>Let’s say we can get people to 200 by keeping them immobile and cold and nearly starving them of calories and oxygen—dramatically suppressing their metabolism. Who would want that?
I can imagine quite a few people. Maybe they are already in pain or have mobility issues. At that point why not say "yeah just feed me painkillers and keep me half-frozen. i can do everything in VR/online"? It's better than hospice.
On the contrary, nicotine poisoning is common, the lethal dose in humans is relatively well characterized (though higher than most poisons: 500–1000mg/kg) and there are many case studies of nicotine poisoning in the medical literature, many of which are life-threatening and some of which are even lethal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning. Moreover, nicotine has been widely used to kill insects in the past. Consequently, there are well-established occupational safety limits. None of these things are true of bisphenol-A, even though it is produced in much larger quantities than nicotine ever has been.
Perhaps your intended reference, however, is to the other toxic components of cigarette smoke, such as benzo[a]pyrene. That is, cigarettes kill something like one out of ten people, but the vast majority of those deaths are not due to nicotine. (Except in the indirect sense that nicotine is addictive and induces people to smoke cigarettes so that they are exposed to the other poisons in the smoke.)
Very well, then. What are the other toxic components of thermally printed receipts you're concerned about?
I'm open to hearing what point you think I'm missing, but so far all you've done is strike a pose of fatigued knowingness. If you have knowledge to share on this matter, by all means, share it; certainly I won't be the only one who needs the point spelled out for them, because as dumb and uninformed as I admittedly am, I doubt I'm the dumbest or least informed person reading this thread.
I think their point was that many toxic chemicals have been linked to various cancers and other long-term health conditions and that they don’t need to kill you immediately to be considered harmful.
If that was their point, then why did they use the example of nicotine, one of the few frequently lethal chemicals that haven't been linked to various cancers and other long-term health conditions?
I think the point CapstanRoller was making was just that their understanding of toxicology is limited to vague hunches, so they feel comfortable in dismissing any information from anyone who knows more than they do about the subject.
> >Many people don't know that you have to milk a dairy cow twice a day because they produce so much milk. > > Why? This doesn't seem natural (or ethical) > > >In today's world, farmers need to have more cows than they could ever milk by hand. > > Why? This doesn't seem sustainable (or ethical)
Short answer: capitalism
Longer answer: cows have been bred for more milk throughput, not more milk storage. A good dairy cow can yield up to six and a half gallons every day. The udder is simply not large enough to hold that much milk. Whether this kind of selective breeding can be called natural is up to you.
And milking machines, even the simplest kind that provide just a suction mechanism, are ubiquitous in the developed world and can easily allow the farmer to milk multiple cows in parallel, pipelined. And you need to have some machines to survive on the market. So you get more cows to increase the yield. These machines are usually very reliable, so people begin to rely on them. If you can get them fixed weithin a couple hours you're good.
If the employee can get it refunded with an expense report, like any other work expense then in my experience (in California), it’s not illegal. I’ve made plenty of work expenditures with my personal CC that I get reimbursed from the company with an expense report. But *pressuring* employees to do it is plain wrong (and may be illegal).
Coming back here, not sure if anyone still reads this thread a day later...
I am not sure about the legality of it here in Germany, but I'm not really sure I could even prove it.
Pressuring us into buying these items are hard to prove, nobody said we need to do anything. You want to be someone who makes sure the feature can launch on time and works correctly, or you want to complain (rightfully) that using your own cards should not be necessary for testing a feature?
It was, though, implied 1. we need to make sure the product works and shipped on time, 2. you can't do it without using your own cards.
I know people on the team who simply didn't test, but as it was a feature I was mainly responsible for and genuinely interested in, I wanted the launch to be successful.
We also eventually got the money back (most of the money? didn't check them all).
In the end, it was in total about 25 euros, and that's not a sum that I would sue my employer over, especially as I was "happy enough" at the company.
>Here in the state of California, labor laws define that an employer cannot require a team member to take on expenses that are an integral part of the job.
Two comments. (From a non-CA legal jurisdiction context.)
You can always ask (but not pressure or require). Make sure you make it clear there's no downside to them refusing.
Another option I've used is to hand cash to co workers and ask them to spend it on their credit card for testing. I've rarely had anyone refuse that. (A few very junior staff members who were maybe right on the credit limit on their cards I suspect.)
California is an example, but I’m unclear about other states. Honestly, I’m unclear across the board because there are a lot of employee made purchases that are conditions of employment (phone, computer), and it could be argued that this purchase is a similar necessity especially if it’ll be refunded.
Any job that asks you to buy your own equipment, especially a computer, is a scam (unless you are a freelancer, in which case you should already have equipment)
