Article says the erroneous menus weren't distributed. So, probably not.

Removing the allergen warning is basically some form of attempted manslaughter.

Good point about correlation, entirety possible the depressed and anxious people may tend to increase screen use.

Rube flag?

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the 2nd best time is today.

Without disputing that there were a lot of fuckups, this feels like a kind of pointless article given the uncle called 10 minutes after the shooter was shot by police, not sure there was much he could have done at that point.

I prefer the "Darth Jar Jar" and "The Bloop" levels of conspiracy theories.

This isn't early access, it's advanced access, like if a game has a deluxe edition that lets people play a few days before the official release.

Nah, this wasn't an issue with the scanner, it's an issue with the core design of the software. For whatever reason, it uses different value fields when determining the price to display for an item and the price used in the total, that means this problem can occur for any number of items and the only way to detect it is to manually total the receipt. It's a fundamental problem with the software and their pricing change control process and a good PSA, the negative headline draws better attention than the positive, which is that anyone could be charged incorrectly. That the store was able to fix it is also good to include, but it is an expected responsibility of the store to do so, not some positive spin.

If only employers cared. It has been nice, now my employer is rolling out a arbitrary but mandatory 4 days return to office policy. In like 8 years of employment I never needed to be there that much. Whatever, 100% remote job market looks decent for me, hopefully find a better place soon.

Seems like kind of a straw that broke the camel's back situation.

A company sent them a one-of-a-kind prototype cooling device and the video card it was designed for to have it reviewed or whatever. The reviewer misplaced the GPU but was under deadline to produce their video, so they used a different video card, and the cooler (as should be expected) didn't function well, but they posted the negative review anyway. After the fuckup was pointed out, they put a very easy to miss "correction" on the video. People caught on that this happens alot, and started to question the value of the content, given so many mistakes and easily missed corrections. This also extended to people questioning the bias of their reviews on products related to companies they have partnerships with or competing brands.

Additionally, despite being asked to return the device and agreeing to do so, they later sold it at a charity auction. This measurably harmed the creator and it is unknown who purchased it (people speculate it was a competitor), apparently some compensation was worked out however.

Last I've seen, the former social media manager posted a pretty scathing recounting of time at the company. It included alot of events that indicate this was a predatory and hostile work environment, including sexual harassment.