Europeans literally see no irony in throwing shade at Americans for hanging onto their traditional measurement system, while also speaking 27 different languages in the span of a few hundred miles.

Maybe come down off your high horse until you get that situation sorted, eh? >.>

Edit: Oops, I thought it would be safe to make a joke a in a meme thread.

Risks exist on a continuum, and something not literally being forcibly banned doesn't mean there is zero risk in that thing, just that the risk is lower than those things that are forcibly banned or that the risks can be mitigated in other ways.

Same reason you go through a metal detector to check for weapons before getting within half mile of a plane, but were left pretty much on your honor to not bring a Samsung phone with a spicy battery on board.

That's asinine. It's like saying "If brakes really mattered, a cop would check your brakes before letting you drive to work in the morning". Brakes are pretty damn important, but very few places (in the US at least) have any mechanism for ensuring yours are in working order even periodically.

Proper risk mitigation takes into account (at minimum) the likelihood of an event occuring, the severity of the event occurring, your willingness to tolerate a failure, and the cost associated with implementing corrections.

Airlines have an EXTREMELY low tolerance for any kind of risk that could conceivably lead to a catastrophic failure, so the fact that you're allowed to have a device, despite potential safety concerns, comes from a combination of a few factors:

1. The chances of some kind of major interference with flight ops happening are demonstrably pretty low
2. People would likely push back quite hard on not being able to use electronic devices for entertainment on a flight.
3. Most people comply with the request.
4. Related to 3, there is little reason for airlines to change the rule, since cell operation is next to impossible in flight anyways, and wifi/bluetooth are not in the frequency range of concern.

Adults also liking something in no way negates the idea that the marketing and flavors are designed to hook in kids.

Honestly, aside from a little thing like ethics, vape manufacturers would be stupid to NOT try and hook kids while they are young and impressionable, so the default assumption has to be that they are trying.

Look, I'm open to discussing in good faith, but we're clearly talking past each other and this feels more like bickering, so I don't see much point in continuing, other than to collect downvotes 😅

Really...?

I get you're being sarcastic here, but you and I both know that advertising and marketing can be incredibly subtle and insidious. Hell, that exact complaint is half the content posted to Lemmy. Making your product in flavors that appeal primarily to kids is about as blatant as it gets. What makes you think vape manufacturers are so honest?

In case you're being serious, take a stroll down the candy or cereal aisle at your grocery store and see if you can pick out which ones are marketed to kids vs adults just by the flavors.

That's a fair question. My POV is that not being able to buy sweet fruity flavors might be inconvenient to some adults, but it's hardly something that could be argued to cause an undue burden on vape users.

It would probably be straightforward to commission a study (or leverage existing study data) to identify the flavors that underage users are most likely to use and start there. If data shows that removing or restricting those flavors is not an impediment to underage vaping, then at that point reconsider the regulations.

Even if some manufacturers choose to skirt the regulations (no this isn't "grape", it's "purple berry"!), larger companies with the biggest market share are probably not going to want to get tangled up in high visibility lawsuits, and so the likely outcome is that availability goes down, and therefore so does the access and use rate.

I mean... yeah, their motivations are obviously not pure, but having vape sellers be licensed similar to cigarette sellers and banning flavors that are marketed to kids both sound pretty reasonable IMO.

Damn... what in the younger-millenial hell is this take?

Maybe drop the entitlement and stop passively waiting for someone else to provide some meaning and purpose to your life. Read a book, take a walk in a park, adopt a pet, learn to cook, play a board game with a friend, smoke a joint and watch the sun set.

I get that it's probably supposed to be some generic "capitalism is ruining the world" sentiment, but this person just sounds insufferable.

It's just a really weird passive phrasing that implies it was your home before the landlord bought it.

It's more like they bought a house and then you rented it, at which point it becomes your home.

(Not that the former never happens, I just don't think the meme was calling out a relatively niche situation.)

There are so many things to criticize about the housing market that it's weird to rely on tricks of language rather than factual arguments. Like, "Renting out property that you own, and complaining about the upkeep required to keep it rentable" is much more accurate but not as memeable I guess.