this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
61 points (96.9% liked)

You Should Know

46579 readers
25 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason WHY YSK:

In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true:

Disinformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.



Rule 12- Linking directly to a video as a source is not acceptable.

Video only posts are responsible for an outsized portion of rules violations. Your post must contain text and meet the requirements of the previous rules.



Rule 13- If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SARGE@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

To continue with the argument of "the market will self-regulate and people wouldn't buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again"

Okay but how many people died, how many people are suffering long-term effects, and what's stopping them from adding a different deadly thing to our food?

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

wouldn’t buy that brand anymore so they would never do it again

Assuming there is perfect information in the market. In reality there is heavy information asymmetry.

It also assumes free competition while we have every market dominated by a few players buying up everyone else, often with cartel like behavior.

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It also assumes it is immediately deadly poison, and doesn't do something like cause early dementia 25 years later.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It also assumes the masses behave rationally, which they won’t ever.

We’ll just get the cheapest shit with the limited information we are given, unless it is life-or-death, where we will pay any price out of fear.

[–] ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Market self regulation assumes informed consumers that are smart enough to know what things mean. Also it assumes healthy competition and companies that are competing to make the best product at the chrapest price. It ALSO assumes brand lotalty isn't a thing, and consumers are judging things purely objectively.

Like, i understand the idea, but in practice there are a ton of caveats.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Also the evidence shows this isn't really true, anyway.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

And also they're already basically Monopolies. You don't have real options. Most food products come from like 3 mega corps who own hundreds of brands.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Also, if you want inspections to make sure there isn't bird shit in the milk, then you need regulation. Otherwise people are just drinking bird shit and they don't know.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Regulations are written in blood

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

Very true.

But, even so I don't think all regulations need to be a thing unless there's a specific point reached.

Like, if 1 in 100 million die due to some issue every 10 years, do we need a regulation that hinders the comfort/productivity of tens of thousands?

Not sure where that point is, but some regulations do seem pretty ridiculous to me.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

But I'm an alpha man child and I need to make people bleed to prove it!

[–] toadjones79@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Bleach, actually. A small amount of bleach added to spoiled milk makes it taste brand new. The government actually suggested this in a few countries for a while.

Plaster in flour was common enough that after the miller, the middle men, and then the baker all added a cut, there were loaves being sold with less than 20% flour in them. The result was mass malnutrition.

Also, and this is a spicy one but backed by basic economics, regulations are a required element to capitalism. The notion that deregulation is pro capitalism is a misinterpretation of the idea that markets are self regulating. A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations. All our current economic woes are the result of straying away from proven economic theory (mostly deregulation) to the right allowing the corruption of the marketplace and emergence of a strong oligarchy.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations.

And the truth is that the oligarchs, the established players in the game of capitalism, do not want a free market. They want a market with the illusion of freedom. A free market like the one you describe is, in fact, a true free market. Because then they have to actually compete with new players. Players who don't come from the same backgrounds as the established players. Who may have different beliefs, who might not have the same skin color. Who may have a superior product or service to one or more of the established players. Who are free to sit at the same tables as oligarchs and take up space because their government gives them the power to do so. De regulation gives the illusion of a market being free, by making it so that if you want to be a new player in the game, you can, but unless you pay obeisance to the top players, you're not getting very far. Plus the top players will buy you out, which is essentially them bribing you to walk away from the table.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, and this is a spicy one but backed by basic economics, regulations are a required element to capitalism

Indeed the free market itself has demanded regulations, hence why they exist. And the regulations don't actually per se stop crime, they simply give a quick mechanistic action afterwards to getting retribution when the regulations are violated - they bankrupt corrupt businesses over time.

I'll go extra-spicy and point out that there's no such thing as "ownership" as we know it without government. Legal-wonkishly, ownership is enforceable, transferrable, exclusive title to property. I can "own" land that I'm only physically present on for a few days per year because my name is on a piece of paper in a file cabinet in a government office, and it's backed up by a court system and police force that's constituted and willing to enforce my title.

I just mention it because a lot of the deregulation whiners are the same people as the "taxation is theft" whiners.

[–] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

is plaster bread low calorie

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] T156@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

A free market is one that is free of corruption and unfair business practices. Which cannot exist without regulations and the enforcement of those regulations.

We've had numerous laws precisely because companies couldn't play fair, and made things worse for all involved. The government didn't pass laws against company towns, scrip, and predatory pricing because they decided to ban things for fun.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's true. We owe a lot of food standards to companies like Heinz, that would put rotten tomatoes (those not even fit for animal consumption) in their ketchup.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most US foods produced under their 'regulations' are forbidden in EU.
And for good reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Pure unadulterated capitalism means adulterated bread, wine, and milk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ambiance6195@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Speaking of Americans, at least half of us are criminally uneducated and watch literally nothing but Fox News. You can't teach them even with indisputable proof. If the talking heads say it's bad, then it's bad.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Framing one half of the population as beyond saving or inherently evil is not just lazy - it’s historically dangerous. It reduces millions of individuals into a caricature and gives people permission to treat them with contempt, as if that’s somehow virtuous. That kind of thinking has been used to justify some of the worst things we’ve done to each other as humans.

When you actually talk to people outside your bubble, you quickly realize that most of us want the same basic things - stability, safety, meaning, a fair shot in life. We just have different beliefs about how to get there. Writing off entire groups as irredeemable only erodes any future possibility of understanding or change.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Republicans: But we are the ones selling the spoiled milk.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is true, but it's important to remember that some regulations were not written in blood, but instead in racism - see R1-zoning as one of the most significant examples.

Regulations are just tools, really. They can evidently be used for good, and should be used for good, but some are being used for bad and should be reformed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Surely you could've come up with a better example.

Chalk is just calcium carbonate. Modern medicine uses calcium carbonate to as a calcium supplement.

We are still adding things to milk. Any milk that's "calcium fortified" or "extra calcium", and a lot of nut-milks, have calcium carbonate as an ingredient to this day.

I mean, I get your point...honestly, I do...but it's coming across nearly as the same sort of anti-science drivel you'd expect from the counterargument.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Industrial chalk that was used as adulterants wasn't nearly as pure as the calcium carbonate you are imagining

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

just to point out the other side of this...

(and I already know I'ma be downvoted for just saying that)

Some regulations are bad. Many are good and we actually need them, but some are bad. For example, when there's a few large companies in an industry, they often lobby for regulations designed to increase the cost of doing business. While the big fish can pay the costs of these extra regulations, smaller companies cant, and just cant compete with the big fish, lowering the amount of competition in the industry and promoting more monopolistic behavior. We saw Openai try to do exactly this back when they went to Congress to warn the senators about the dangers of 'agi' and how it quickly needed to be regulated. Well they failed, and now there's tons of companies with their own products that rival Chatgpt in every way other than the brand recognition.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you don’t solve this by having less regulations lmao

[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

its solved by getting money out of politics, along with removing regulations that don't make sense and keeping the ones that do

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 year ago

sure but regulatory capture and a controlled market are not really a counter argument to regulation so much as an argument for more regulation

strict rules enforcing disclosure and other sunshine laws are key to exposing corruption like you are suggesting

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Folks here think regulation, and immediately put it to food and Ai or other white collar applications.

Working in plastic manufacturing for ten years, and chemical manufacturing for a few more, the term deregulatuon terrifies me. Regulations keep employees safe, and aims to keep the products we make safe.

I think of environmental impacts first and foremost, which is the kind of deregulation I assumed was meant with this regimes obsession with bringing back coal, oil, and mining/deforestation if our national parks.

Getting money out of politics is implemented with regulation. We only have one environment, and they want to deregulate environmental safety/preservation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of car startups (in the US) taking off one wheel, turning them into moto/autocycles, so they wouldn't have to go through expensive car certification processes

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The tweet itself limits its scope to food safety regulations specifically. The title of this lemmy post was condensed for brevity, which might create the impression that it's trying to make a larger point about regulations in toto. But I figured I could get away with it because I figured that surely people would read the tweet before commenting.

[–] Catpurple@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago

People? Read? Never.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's just the free market working as intended. Collateral damage.

Maybe people should do research on the available milk brands before giving it to their children if they didn't want them to drink bleach.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe people should do research on the available milk brands before giving it to their children if they didn’t want them to drink bleach.

Without regulation, the company could also just lie. Nothing would dictate that they would have to tell the truth about their product.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

With no regulation there will be no other milk brands.

[–] stelelor@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Excellent idea! I'm sure that information will be readily available from independent trustworthy sources that are not the government! Failing that, I always have my trusty mass spectrometer in my kitchen and I run all my foods through it just in case!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And pure unadulterated something-else-ism would not, lol. The concept of responsibility that hard to grasp?

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The concept of responsibility that hard to grasp?

For companies that seems to be case yeah

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›