I mean dunkin serves 396mg of caffeine in their large iced coffees. Just eyeballing it, their large iced beverages seem to be 30oz as well. I don't think that the serving sizes are much of an issue when compared to other beverages with similar caffeine content at other restaurants and cafes.
It has the same amount of caffeine if you get the 20fluid oz cup. A 20oz coffee at panera is 268mg while 20oz of lemonade is 260. I don't think you have a point here.
That's why you use your eyes and read the sign that clearly states "as much caffeine as our dark roast".
Sure, if you want to put that label on most coffees as well since the lemonade has the same caffeine per ml. Then you get to the point of having everything labeled so everyone will naturally ignore it.
It says "as much caffeine as our dark roast" on the dispenser. It's a pretty solid reference imo. If you have the same quantity of lemonade or coffee, then you have the same caffeine intake.
That is correct. If you compare the caffeine content per ml to most coffees, you'll find that it's essentially the same. Star bucks coffee, for example, has 410mg for their large cup which is actually more per ml than the lemonades have.
Where else are they supposed to put it? Do you realize how small Gaza is?
True, but it doesn't make sense to astroturf on a site with the tiniest fraction of users, most of which are already critical of mainstream centralized social media. Why worry about doing it here when a single comment on reddit can reach millions of people when lemmy doesn't even have as many users combined as some of the subs over on reddit.
This guy is a clown, regardless. I had an interaction with him on another thread where he edited his comment to make himself look like he predicted my response lmao. He also refuses to elaborate on some of the good faith response comments from other users because he knows his viewpoint is indefensible.
I guess that's fair. There's a critical point where that happens though. Even if they doubled the amount of ads right now, I bet they wouldn't lose too many people because there aren't any real competitor platforms. The amount of youtube ads right now is still significantly less than the equivalent watch time of cable channels, for example. You can watch 20 mins of content and sit through maybe 3 5 second skippable ads, and 3 20 second ads or something? Still significantly less than tv where you have 15 mins of ads every hour.
I'm talking about purely in terms of ads on the video. Both youtube and content creators want as as much ad revenue as possible but not to the point where they lose viewership because of the quantity of ads. I'm not saying content creators are in the wrong, I'm just saying that they get paid based on ads, so of course they want more revenue. It's just an analysis of the relationship, I'm not pointing blame towards anyone.
Honestly, there is plenty of stuff I'd pay for but I pirate if it's difficult to access.
I guess the one difference is that I don't think twitch ads are skippable while youtube's ads are. I assume embedding the ad into the video would prohibit that. Hopefully youtube doesn't do that because while the current ad situation is annoying, having only unskippable ads would be pretty unbearable.
I'm sure content creators will be pissed that more ads are served on their videos haha. Oh no! More money! Whatever will they do? The conversation about ads has two sides where consumers are on one and content creators and youtube are on the other.
While I'd absolutely love for there to be a youtube alternative, they have a pretty much complete monopoly on online video distribution. Hosting all that data is expensive so competitors would need some serious financial backing which would likely put the competitor service in the hands of a large corporation.
Twitch seems to have figured out adblock blocking. Any idea what they're doing that's different?
Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.
Oh hey you put this part in before being downvoted this time lmao. If you think it's worth googles time to be astroturfing on fucking lemmy, you have a couple screws loose lmfao.
Competitors would be great but there isn't another service that comes close to what youtube provides. You'd need it to be worth it for creators to jump ship or at least upload to multiple sites. There hasn't been any real competition in the space because youtube is so far ahead of everyone else.
Oh no! Someone is going against the anti YouTube circlejerk by saying that it's personally worth it for them to pay for the service. Obviously a paid actor. No one who isn't paid by google would ever dare to express that kind of sentiment on a relevant discussion thread, of course. Lmao.
Edit: Lol I love how you added your prediction that you'd be downvoted after being downvoted, and after I left my comment. For those who didn't see, he edited the comment to add everything after the first sentence after being met with resistance making it seem like he predicted the downvotes and my response. I wish I was being paid to clown on this moron haha. What a sad pathetic fucking loser lol.
I know what you mean. You're talking about an ideal reality. In the real world, people get fucked over when they're fired, and ai will put a lot of people out of work. Before we can get near what you're talking about we need widespread labor movements to ensure worker's rights and to fight for worker-benefited automation among other things. It doesn't look like we're close to being there yet, unfortunately. I just don't see how you can say that automation putting people out of work is moving towards that goal. It just fucks people over because workers have no protection.
Its not impossible to research the porn you consume to ensure that you're not getting off to someone being sexually abused or raped.
You do understand that abusers can lie about what they're doing, right? And that victims of abuse will often not come out in fear of retaliation from the abuser. You're saying that the viewer should be required to prove that something doesn't exist. It's an impossible task.
We're talking about people who have absurd amounts of money. I know a rich guy and he doesn't even blink at spending $10k+ on some things. It's just inconsequential.