• OutlierBlue@lemmy.caEnglish
    321·
    10 days ago

    Lotteries. If people understood odds they’d never buy a ticket, or at least not in the numbers they do.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      9 days ago

      You have a better chance of literally being Brad Pitt than you do if winning the lottery.

    • dmention7@lemm.eeEnglish
      10·
      10 days ago

      I hate to be “that guy” but in theee cases, it just makes more sense to have some extraneous labeling rather than have special clauses in the regulation dictating when it’s obvious enough that the label can be omitted.

      Keeping the rules as simple as possible reduces the chances of loopholes and ambiguity, at the expense of sometimes resulting in things like a jar of peanut butter stating “contains peanuts” on the label.

        • dmention7@lemm.eeEnglish
          4·
          9 days ago

          It only makes no sense until you stop and consider how to define and implement a better rule, when the only real benefit would be to prevent people snarking about milk having a “contains milk” labeling.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            12·
            9 days ago

            Labeling for ingredients and possible cross contamination concerns doesn’t require that milk warns about milk.

            • dmention7@lemm.eeEnglish
              4·
              9 days ago

              Do you think that someone sits down and makes a list of all items that need to be labeled as containing X, which is then updated each time a new food or recipe hits the store shelves?

              Or is it more likely that regulators simply state that all foods for human consumption containing more than some percent by weight of X must be labeled as containing X?

              If your goal is to ensure that consumers are alerted to certain ingredients for allergy or other purposes, you care very much about a product not getting labeled properly, and you don’t really care if something obvious gets the label.

              I’m not really sure why this is so hard to grasp…

  • Johandea@feddit.nu
    16·
    10 days ago

    Probably a whole bunch of us. Stupidity may result in unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancies.

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      10 days ago

      These laptop fans I bought a while back had a warranty of 60 days. At that stage I wonder why even bother. They worked just fine for years, though.

    • viking@infosec.pub
      66·
      9 days ago

      For profit health insurance companies.

      Even with universal healthcare, someone has to do all the admin stuff, and putting it under government control directly just screams of inefficiencies.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        4·
        8 days ago

        I always assume people who assert that the government is automatically less efficient, more expensive, and poorly run compared to private industry must never have been associated with a large corporation, or lack awareness.

        Medicare, as it exists today, delivers superior care at lower cost than any private insurer. This despite the fact that Medicare covers the elderly and disabled, groups that need more care than the population at large that the private guys cover. If you think about it, Medicare is a giant subsidy to the private market by removing needy populations from their rolls.

        The scheme to include private guys in medicare “medicare advantage”, was supposed to bring down costs by bringing in the efficiency of the private market. Medicare Advantage today costs more than the Army and the Navy.