![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
2·
3 months agoYou pay <1c /Kwh ?! That’s crazy, we’re 10x that here in the southeast US and I thought ours was pretty cheap
You pay <1c /Kwh ?! That’s crazy, we’re 10x that here in the southeast US and I thought ours was pretty cheap
That AS is cutting it close. It’s a real post code though it seems
Wow, I can’t believe it was as easy to discover as “I copied the link you shared and I could edit the results” and yet the ballot company still tried to say it was legit
I hope they weren’t blasting UVC disinfectant lights directly at the audience. That would not be great for their health
Without any stats, I suspect retouching is so prevalent, that basically Norway mandated every ad put a sticker on the copy, and consumers will just learn to ignore it. Hopefully that doesn’t end up the case, because this is a great first step.
It also doesn’t seem like there’s any way for the consumer to find out the extent of the retouching. Like, let’s say I’m interested in a product but the picture is retouched, can I find the original image anywhere to see a more realistic depiction of that product?
One of the complaints I have with Prop65 labels (‘this product is known to the state of California to cause cancer’ labels) is that its significant extra work for me, as the casual consumer, to figure out what and how much is in the product. So by default I would want to avoid it in general, but if there’s only 3 options and they all have the warning, I can’t tell if one is straight cancer another just has a little cancer dusted on and the third uses a much less cancerous alternative chemical that still falls afoul of the marking laws, but is barely harmful if used as directed.