can't always shine can it? " which oftentimes resulted in blank faces on my American friends. The other way around, we told our American guests in Germany that yes people do think you're mentally challenged if you smile ALL the time.
todayilearned	couldnt have said it better, this was me before but instead of over-analyzing what other people are thinking or how they precive me, now I over-analyze what Im doing in the moment and it just makes me forget about everything else and now its become subconscious for me to just think and analyze things im doing or about to do just coz everyday life is getting boring if I don't talk and amuse myself
todayilearned	Therapy helps, even if it's just being able to talk through your thought process. Meditation has helped me build awareness, so I can realize I'm having unjustified negative thoughts and stop them. Just a guess based on how you wrote it, but it may be more an issue of introversion/extroversion than low/high self esteem. Our society seems to ascribe a perception of confidence to those who are more extroverted, while viewing introverts as weird, "off", or having low self esteem. >Especially when a low self esteem person finds high self esteem people the most offensive. This could be two things, either A.)envy and resentment for how easily it seems to come, or B.) Many introverts like myself find certain extremely extroverted people annoying. They're draining for us. They're loud. They don't think before they speak. They're rude (they'll often talk right over us when we try to start speaking) and in spite of all these things people seem to like them more. The biggest thing people can do to help is to simply understand. There are a couple books, The Introvert Advantage maybe? that do a good job of explaining this.
todayilearned	>I also wonder whether Americans are more prone to depending on happy reactions since the pursuit of happiness is literally part of your declaration. At least I remember quite vividly from my stay there that people asked me if I'm not happy because I don't smile and I was like "ummm no, it's just that I'm " only feeling "neutral" right now which is why I make a neutral face. Sun can't always shine can it? " which oftentimes resulted in blank faces on my American friends. Definitely! People don't know what to make of me because I don't look happy all the time, so they assume I'm angry/sad/a psychopath. People in the U.S. think its weird when they ask how I am, or how my weekend was, and I say it was OK. They act like life is either amazing or horrible with no middle ground.
todayilearned	I was going to type a response to OP, but I couldn't have said it any better than you did. I literally over analyze every social situation that I could potentially be in, I look for any possible negative outcomes and because of that possibility of eliciting a negative reaction, I usually don't speak much. And because of that, people think I'm standoffish. Its not that I intentionally try to be, its just that I'm terrified of getting a negative reaction from someone. I try and try to remind myself that none of this really matters. Who cares if I say something stupid, or make a joke that isn't funny? None of that matters in the long term--hell, nobody is going to remember it in an hour or so. But I still over-analyze everything. It fucking sucks.
todayilearned	This is also why, at least in my opinion, we have issues with "nice guys". Little boys are/were outright told at a young age that if you're nice to girls, give them things they want, and try to make them happy, that they'll like you. TV/Movies teach boys that the grand romantic gesture, from the quiet awkward guy to the pretty girl who doesn't know he exists, is all it takes for her to realize he was perfect all along and fall in love with him. So many are taught that that's how you "earn" a woman's love. So when they do all that and it doesn't work it shatters their world view and they don't know how to react or cope.
todayilearned	For me the break in the cycle was realizing that attributing the actions of everyone around me to myself was actually pretty self-centered (ironically) and that most of the things I was trying to analyze contained unknowns that it was impossible to know all of. For example, I was nice to somenone and not terribly awkward and then they were a jerk to me or blew me off. Theoretically it could have been a failure or flaw of some kind on my part, but maybe they were having a bad day, or they just got dumped, or yelled at by their boss, or their cat threw up in their shoe that morning or maybe they are a jerk to everyone, or maybe they have low self esteem and thought I was being patronizing somehow because they are hypersensitive... It is impossible to know all the factors, and it is pretty unlikely that most of your social interactions have anything to do with some deep, hidden character flaws that you have discovered after years of analysis. The reasons people act certain ways are much more likely to be based on their own lives and minds than anything about you and people are so complex that after years of close contact you can still discover new things about them and see them change over time. I found that giving other people the benefit of the doubt was the first step in giving myself the benefit of the doubt in those kind of social over-analyzing moments and it was an incredible balm for my peace of mind.
todayilearned	It's like, you know the Truman Show is just a movie, but can't help but feel like some version of that is happening to you. But your self esteem is so shit, you know its not a show or anything. People are just talking shit about you all the time, and word of your shittyness travels wherever you go, through people that don't even know each other. And the whole time, you realize how absurd that sounds.
todayilearned	Oh 100%. But across rich countries, distribution of wealth plays a huge impact in how it’s like to be disabled. Keller argued for socialism because she felt that wealth needed to be better distributed to improve accessibility to those with special needs I was comparing the more socialized countries (in terms of healthcare and accessibility) to the US because they’re all rich and it’s more of an apples to apples comparison than US to Yemen.
todayilearned	You must not be from the US. Dont believe everything you read on the internet about people shitting on US healthcare. The disabled are very well taken care of here. Is it perfect? of course not, Is it pretty fucking good? Yes, yes it is. Is it as good Finland or Australia? I dont know, I've never been there, but I can tell you this; I have family members with disabilities and they have been well taken care of by the government assistance programs that exist for them. Please quit regurgitating dumbass shit you read on Reddit as factual information.
todayilearned	That is not what that means at all. "Arguably the best" means that you could argue it is the best, as in #1. If you were trying to say what you later moved your goalposts to mean, then you would have written "arguably among the best". Either claim is very "arguably" indeed though, because the US doesn't rank very high compared to most Western countries when it comes to these sorts of things.
todayilearned	Capitalism by design will only accomodate for the disabled if there is a financial incentive to do so. It is now unprofitable to be seen not to accomodate for the disabled. This is a relatively new invention. More socialists schools of thought accomodate for diabled people as a matter of ethical course. This isn't a socailsm vs capitalism thing, it's just an observation on why each system works how it does.
todayilearned	>Socialism in first world countries is the reason there are poor countries Such as? I presume you are not going to list countries in the former Soviet Union, since they were part of a closed-economy under a communist dictatorship, rather than socialism. Or Venezuela, which is poor because it decided to base over 90% of it's economy on oil. Can you tell me which countries are poor because they are socialist? >Outsourcing to China and Asia lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years Yes, but it does this on that back of brutal expolitation of labour, and that wealth collects at the top. The correct way is to appropriate the best aspects of both systems.
todayilearned	Tell that to the people I know who have had to choose between getting treatment or keeping a place to sleep. People who have been put onto the streets because of medical crises, and people who I have had to personally convince to go to the ER so they don't die of preventable shit because they're terrified of how costly it is. I'm sure your experiences are fine but they are not universal and you need to have some empathy. I know it's easy to forget that your experiences are not everyone's, but it's the truth.
todayilearned	The countries extreme stance on international trade, government protectionism/intervention particularly in agriculture. The Uzbek state insists and mandate that cotton and wheat be the crops grown, how much land that farmers must use or not use, and the State then keeps the wages for growing those crops artificially low compared to world market prices and then uses the available difference to subsidize industrial factories (planes, trains, and automobiles in a very literal sense.) There is a literal salary cap in Uzbekistan, and there are bank withdrawal limits put in place to prevent fleeing/tax evasion/ or foreign investment from being taken away. Extremely high tariffs and random (but enforced) border closures prevent confident foreign investment. But while Uzbekistan government is heavily involved with cash crops, the farmers and Uzbek people have been able to grow their cattle herds substantially and led to farmers focusing any available land to other crops- where the government does not intervene so heavily and in some cases not at all. Items such as milk, fruit, vegetables, meat are not regulated in the same sense and do conform to traditional capitalist forces. The Uzbek government is fairly successful in taxing most of its citizens because the government uses all banking agencies as tax collection centers. Just because there are traces of capitalism in an economy does not make the economy capitalistic. Just because there are traces of socialism in an economy does not make an economy socialistic. It is ridiculous to categorize in such a manner. And power laying in the hands of a rich, ruling class is not a staple of capitalism- that's absolutely made up.
todayilearned	> Yes, but it does this on that back of brutal expolitation of labour, and that wealth collects at the top. Hundreds of millions of asians now have access to healthcare, education and social security thanks to those jobs that were outsourced, I guess you rather they still lived as subsistance farmers and starve during the next drought. But who cares about them right? The only important thing is that baristas and McD workers in America make $15 an hour..
todayilearned	> State Capitalism isn't a thing. Capitalism is inherently tied to private ownership and free-market principles, laissez-faire, etc. No that's wrong. All capitalism requires is a market, some degree of private ownership and a rule of those who own capital and/or the means of production, i.e. in form of a republic, a oligarchy or a plutocracy. > If something is fully government controlled, then it is some form of socialism or fascism. That doesn't mean it's intrinsically bad or awful. No it doesn't. I'm tired of this American ignorance calling anything the government does fascism. It makes no difference if something is done by a corporation or the government. Also fascism is a form of capitalism, so there's an example for state capitalism.
todayilearned	You've literally changed the definition of capitalism in an effort to fit your own idea of what you think capitalism is. There is no such thing as state capitalism. State capitalism is not private ownership as it requires the state to heavily involved. Capitalism doesn't need just some amount of private ownership, it requires private ownership. Fascism isn't a form of capitalism, it's of a form of totalitarianism. In a capitalist system, power can be held in the hands of a small group of individuals, but that power can easily be move to new individuals as well. That's part of the volatility of a capitalistic market. An oligarchy or autocracy is central control of markets by direction of a central authority. You're talking about forms of government that would not allow a capitalistic economic system. Or I should say, no example of oligarchies or autocracies have allowed for a capitalistic economic system. If you're going to maintain such a massive and expansive definition of capitalism, you might as well suggest that the USSR was capitalist because it had a strong black market. I'm not sure why you're bring up American ignorance into this discussion.
todayilearned	Mars bars have been gone for a while in the US. They are Snickers with almonds now Edit: Not sure why I was downvoted (I assume it's due to some confusion over Mars bar the candy and Mars bar the company) but here's a link: >The Mars Bar has a new name - Snickers Almond Bar. It is a candy bar with roasted almonds, nougat, caramel and milk chocolate. The name changed in 2000. https://www.oldtimecandy.com/products/snickers-almond-bar
todayilearned	TIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken > The first dish known to have been deep fried was fritters, which were popular in the Middle Ages. However, it was the Scottish who were the first Europeans to deep fry their chicken in fat (though without seasoning). Meanwhile, a number of West African peoples had traditions of seasoned fried chicken (though battering and cooking the chicken in palm oil). Scottish frying techniques and West African seasoning techniques were combined by enslaved Africans and African-Americans in the American South.
todayilearned	There's also the deep fried Mars Bars (Americans know them as Milky Way) We've got such a polarising relationship with food, because on one hand we have some of the best restaurants in the world. With some of the highest standards in gourmet cuisine, being performed by some of the most talented motherfuckers ever to hold a knife. And on the other hand, we'll have a donor kebab calzone, deep fried and served with extra chilli sauce because we're drunk as fuck and need something greasy to line our stomachs.
todayilearned	Ahem... excuse me... sorry to interrupt, but you said both >...called a Mars bar everywhere outside North America. and >What the rest of the world calls a Milky Way is what you guys in the US call... I hate to be a bother, but I think you're forgetting at the very least Canada; the other 21 countries and 9 territories will have to speak for themselves. In Canada we call them Mars as well. I actually do find it fascinating the things we have in common with the US versus what we have in common with everyone else. It's actually surprising how much more like other parts of the world we are than the States; it's much more than most (including me) would probably have suspected.
todayilearned	You got downvoted, but according to this [candy website](https://www.oldtimecandy.com/products/snickers-almond-bar): >The Mars Bar has a new name - Snickers Almond Bar. It is a candy bar with roasted almonds, nougat, caramel and milk chocolate. The name changed in 2000. I'm Canadian though so I can't speak from experience, just happened to see that earlier when researching Mars bars instead of doing my work. Ninja edit: ahahaha, holy shit, just read 1 comment below and saw that you already explained that to someone else and posted the exact same link!
todayilearned	I find it interesting that in the US all confectionary bars are called ‘candy bars’. Where I live in Canada what most Americans call a candy bar would be called a chocolate bar. Candy bars here are bars without chocolate. Not a big thing but I always find the small differences between the two countries very interesting. I live in Vancouver and the accent here is very similar to Seattle to the point you’d be hard pressed to hear the difference until someone said a key word like ‘drama’ or ‘decal’.
todayilearned	When it comes to logarithmically increasing/decreasing light our eyes do have a logarithmic response (like film) but our modern digital cameras do not (they are linear). This is why our eyes (and film) do so well with bright sunny days and beautiful sunsets while digital cameras and their digital photos struggled for years to beautifully and naturally render high contrast scenes. They overexpose too quickly. The flip side is that these linear CMOS sensors are better at seeing into the shadows and into low light - something our eyes and film struggles with.
todayilearned	I hear ya, same age, my GameFAQs account turned 17 this year. It may not be as popular as it once was but those still around tend to genuinely helpful and non toxic. I still use their forums for certain games, I’m leveraging one of Keyblade999’s guides for a perfect FFX play through right this moment. It’s good stuff, it bums me out it’s dying a bit. They used to be so popular their non video game forums were active. And secret private boards, in all honesty in another universe GameFAQs could of become Reddit.
todayilearned	I actually only play emulators these days I have a ps2 but I don’t think it’s been plugged in this year ...currently I got ready 2 rumble boxing on n64 paused lol (bought this shit on amazon that’s a nes,snes,sega Genesis, n64,and ps2 bootleg usb controller in one box) and anyway yeah I still go to gamefaqs several times a week minimum I have a room that is 90% just a comfy chair and the computer I use to play that shit Edit I still have an n64 and a couple handfuls of games but I mean they’re Nokia tier immortal
todayilearned	Idk what you're trying to get at but I suggest you look into the details of the case first. Edit: your comment is perfect irony. You're the exact type of person I'm talking about when I say "even confronted with evidence to the contrary, people double down and blindly believe the lying corporations over the actual truth". Because googling for the truth takes a bit of effort and critical thinking, and it's easier to just have all your opinions spoon fed to you.
todayilearned	Indeed. That poor woman's labia became fused, no reasonable person can ever say she was wrong if they've seen the pictures. What's more, she asked for the bare minimum amount to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, her lawyer (wisely) took it to court and won much more for her. I understand that McDonald's has a corporate strategy when it comes to legal proceedings but someone fucked up bad on that part.
todayilearned	I did? &#x200B; \> Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "[gross negligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence)" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". &#x200B; She meant "hot", it was "hot", maybe more than usual, but that does not matter?! &#x200B; There is a reason why cant let emotions rule over everything, just because someone got hurt doesnt mean they are right. &#x200B; \> Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[\[20\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-20)[\[21\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-21)[\[22\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-Frank_Urban_Legends-22) They also argued that the coffee was not defective because McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards,[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-Gerlin-2) and coffee continues to be served as hot or hotter today at McDonald's and chains like [Starbucks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks). &#x200B; Re to your edit: Yes obviously, i have no idea. and i spent no effort researching..... ahhahah you are pathetic &#x200B; &#x200B; Fuck, I hate you emotional people thinking victims are always right.
todayilearned	One quoted excerpt does not an entire case make. Did you read about the part where they found that the second degree burns Stella Liebeck suffered weren't the first to happen from McDonald's coffee? That McDonalds had a log book with hundreds of recorded instances of people receiving terrible burns from their coffee? That in spite of hundreds of recorded serious burns, McDonald's did absolutely nothing to change their procedure or rectify the issue? That when Ms. Liebeck initially got burned she approached McDonalds to try and recoup the medical costs she incurred for the *skin grafts needed on her thighs and pubic region* and McDonalds offered her only $800? Yeah, you need to actually research into this instead of skimming for a few sentences that validate your preconceived opinions. > Re to your edit: Yes obviously, i have no idea. and i spent no effort researching. Well, thanks for admitting your faults, that's the first step.
todayilearned	You're flat out wrong. I've been through every detail of this case before, and that lady was right in suing. The temperature in McDonalds machines was found to be kept at dangerous levels and they have since changed it. The lady got paid. I don't see how else to put it to you that you're siding with a company that acted negligently, contributed to the harm of an elderly woman, and then lobbied a smear campaign against her in the media.
todayilearned	>I don't see how else to put it to you that you're siding with a company that acted negligently, contributed to the harm of an elderly woman, and then lobbied a smear campaign against her in the media. Let's not mince words here, that's exactly what he's doing here. He formed his opinion on this by having it fed to him by McDonald's smear campaign. And we know of the fallacy that people tend to believe the information they heard first over the actually correct information. Now he's so entrenched in the opinion/position fed to him that even the fact he was lied to about this by McDonalds, the media and the insurance companies isn't a possibility for him. He'll continue to perform mental gymnastics to convince himself he's right.
todayilearned	This is even more brutal: In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word “berries” it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term “crunch.” This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a “crunchberry.” Furthermore, the “Crunchberries” depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains “sweetened corn & oat cereal” and that the cereal is “enlarged to show texture.” Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist. . . . So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.
todayilearned	I want to know what lawyer took this case on and whether he was sanctioned for wasting America’s time and money. My friend is a lawyer and they say one of the biggest problems with the legal system is judges don’t take enough actions against frivolous law suits. As soon as this woman described her case to a lawyer they should have shown her the door, but they think a big enough company will just settle no matter what so they try to take advantage. Really this is the lawyers fault because know better, the woman was just their pawn.
todayilearned	The media contributed greatly to this perception. It was like a game of telephone where the facts of the case were marginalized or even misrepresented. As story moved from outlet to outlet it became more and more sensationalized, focusing entirely on the award and coffee being hot. At some point it was being reported that she was the driver of the vehicle and had opened the lid while driving the vehicle when that was not the case. She had third degree burns on 16% of her body and McDonald's was aware of over 700 similar incidents and had settled such cases in the past. Further, it even came out that despite McDonald's claims that it was initially so hot because they expected consumers to drive a distance before consuming the coffee, their own market research suggested they knew otherwise. Here's a good video on the case: [Scalded by coffee, then the news media] (https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html)
todayilearned	It's sad. McDonalds launched a campaign to completely discredit that woman. I remember when it was all going down everyone was reporting on the story like it was a joke. It was the, "hey, can you believe this?" segment..."Lady sues over hot coffee"... And that's all most people remember. Turns out McDonalds has been sued numerous times for the same issue, and settled out of court with all of them. The same problem. The way the media handled it was just too tidy, in my opinion. It's pretty scary if you ask me.
todayilearned	I had a judge tell me I should've just tried to outrun a guy in a brand new 2007 Ford focus, in my 1995 Isuzu Rodeo... "Because a v6 is faster than a 4 cylinder" which meant that the collision between his vehicle and mine was caused by me..... In what FUCKING universe is a worn out Isuzu FASTER than a fucking coupe? USAIN BOLT COULD RUN FASTER than my old SuzyQ.... Besides which . Uhh speed limits exist you dumb bitch....
todayilearned	Mcdonalds had been warned several times that their coffee was too hot for safe handling, but did not correct the problem. They had settled lawsuits in the past for substantial amounts of money, but in this case offered only $800 aND refused to budge. When trying to remove the lid to add sugar, the old woman spilled it on herself and got burned so badly she was hospitalized for 8 days getting skin grafts and had permanent nerve damage. She sued in the hopes of covering her medical expenses. However, Mcdonald's treatment of the case and their neglect to address the safety issues after previous lawsuits and warnings caused the court to award a far larger amount of money than the defendant asked for, as punitive damages. Whether or not you still think it's her fault for spilling it, it's still a lot more serious than the way it's described in media and popular culture, and her decision to sue wasn't the crazy, vindictive act that it's painted as. And that's because of McDonalds deciding to twist the story as much as possible to make themselves into a victim, and then spreading that version everywhere. And other companies have pushed similar distortions, to help them lobby for legislative protection against lawsuits. Nowadays many states have caps on the payout for personal injury compensation, precisely because of this kind of propaganda.
todayilearned	> It's pretty wild how effective it was, how, to this day, even when faced with proof of how serious the burns were The severity of the injury is irrelevant as to who caused them. > people will still side with the lying corporations and think it's frivolous. I'd say the exact opposite. That even when presented by the actual facts, people still think it was legit. (Probably because they have an anti-corperation bias, or because they were told incorrect 'facts' about the case, or both.) Coffee... is hot. Everyone knows this. Everyone also knows you need to handle hot liquids carefully. Not pinch the cup between your knees, reach over the top, and pull the far side of the lid, which is what Stella Liebeck did. Any idiot can see that that will make the cup pivot and dump it's contents (hot coffee) in your lap. Stella was the one responsible for the burns. Now, I suppose you'll say "No, it's McDonald's fault for serving the coffee too hot!", but that is simply not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature Look, I know the burns were serious. But they were simply not McDonald's fault. They had their coffee at the correct, normal temperature (the same temp a home coffeemaker on your kitchen counter has it). In fact, if you look at the statistics, there as only one (1) burn for every 24 million (24,000,000) cups sold. If you want to claim the coffee was 'dangerously hot' or 'negligently hot', or 'unfit for consumption', or whatever, then you'll need to explain how 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 people somehow managed to not burn themselves. It was Stella's incorrect handling that caused the injury. It was not McDonald's fault.
todayilearned	The Isuzu had about 160hp when it was NEW.... the focus is right around there as well.. and weighed about half as much.. PLUS the Isuzu was geared CRAZY low. I once got it up to ALMOST 90mph.. Near red line on the engine in top gear... And that took several miles to do. Edit, she could pull the world, though. Miss the ol beast, she shredded a timing belt about a year or two ago
todayilearned	Yea I'd say while the ridiculousness of it was overstated I feel like the ruling was still wrong. The coffe Mcdonalds sold was hotter than expected, but it is still a beverage that is usually made out of water at or close to the boiling point. I would say it was more an accident with very severe consequences than something Mcdonalds can be blamed for as they where not involved in the actual spilling.
todayilearned	> Did you read about the part where they found that the second degree burns Stella Liebeck suffered weren't the first to happen from McDonald's coffee? Did you read how it was one (1) burn for every 24 million (24,000,000) cups sold? Doesn't sound so impressive when put in proper perspective, does it? >That McDonalds had a log book with hundreds of recorded instances of people receiving terrible burns from their coffee? 700 burns. Which sounds like a lot, until you find out that was over 10 year. And across the entire country. >McDonald's did absolutely nothing to change their procedure or rectify the issue? Because there was not problem with their procedure, and no "issue" to rectify. The coffee was at the correct temp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature >That when Ms. Liebeck initially got burned she approached McDonalds to try and recoup the medical costs she incurred Not true. She asked for $20,000. Her medical bills were far below that. Even after throwing in 'future medical bills', and her daughters loss of income (how is that a medical expense?!), it was still thousands less then what she asked for. >skin grafts needed on her thighs and pubic region Classic 'Appeal To Pity'. You're trying to influence people by making them feel sorry for her. This does not change the facts of the case. >Yeah, you need to actually research into this instead of skimming for a few sentences that validate your preconceived opinions. Exactly what I say to you.
todayilearned	> And we know of the fallacy that people tend to believe the information they heard first over the actually correct information. Indeed. For example, here are some actual facts on the case, showing that the coffee was not 'too hot'. Will it change your mind? No. Because "people tend to believe the information they heard first over the actually correct information". "In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's. Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). " -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature
todayilearned	> Turns out McDonalds has been sued numerous times for the same issue, and settled out of court with all of them. The same problem. No, not "the same issue", "the same problem". Every case is different. In some cases, McDonalds was at fault for, for example, not training their employees correctly. If (as an example) an improperly trained employee holds a cup of hot coffee by the lid as they hand it into a car at the drive thru, and the coffee cup disengages from the lid, falls, spills, and burns the driver... it's McDonald's fault. That's completely different from a case where the customer themselves mis-handles the cup and burns themselves. Two different circumstances, two different outcomes.
todayilearned	> Mcdonalds had been warned several times that their coffee was too hot for safe handling Not true. It met industry standards. And, if it were true, how do you explain that there was only one burn for every 24,000,000 cups sold?? "too hot for safe handling", but 23,999,999 people out of 24,000,000 can handle it safely?? >They had settled lawsuits in the past for substantial amounts of money Different circumstances. If an employee spilled hot coffee on a customer, then McDonalds is (or might be) liable. But Stella spilled it on herself. > the old woman spilled it on herself Exactly. It was her fault. Not McDonald's fault. >She sued in the hopes of covering her medical expenses. She sued fro far more than her medical expenses. >their neglect to address the safety issues There were no issues. The coffee was at industry standard temperatures. And they haven't changed that: "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F)..." - wikipedia
todayilearned	Read the link I posted: In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's. Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). Hell, I've measured my home coffee maker, and it puts out coffee in the same range of temps. https://imgur.com/a/z7AfvBr >they've been sued by more than just this lady, and settled For different issues. If an employee spills on a customer (who gets burned) then McDonalds might indeed be responsible, and might settle. But in this case, she spilled it on herself. Apples/oranges.
todayilearned	> And originally only asked for medical bills to be covered. Incorrect. "Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000." -wikipedia "Anticipated future medical expenses" and "her daughters loss of income"(?!?) are not "medical bills". And even with those thrown in, the total was still thousands less than she asked for. >The jury gave her the huge amount because ...they felt sorry for her. And hey, it wasn't their money....
todayilearned	> she asked for the bare minimum amount to cover her medical expenses. Incorrect. "Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000." -wikipedia "Anticipated future medical expenses" and "her daughter's loss of income"(?!?) are not "medical bills". And even with those thrown in, the total was still thousands less than she asked for.
todayilearned	>It was Stella's incorrect handling that caused the injury. It was not McDonald's fault. Jury found 20% due to her negligence, 80% due to McDonald's. So it was 80% McDonald's fault. >During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. >McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving >Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000
todayilearned	>>It was Stella's incorrect handling that caused the injury. It was not McDonald's fault. > >Jury found 20% due to her negligence, 80% due to McDonald's. So it was 80% McDonald's fault. I know what the jury found. I'm saying they were wrong. "The jury foreman, Jerry Goens, said he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill." Juror Roxanne Bell said "I was just insulted. The whole thing sounded ridiculous to me." Juror Betsy Farnham said she also had thought that the suit was frivolous. But that was before they saw the gruesome photographs of Stella's charred skin...." It was a classic 'Appeal to Pity'. Make the jurors, who up to that point were looking at the case calmly and logically, emotionally upset by showing them graphic pictures of the injuries. >During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Which is th ecorrect temperature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature >At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. I really duno if that's true. According to http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html , water at 150 degrees will scald in 2 seconds. and water at 160 in .5 seconds. So how can 190 take up to 7 seconds?? http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 says: Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns… …in 1 second at 156º …in 2 seconds at 149º …in 5 seconds at 140º …in 15 seconds at 133º. ...which doesn't match up, either. It's almost like people are making these numbers up. And, in any case, the claim that the coffee "would" cause burns is obviously not true- million of people drink it every day, and don't get burned. >McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving Both can be true- some want to drink right away, and some want to wait. In addition, some like their coffee 'HOT', and others like it 'hot', and some like it lukewarm. The only way to satisfy all these different groups is to serve it HOT, and those who like it cooler can blow on it, or wait. >Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, Mostly minor, actually: red skin (like a sunburn). No big deal. But the main problem with quoting this number is that people always leave out two important facts: 1) it was over 10 years, and 2) it was nationwide. >and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000 Different cases, different circumstances.
todayilearned	::sigh:: For the record, I do not, have not, and never will, work for McDonalds, directly or on their behalf. Interesting point, though- Many of the 'McDonalds Coffee case was not frivolous!!1!" sites... are actually run by lawyers. You know, the ones who make money when you sue someone. Gee, why might they want to encourage people to sue a lot? Hmm.... Do you work for a lawyer? Does he pay you by handling all your lawsuits for free? Or does he just give you a discount?
todayilearned	They haven't changed the temperature but they have improved the packaging and made the warning much more visible. I didn't say it was just for the medical expenses. But to be clear, Stella asked for 20,000 to cover current and anticipated medical expenses and her daughter's loss of income while caring for her after the hospital. When Mcdonald's refused she took it to court, for a higher amount. The jury decided to award her a much higher amount than she asked for in punitive damages because McDonalds makes so much money that they would barely notice any less.
todayilearned	>They haven't changed the temperature but they have improved the packaging and made the warning much more visible. Thus, the temp wasn't the issue. As for 'made the warning much more visible', it was perfectly visible before. Check out r/talesfromretail for plenty of stories of customers who cant/don't see signs right. in. front. of. them. Making them bigger/more obvious doesn't help. >I didn't say it was just for the medical expenses. True, you did not. My apologies. Many people, however, do; 'SHe just wanted her medical bills paid....', and so on. Which is factually not true. I can see (maybe) including "anticipated medical expenses" in 'her medical bills'. But 'her daughter's loss of income'?? it is in no way a medical expense. And, even those things added up were thousands less than the $20,000 asked for. It may seem like nit-picking, but it's false that she 'just' asked for her medical bills to be paid.
todayilearned	She placed the coffee cup between her knees (NOT in a cupholder, NOT on the dash, NOT asking the driver to hold it), pinched it between her knees, reached over it, grabbed the far side of the lid, and pulled toward her. This caused the cup to pivot and dump in her lap. What other word except "stupid" can you come up with for someone who does that? >because you should expect coffee to be that hot Exactly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature Hell, even my home coffee maker (a cheap one from Walmart, not an insulated commercial model) makes coffee that hot!! https://imgur.com/a/z7AfvBr
todayilearned	The temperature of the coffee was an issue because it was unanticipated. Before this story, if I had spilled a cup of coffee like that I wouldn't have expected it to be hot enough to give me such severe burns. The jury agreed that the warning wasn't obvious enough. Only 2000 less, I can see rounding it up or including a margin of error for the future medical treatment, since she was in recovery for 2 years and was never the same. Her daughter had to take leave from work to care for her for 3 weeks after she got out of hospital because she was unable to move around, which is why some people include that as a medical expense. A full time nurse or hospital stay would have probably cost even more.
todayilearned	>McDonald's lost that lawsuit for a reason. It was a classic 'Appeal to Pity'. Make the jurors, who up to that point were looking at the case calmly and logically, emotionally upset by showing them graphic pictures of the injuries. "The jury foreman, Jerry Goens, said he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill." Juror Roxanne Bell said "I was just insulted. The whole thing sounded ridiculous to me." Juror Betsy Farnham said she also had thought that the suit was frivolous. But that was before they saw the gruesome photographs of Stella's charred skin...."
todayilearned	>The temperature of the coffee was an issue because it was unanticipated. Before this story, if I had spilled a cup of coffee like that I wouldn't have expected it to be hot enough to give me such severe burns. "In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature It was the standard temp to serve coffee at. Some places even had it hotter. Anyone who knows anything about coffee knows it is hot. Imagine, if you will, some idiot decided to juggle some knives, cut themselves severely, then sued Ginsu because the knives were "too sharp". The problem wasn't the sharpness (that's the whole point of a knife), it was the careless/negligent/stupid way they handled them.
todayilearned	No, actually, I know I'm an idiot, but I still like to point out manipulative argumentation techniques when I see them. If your argument is strong enough to stand on its own, it doesn't need emphasis. If your argument needs emphasis, it's not strong enough to stand on its own. Anyways, I'm really happy that you've found your calling in life - if only I had anything to be as passionate about as you are about McDonald's serving exceedingly hot coffee. (Which, for the record, I didn't even deny.)
todayilearned	>That's not appeal to pity. Incorrect. https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-pity/ ---- "An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy." ... [an example] “A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life… Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty.” (I highlighted similarities to this case) ---- >It's the justice system in action. No, the justice system is about looking at FACTS, not making emotional decisions. In fact (heh), the jury is often refered to as 'triers of fact" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact).
todayilearned	I think the above poster meant that if you did speed to avoid an accident you wouldn't or shouldn't get in trouble for it. But, if someone else was at fault, it would still be their fault even if you could have theoretically speed out of it. For instance if a car ran a red light and almost hits you, you wouldn't get in trouble for speeding to avoid him. But, if you didnt speed and he hit you wouldn't get in trouble since he is at fault for running the light.
todayilearned	Knives are intended for cutting, coffee is not intended for burning. Having the coffee at that temperature serves no purpose (McDonalds admitted that their studies showed that people like to start drinking their drive-through coffee immediately.) The coffee at this Mcdonald's was 88°C, not 83, so this study isn't really relevant. McDonalds served coffee at the drive through with lids, that are admittedly hard to remove, and with packets of sugar and cream. Meaning that they expect you to remove the lid and add things. This woman was parked, and was simply trying to remove the lid from her coffee to add the sugar. Not exactly the same as juggling knives.
todayilearned	> The media contributed greatly to this perception. It was like a game of telephone where the facts of the case were marginalized or even misrepresented And they still do this, and pretends it's only Fox that does it. Read any article on gamergate and it's pure lies. They even lie about the people they aren't trying to slander. It's ridiculous, and caused me to lose complete trust in the media that they deliberately got so much wrong (they admitted it sometimes, saying that getting it right wouldn't be interesting) and yet they get used routinely as sources on wikipedia
todayilearned	in America. The differences between the EU and US standards are quite stark. In the United States, USDA free range regulations currently apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside. The EU by contrast regulates marketing standards for egg farming which specifies the following (cumulative) minimum conditions for the free-range method: Hens have continuous daytime access to open-air runs, (except in the case of temporary restrictions imposed by veterinary authorities,) * The open-air runs to which hens have access is mainly covered with vegetation and not used for other purposes except for orchards, woodland and livestock grazing if the latter is authorised by the competent authorities, * The open-air runs must at least satisfy the conditions specified in Article 4(1)(3)(b)(ii) of Directive 1999/74/EC whereby the maximum stocking density is not greater than 2500 hens per hectare of ground available to the hens or one hen per 4m2 at all times and the runs are not extending beyond a radius of 150 m from the nearest pophole of the building; an extension of up to 350 m from the nearest pophole of the building is permissible provided that a sufficient number of shelters and drinking troughs within the meaning of that provision are evenly distributed throughout the whole open-air run with at least four shelters per hectare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range
todayilearned	Many conspiracy groups in the EU are using facts and pictures from the US like you just shared, to make people affraid of some brands or big supermarkets or whatever. People barely know what are the laws behind the words they see on the package, and some of them actually thinks that there are bones chickens in McNuggets in european mcdonalds, while it's been proven thousand of times that it's impossible to happen in any european McDonalds. And if they did, they'd be in for a huuuuuuge amount of money to pay.
todayilearned	I read a news article about that this morning. The person behind the idea said that she tried bubbling cannabis smoke into a box with a bit of water at the bottom, and the lobster she hotboxed was then more chilled out when replaced in its tank - she removed his claw tape, and he didn't attack any of the other lobsters. Now, I'm willing to take that as preliminary evidence that weed makes lobsters less aggressive and more chilled out... But exactly how stoned would you have to be to not feel pain when boiled alive?? It just seems like a marketing gimmick to me.
todayilearned	A lot of is has to do with playing catch up. Marketing terms quickly become popular and its a constant game to define those terms. 10 years ago you just bought chicken; now you have organic, free range, antibiotic free, grain fed, non-gmo fed, etc etc. All of these terms usually start as marketing terms and then, eventually, get defined legally. Its more important now then ever to be an educated consumer.
todayilearned	and it certainly doesn't help that so much of the information you find online is misleading. Grass fed beef is one of my ones now. Nearly all cattle are grass fed most of their lives. Its about how they spend the last few months. Grass finished vs grain finished. Even though most articles you find online will tell you grass fed (aka finished) tastes better people overwhelmingly prefer fattier beef, which would need to be grain finished. Kobe beef isn't popular because its lean. And while there are large feedlot industrial operations, a lot of cattle live nice lives enjoying corn out of trough for a few months. Now there are differences in nutrition, which is where that PhD comes in, but just to find out what should taste better requires one to wade through miles of often misleading information. Its a tough world out there...
todayilearned	Yup, hoping for better legislation and stronger penalties gradually. Surprisingly Gove actually seems to be not terrible so i am a lil optimistic. Worried about the hardline brexiteers and their trade with the US desires though. Long term future i think is going to be "lab grown" meat providing for the mass consumption, with real meat being more of a rarity/delicacy and more expensive, and only coming from animals that have a high standard of welfare (think more traditional farm sorta thing). At least that is my hope for how things go.
todayilearned	gift tax is ordinarily paid by the one giving the gift. If these cars were being given away as gifts, I am not sure how the show arranged for the audience to be liable for it instead; they probably were asked to sign something when accepting, which they didn't bother to read or understand. The official intent of gift taxes is to prevent people avoiding various other taxes, including inheritance tax, by just making extravagant "gifts." :edit: Keen observers might note that the "official" intention is at odds with reality since the gift tax is, in many cases, a lower rate than the inheritance tax would be.
todayilearned	> The intent of gift taxes is, I believe, to prevent people avoiding various other taxes, including inheritance tax, by just making extravagant "gifts." This part is correct. Also, the US tax code primarily covers all income, which includes cash value of prizes. Some other annoying catches to this are your prior year's tax refund (state wants to know what federal gave and federal wants to know what state gave) and when you settle a debt for less than the total owed, you owe for the taxes on the dollar amount forgiven.
todayilearned	Only if you are a professional gambler and can prove the losses IIRC. Rather bs IMO. Millions of people loose their homes or all their saving and their is no tax break even though the government taxes the casinos in their profits. But win big and you pay pay taxes on the entire amount regardless if you have spent more than your winnings in previous years. Then again I do not gamble as really you never win and when you do, excited to give bunch to the government.
todayilearned	How would they know what tax bracket you are in? If the tax on gifts are low, why wouldn't they give all their employees 'gifts' of money instead of wages. If the tax is higher, than why not just adjust the gift value higher to account for the tax component the person will pay? Personally I think it is just better to have the receiving person pay based on their tax bracket otherwise it becomes so easy to abuse.
todayilearned	Yes, gift tax is a real thing, however this is not a gift tax. Everyone is allowed to give up to $14,000 to another person without it being taxed every year ($14,000 per person, not total gift amount. So 2 people = $28k). If the tax is greater than $14,000 then the person giving the gift pays the gift tax. The person receiving a gift will not pay tax on it. These cars were not subject to gift tax, but considered normal income. Source: am CPA
todayilearned	You manage top start a successful company and make 50 million dollars, you die and leave it to your only child who took over the business, the government takes 25 million on your death. >and they still get away with so much. You think they got away with 25 million worth of "so much"? ITT; [people like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9hmspt/til_after_oprahs_famous_you_get_a_car_episode/e6dpbgx/) and a bunch of people focusing on quoting estate tax as 50% as wrong in this scenario like it's relevant (it's correct when you consider the historic averages of the estate tax, which has varied wildly). As if it makes a difference if it's 25 million or 11 million when the fact remains there's no way someone could "get away with" dodging that much in taxes in their lifetime, which was the whole point. Someone dying with this kind of money pays many times more of their income than the 99%, they don't magically keep it all like is being implied.
todayilearned	> Dude, I'm pretty sure you're trolling me, but yes. The rich dodge a great deal of their taxes ~~while disproportionately benefitting from the society those taxes pay to maintain. Our president even claimed that makes him smart.~~[not part of the point] > > > > ~~Furthermore that kid did nothing to earn a dime of that money. Shouldn't they have had to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps?~~[also not relevant] Did they "dodge" 25 million in taxes or not?
todayilearned	> If you think the owner of a 50 million dollar company is actually paying 50% estate tax, then that’s a joke. The top rate is 40% and you get a ~11 million dollar exclusion. So if they don’t take advantage of any deductions (which they will and they will be significant) then that’s still way higher. It changes wildly year to year and averages out to over 50% effective tax rate.
todayilearned	Yeah but what about this scenario that I just totally made up without researching the actual numbers involved huh? Anyway if you had bothered to actually research the estate tax, you'd see that the amount actually taken in taxes is about 14 million, and sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that this fictional person just inherited 36 million dollars they did dick all to earn other than winning the genetic lottery.
todayilearned	You are partially confusing two related things: the estate tax exemption and gift tax. The limit on non-taxable gifts changes basically every year. You may also choose to use part of your estate tax exemption to exceed the normal gift limit without paying gift tax but it will potentially increase your estate tax. In any case, the cars here were clearly treated by the Oprah Show as prizes rather than gifts, which is why the responsibility for the tax fell on the audience.
todayilearned	You are supposed to report anything you win but they will not have a record of it unless it hits certain thresholds. You can also itemize all your losses to offset any winnings but you have to have receipts and all that for that. What that means is people just normally don't even report those small things. Just like if you were to mow your neighbor's lawn while they were on vacation and they gave you $20.00, you are supposed to report that as income but it is highly unlikely you are going to do that.
todayilearned	> Anyway if you had bothered to actually research the estate tax, you'd see that the amount actually taken in taxes is about 14 million, ~~and sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that this fictional person just inherited 36 million dollars they did dick all to earn other than winning the genetic lottery.~~[I like making not relevant statements to side track an a discussion] Estate tax varies, when you have a variable and make a generality you use an average. It's especially pointless attempt at a correction as they didn't benefit from 14 million in "dodged" taxes either.
todayilearned	Gift tax doesn't care about your tax bracket; gift tax is a flat 25% of value. As to using it for wages, I mean, you could try it, but the IRS doesn't just let you call things whatever you want, and a gift is defined specifically as not getting anything of value in return - which includes labor. So, even if it passed unremarked for a while, you'd be in the shitter in a hurry if they decided to audit you later.
todayilearned	When you average 40% with anything less than 40%, the number goes down. The maximum rate is 40%, it cannot go up on average. Also, here: [The average effective estate tax rate is 17% on estates that actually pay it.](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax) &#x200B; So unless you can provide a source for your claims I'm going to assume you're making stuff up. The math and the facts I've found don't support your claim at all.
todayilearned	Pay their fair share back? Do you think successful business owners and entrepreneurs just stumble upon wealth? They had to take huge risks and make sacrifices to become successful. Nobody took that money from poor people or less fortunate. They got that money from selling a quality product or service that was willingly paid for by others. If we're talking about money handed down through family, why must that be taxed again? Doesn't change the fact that that money was earned and they are entitled to give that money to whoever they want. If I die, I'd like whatever money I have already been taxed on to go to my siblings. Doesn't it seem wrong to tax that money yet again when I was already taxed on it? Yeah, some business people avoid taxes (which is understandable, who on Earth won't legally keep as much money in their pockets as possible) but this whole "tax rich because their rich and I'm not" is insane and sets a dangerous precedence. Of course I'm on Reddit. Hardly any of you even bother entertaining a non-left view or ideology. And people wonder why politics is so divided nowadays. I'm not acting like capitalism is the one and only best system, nor that it needs to be regulated in it's extremes, but the to lengths which people and businesses with wealth are demonized is a problem.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.