Let's test this hypothesis. Can you name a single thing where one molecule is enough to be meaningfully harmful?

Utterly hilarious that X is so powerful that it can make Microsofties making long term price plans (which must have passed multiple committees)... just surrender and cancel their plans within a day.

Granted they're "re-evaluating our approach" so they'll try again later. But it's still funny.

Article doesn't talk about "non stick coating on your pan", it talks about "chemicals" and gives chemistry-specific short names. Notably only using that word for "bad things described by evil looking red dots that neatly arrange into "hazardous" bubble in the animation we helpfully provide".

So I used the exact same tactic in my post.

It sucks when your side's propaganda is thrown right back in your face, doesn't it?

The article's writer uses this exact tactic liberally. Only the dangerous red things are referred to as "chemicals".

The punchline? It might actually work.

Both you and he can be correct at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.

I remember seeing coursera ad reads on youtube videos, and they all pitched it as "improve yourself" kind of a thing.

I guess that didn't work out and they are refocusing on corporate sector instead?

Today in "Where's the lie?", notice the language used in the article:

>One California study found phthalates in three-quarters of tested foods, and a Consumer Reports analysis last year detected BPA or similar chemicals in 79% of foods tested. According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies.

So we have "measurable levels", which means anything from "just above what can even be measured with extremely accurate modern equipment" to "he'd dead". This is then followed by the scare:

>A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.

Are we observing anything near that level? No. But if we did, it would be scary.

This is essentially the same thing we have with everything: in sufficient amounts, everything is poison. Did you know that to get dihydrogen monoxide poisoning you need to drink less of it than is currently found in humans for example? It's true, and it's a great headline. It's also an obvious lie by misdirection, just as the journo piece in the OP.

Bonus points for article having these cool animations where red dots all neatly arrange into a big red ball that is headlined "hazardous". Like dihydrogen monoxide.

Overall, yes. The main problem with bonuses is that it's assuming risk for something you as a worker don't reasonably control. The main advantage is that you get a part of windfall if company does well. Meanwhile the main advantage of bonuses is that you as a owner can divest some of the risk and motivate the workforce.

So overall it becomes a choice of "do I want to be paid more on a good year and less on a bad year". Most people aren't mentally equipped to do this level of probabilistic math.

As for impulse spending like ordering food delivery instead of making food at home, "education" helps only a little. Most of the spending issues is about impulse control.

Most of which is genetic. Children of gamblers have a high risk of becoming gamblers. Children of criminals have a high risk of becoming criminals. Etc.

It's one of the parts where you need an incredible amount of "nurture" to break "nature". And even then, you'll only have limited success when you look at it carefully. I.e. most of the children of alcoholics swear off alcohol in their youth, and then they try it as adults and they get hooked for life anyway. Meanwhile people who have low risk of addiction can drink for years, and then just stop because they want to stop.

So if you want to control impulse spending, you have to cut the supplier side. Demand side is primarily biologically driven and will not budge. And most people aren't impulsive spenders. So when you try to push it, they will reject it, because they will rightfully see it as being a massive imposition on their basic rights for no benefit.

We had this discussion across much of the Western world in early 20th century with alcohol. Teetotalers lost.

And yes, it's worth remembering that large plurality of clientele of food delivery apps isn't rich people. There's a reason why statistics suggest that around 1/4 do not tip at all in US. Which also indirectly implies which people don't (low impulse control, bad finances), and who are the delivery drivers who will be hit by this the most (consider US de facto segregation by income coupled with most delivery drivers working in the close vicinity of where they live due to how the job is done).

Gotta say, it's rare to find person who doesn't understand basic math like "what is percentage and why it matters more than absolute numbers when discussing percentages on the other end of the formula" on an IT focused forum.

You're a rare breed.

Personally, I'm against tipping on principle. But when it's priced into the system, you go with how the system works.

And one of the critical aspects of tipping system is that it's voluntary. If it's not, then it's definitionally not a gratuity. And presenting gratuity as "sorta kinda" mandatory in the bill is entirely against the spirit of the system.

And "let them eat cake" rich types don't seem to realize that most people are price conscious. Jacking the price by 30% is likely going to nuke at least the 25% of customers who currently pay no tips to delivery drivers.

Which is likely going to crash quite a few restaurants, resulting in in further reduction in orders due to less consumer choice and longer delivery times.

So if you're a rich Chinese resident, RMB is useful.

Otherwise, it's not, because you can't move it out in any meaningful amounts.

Do you see the problem yet?

Like clockwork, when leftist runs out of arguments, he goes to low tier personal insults.

Funniest part being that your mind is so retarded by the hatred, you forgot that "Russian" is a European ethnicity.

Notice that at no point did you call me wrong. Because you know I'm right.

P.S. I'm an active reservist in FDF. They check us for connections to Russia for rather self evident reasons.

I'm about you blow your mind with basic math. I know, I know. Math is bigoted, we need to develop alternative ways of knowing. I'm sure black lesbian trans undocumented person shaman is about to strike me with lightning. Nontheless, humor me.

Is the price you're advocating for greater than price currently paid?

If yes, you are advocating for raising prices.

Welcome to reality. It doesn't care about your feelings.

It has a highly functional system for normal people. It has awful one for bottom 20%, and world leader for top 5%.

In EU we have a functional system for bottom 20%, awful one for normal people and a bit below american top 5% for our top 5%.

And in Canada, state will gladly kill you for getting sick to the point where it costs significant money to treat you. But that's a different story.