Decidedly mixed and increasingly right-leaning but I’m pleasantly surprised at my own experience having voice chats with diverse people who agree on one thing but disagree on just about everything else.

Tbf the rockets seem to work. Not easy to fake that.

disingenuously points to the indecipherable ToS

Research suggests otherwise.

An independent analysis of 15,000 EV batteries finds that most don’t need to be replaced until they’re well over a decade old.

You don’t seem to actually want to discuss the implications of that point. Take care.

Can you show me where I conceded your point? That was not my intention, as I do not concede your point. To the contrary, I assume the “typical” coffee contains far less than 400mg of caffeine.

I further do not concede that the drink was adequately labeled as caffeinated. Not because I know it wasnt, I don’t, but since the girl knew she couldn’t have caffeine it seems unlikely she would intentionally ignore information about caffeine content that was adequately marked.

It’s possible she was being generally unobservant, maybe even fair to assume it, but that just brings us back around to the only point I’ve tried to make. It’s reasonable to assume lemonade is not caffeinated since AFAIK it’s pretty much always uncaffeinated. So it doesn’t necessarily matter how many beverages at the self serve were caffeinated because who has ever heard of caffeinated lemonade?

There’s no calculation she should have been expected to assume re: caffeine to volume ratio of lemonade so it’s not a stretch that she wouldn’t think to check.

The fact that any amount would have been too much was just a compounding factor in a tragedy.

The average cup of coffee has about 95mg of caffeine (found it: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/caffeine/art-20049372). So each of these lemonades she drank was over 4 cups of coffee.

If she was able to miss the labeling, which is reasonable to assume - bc she would she ignore it on purpose? - then it would have been very easy for her to ingest an extreme amount of caffeine in a short period of time, which is what I assume happened.

You used the size of the lemonade to argue its caffeine content was not excessive given the lemonade was larger in volume than a comparable coffee beverage.

But the topic of this chain started with the girl not realizing the drink was caffeinated to begin with.

The context of my question was calling into doubt the relevance of caffeine to volume ratio in defining “excessive” when the underlying issue was accidental consumption due to (alleged) poor product labeling.

Given she had a heart condition, any amount seems to have been “excessive”.

How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?

Most informed comment ITT. Thank you for sharing it.

Not sure who they surveyed. Sure as hell didn’t ask me.

deleted by creator

Not to mention the $7500 tax credit and if you’re in CA there’s also a tax rebate (they send you a check).

Satan here. Just want you to know I’m a big fan.

Saving me and potentially others almost 20mins. Not all heroes.

Sounds legit to me. Hope it’s a great upgrade for you!

deleted by creator

If you have any interest in holding out another year or two a battery replacement would be much cheaper. If you’re looking forward to the upgrade then enjoy the new phone!

¯\(ツ)/¯

Sorry my question was poorly formed. You were talking about digital files being stored perfectly fine on a local medium. I was talking about new use cases for unique digital objects, and gave examples of different kinds of existing credentials/titles.

What if that digital file is the title to your car, deed to your home, your college degree, passport, driver’s license, etc?

Living in a digital world there are IMO fascinating use cases for unique (read non-copyable, self-custodied) digital objects.

What I’m not interested in are assumptions of limitations for things we barely understand.