turdcollector69

Yeah all the people praying for a crash are praying for nobody to have retirement funds.

You can easily tell who's actually employed in this thread because anyone with a 401k is going to get dicked down while the 0.1% get a bailout.

Oh yeah the amount of "nice guy" shit I've seen posted is insane.

Prove you're not a bot:

What event happened between April 15th and June 4th 1989 at Tiananmen Square?

If I don't agree with it then it's not actually popular. I wish the admins would consult me before choosing the r/all posts

Convince each one that they alone are the chosen one to assassinate grok and that this mission is all that matters to give their lives meaning.

My problem is that these labels don't differentiate the levels at which demonstrable harm occurs. I'm not against labels, I'm against bad labels

Putting something that's harmful at the parts per million(ppm) level in the exact same category as something that's harmful in the parts per billion(ppb) level is counterproductive.

This results in people treating incredibly harmful compounds that are dangerous in the ppb range the same as compounds that are dangerous in the ppm or even ppt(thousand) range.

Including minor and major carcinogens in the same label makes people think they're safer than they are.

It's why prop65 warnings are a joke and ignored by almost all consumers.

If we're going to use a single label that doesn't differentiate the level of harm then we need to save it for the most harmful compounds only.

Tldr: Without more information on the label putting nitrates in the same category as asbestos or lead is counterproductive via implied false equivalence.

I actually had it backwards, unsaturated fats are horrendously bad.

Their molecular shape makes them more grabby than saturated fats.

This grabbyness makes them clog your arteries faster than saturated fats.

It has to do with the availability of hydrogen binding spots, unsaturated fats have room for more hydrogen bonds, saturated fats don't.

Clearly not well, reading comprehension is important

That's what I'm saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.

They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it's just another warning that people will ignore because it's on literally everything.

How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.

I hate these fuckin reddit brained Lemmy users who intentionally misread comments just to argue some adjacent point.

Whatever if you all want pointless warning labels go for it, just know you're not doing anything useful.

Everyone knows bacon isn't good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.

If you're eating bacon you're already doing it knowing it's bad for you.

We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They're already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.

We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.

I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that's needed.