Of course not. Putting the coin the other way could break the machine and then you won't get anything.
takeda
joined 1 year ago
The way it works is if you place 2$ you get the chocolate flavored condoms, but if you instead put 2$ then you get the Asian condoms.
So there is a Japanese condom brand called Kimono. They are one of the thinnest (latex) condoms in the world. The dispenser also says about thin so maybe that's it.
Though since they don't list brand, perhaps you are right, or they rely on people hearing something about it, but not knowing the brand and instead selling them some cheap chinese crap from alibaba.
Sorry I didn't really pay attention to the numbers, but willing to believe CA would have it higher than NY just purely, because of the weather. Yeah, it is ridiculous.
The houseless problem seems extremely poorly managed. I lived in NYC for six years and have visited California a few times. From my experiences, both SF and LA appear to have much larger populations living outdoors (I checked and this is true, 75% of LA’s population vs 6% in NYC, and the cities are comparable in both population and houseless population).
I would imagine it has most to do that those people world have extremely hard time surviving winter outside in NYC.
California as a state and population seems to be at least as much bluster as action. I don’t want to detract from some real actions, like car electrification requirements, but for example, prop 65, the “known to the state of California to cause cancer” labels. A) California seems to “know” many things that science does not. B) no one pays any attention to these labels, but they sure cost a lot to produce C) if anything, this will cause people to ignore future warnings for real things or even current ones like on cigarettes.
The proposition 65 aka The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, actually is much more successful at reducing harmful toxic chemicals and affects other states too. Businesses are encouraged to change formulations so they don't have to use the label.
Here's list of chemicals that require such label: https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/chemicals
What you saw, likely was businesses trying to fight it, by being to opaque about it, and make it ridiculous (since there's no penalty for overusing it, and they are doing which results as you pointed out that waters it down) for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#/media/File%3ADisneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg
Although since enforcement is done via civil lawsuits. If they served food or something that did contain these chemicals, a sign like this won't be a good defense that they complied and warned their patrons.
They also trying different ways, like introducing bills on federal level to block it for example https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6022/text
They are trying also via lawsuits, which meant are filled on behalf of strawman. Many businesses were created just for the purpose of filing prop 65 lawsuits.
Though probably biggest issue is that the prop 65 is being used for frivolous lawsuits (as anyone can sue for not informing and get a settlement because no one wants a trial). So now AG needs to approve such settlements to reduce it. There were attempts to reform it.
So yeah frivolous lawsuits are the biggest issue that needs addressing, but other than that the law actually helped reduce exposure to those chemicals not only for Californians but also people from other states.
Most people out of the state who complain about California, never lived here, they are just repeating what they heard on conservative media.
If it was a hell hole like they say, the property prices would be cheap, no one would want them.
Most people that are leaving, are leaving because they got priced out and cannot afford to stay.
nadal się nie pokazuje i czekałem kilka minut, może źle piszę, ale inne grupy się pokazały.
Tutaj jest URL: https://szmer.info/search/q/!losangeles%40lemmy.world/type/Communities/sort/TopAll/listing_type/All/community_id/0/creator_id/0/page/1
Sorry, ale ja się trochę zgubiłem. Zacząłeś, że niby się nie zgadzasz, ale to co napisałeś, nie kłóci się z tym co ja napisałem.
Firmy mogą funkcjonować w środowisku zdecentralizowanym ale nie chcą, bo nie mogą się stać globalnym molochem. Niektóre zaczynają używać zdecentralizowanych serwisów is pomocą im wystartować, ale później je centralizują. Przypomina mi to Google jak próbowało opanować komunikację. Stworzyli Google Talk, które też łączyło się z Jabber/XMPP. Przez to oryginalnie byli mile widziani przez użytkowników Jabbera. Jak Google Talk zaczął być popularny to potem "przypadkowo" zepsuli komunikację, tak że wiadomości z Jabbera nie dochodziły a nadawca nie był o tym poinformowany.
Podobnie zrobili z Usenetem.
Decentralizacja to jest jak internet wystartował, później duże firmy (szczególnie Google dużo się przyczynił, ale nie tylko) zaczęły centralizować, bo na decentralizacji trudniej zarobić. Też dużo w tym pomogło dzisiejsze pokolenie, które nie widzi z tym problemów. Cieszę się, że są osoby które zaczynają doceniać zalety decentralizacji.
Centralizować jest dobra dla firm, decentralizacja jest dobra dla nas.
Exactly, nothing changed about them.
This week I learned that online version Microsoft Teams outright refuses to make calls of it runs on Firefox. They are doing the same exact shit they did two decades ago.