News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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”.
I think you just made the mistake of conceding my whole point. Yes, if she shouldn't have had ANY caffeine, we have a problem. And the problem is that she walked to a self-service area where over 90% of the beverages are caffeinated (they have maybe 2 or 3 things that aren't, tops?), and she filled her cup with the ONLY one that explicitly advertised being caffeinated.
Back to your question:
Yet again, I don't think this question is relevant ESPECIALLY now that you conceded that the amount of caffeine is irrelevant and not problematic. But here's the key quotes of the thread, and why I felt your question was out-of-touch:
Note, you just accepted my side of the underlying discussion as fact because it didn't matter to your new point. That's how I know your reply was a context-switch.
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.
Sure! This is where you conceded the only point I cared about discussing here.
You don’t seem to actually want to discuss the implications of that point. Take care.