The Coffee was too Hot

in LeoFinance11 months ago

image.png

Do you guys remember this McDonalds lawsuit?

The mainstream headline was that somebody had sued the fast-food chain because the temperature of their beverage was too high. News outlets ran with it. It was 'outrageous' during a time in which frivolous lawsuits were running wild and everyone was suing everyone for everything. We all collectively ridiculed the situation as a signal of society being in constant decline. The 'victim' was mercilessly mocked by the mob and the target of endless eyerolls.

media-msm-mainstream-lies-narrative.jpg

Appearances can be deceiving.

Very few people actually looked into this situation any further than the headlines, ridicule, and mob mentality. What most never bothered to figure out is how and why someone was ever able to win this lawsuit in the first place. It wasn't just some angry Karen who found some loophole within the legal system, as was heavily implied. The victim in this situation actually experienced 3rd degree burns on her leg. Meaning three layers of skin were destroyed.

I'm tempted to post some pictures of 3rd degree burns, but I'll spare my dear audience. Look it up yourself if you're interested. They're very very bad. I personally know a guy that got 3rd degree burns after escaping a fire. They often require skin graphs and immediate medical attention. This is the kind of severity we are talking about. 3rd degree burns: the kind that you might expect to see on someone who was trapped in a fire, was the injury sustained within the "coffee was too hot" lawsuit. Most just assumed someone spilled their coffee, were mad about it, and then went on with their day, only to sue McDonalds after the fact. That's certainly not what happened.


Don't believe everything you hear.

This is more true now then ever before with AI generated content. MSM was bad enough, but now we will see things with our own eyes that we can no longer trust, especially when they're streamed through the internet or posted on social media. However, many often get it wrong completely on accident just due to basic ignorance.

Forbes article on BTC EFT 'destroying Bitcoin'

Hayes argued that if BlackRock, which is in "the asset accumulation game," vacuums up all the bitcoin, there will be no more bitcoin transactions and those who secure the bitcoin network in return for fees and newly minted bitcoin, known as miners, "would be unable to afford the energy it costs to secure the network. As a result, they would shut off their machines. Without the miners, the network dies, and bitcoin vanishes."

This was written just last month by Forbes magazine.

Was this written in good faith or is it purposefully deceitful? I'd guess it's just the musings of a person that simply doesn't know any better. To say something as blatantly incorrect as Bitcoin could die because "miners can't afford energy costs" is either rooted in ignorance, or maliciously targets an unsuspecting ignorant audience. It's one of the most basic and critical functions that Bitcoin has: retargeting the hash rate difficultly every two weeks. So either Forbes is just lying through their teeth or they have absolutely no idea what they are babbling about. And at this juncture it's hard to tell which one it is, but I guess that's the point this day in age.

So we really have to ask ourselves what the objective is when someone chooses to frame the narrative in a certain way. Why did "the coffee was too hot" story fall in the way that it did? Because that was the narrative that got the most attention and resonated the most for mass consumption. The same is likely true for making blatantly false statements against crypto: this is simply what the consumers (and potentially doomers) of that content want to hear. Silly no-coiners.

Today the story with crypto gets even stranger as trillion dollar asset managers like Larry Fink of Blackrock try to spin BTC as the ultimate store of value and a hard asset like gold or bonds. Does he actually believe that, or is this simply the story he thinks will resonate the farthest? If one thing is certain it seems to be that this subject is quite polarizing. Either someone is all in or all out on crypto, and we see high profile individuals flipping in real time over the last few years.

Conclusion

Everyone has a motive when they tell a story, so I guess in that respect this post is extremely meta and self-referential. What's my own motive for sharing the story of motive and narrative building? I'd like to think it's because I want the world to be a more transparent place that we all understand just a little bit better from one day to the next. Or maybe that's just what I want you to think and this is all part of my master plan.

Sort:  

I actually think that part of it has to do with the fact that everyone is a content creator these days. I don't think many mainstream news outlets have actual writers on staff anymore, they farm it all out to creators with questionable credentials. My brother in law has a degree in journalism and used to work for a newspaper. I sometimes feel like what I am doing on Hive is an affront to him given I have zero formal education in writing. Of course there are all kinds of arguments against formal education, but I'll ignore all that for the sake of this comment! All that to say, the training and integrity has been lost I think.

I had the case of McDonald's and the hot coffee as a study during my college years, lol. Can't remember right what was the conclusion but back then I was shocked by the consequences and how far everything went.

I had 3rd degree burns. Debriding sucks.

Thanks!

Very true though
There’s a lot to think about considering which perspective a story is coming from and the hidden motive though

Welcome to the world of media deconstruction. The story is never the story, the story is why is the story the story.

I'll comment on the coffee ☕ instead of the bitcoin ETF. Because I'm sure nothing bad can ever happen to the blockchain, cryptocurrency, bitcoin at large.

How hot could a coffee ☕ be that can cause a third degree burn 🔥, I guess I'll have to revisit the news to know more.

Thanks for shedding more light to this
That’s why it is always good to make findings about anything you hear before you begin to spread it
The media is full of fake news

So either Forbes is just lying through their teeth or they have absolutely no idea what they are babbling about.

It's almost certainly that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Nobody does research anymore, because if they told the real story they'd get less clicks. News isn't about news anymore, it's about profit, and profit means eyes and interactions... and what gets more eyes and interactions than over the top garbage and/or pissing people off?

It's interesting how we often take headlines at face value without digging deeper into the stories behind them. Take, for example, the infamous McDonald's lawsuit that became a symbol of frivolous legal actions. It was widely portrayed as a tale of someone suing over a beverage being excessively hot – a seemingly absurd complaint that fueled a lot of mockery and disdain. This narrative fit perfectly into the perception of a society increasingly bogged down by unnecessary lawsuits, and it was eagerly lapped up by the public.

It is very funny that everyone is now a content creator and a blogger, so they are willing to give captivating headlines, and we are also willing to spread this news like wild fire.

In cases where people do not fully explain themselves and we don't fully know their intent or the causes for the details of what transpired, it's typical to wonder 'stupid or evil'?
This is so common in today's heavily manipulated world (plausible deniability is a standard method of defence used by all manner of total shit-stain humans), that we really need a new term to be coined that identifies the person in question as having wandered into territory where it is reasonable to presume that they are acting nefariously simply because they didn't explain themselves sufficiently for us to know otherwise.

This term needs to focus on the person's combined likely lack of intelligence and their lack of respect for others who read their words... Maybe it should be a verb.. such as 'timescamming' - e.g. they are at the very least scamming people of the time they need to invest in reading their 'poorly thought out' ideas.

So, hearing people think Bitcoin won't/can't be hurt is obnoxius at best. It does matter that the hash difficult adjusts every 2 weeks. However,there is a real issue with miners being able to pay their costs after the halving since they have mine double the BTC or the price of BTC has to double to support themselves. It doesn't matter how easy blocks get. A lot of small to medium sized miners will lose. If only big money controls the mining we are fucked.

The spreadsheet at the bottom of this post breaks the math down.
https://peakd.com/money/@verbalshadow/bitcoins-liquidity-death-spiral

All of that false spread possibly seen , I case it due to such facts that most people do place value on headlines more as the news or contents body. As the matter of facts those directly concerned by the acts carryout such basically to attract more readers and to get gain more attention.