5 ms·

Although you could google calorie counts in every meal you buy, the vast majority of people don't because of a) it would be tedious b) our body is telling us to

Although you could google calorie counts in every meal you buy, the vast majority of people don't because of a) it would be tedious b) our body is telling us to eat calories and resisting the urge to think too much about what we are eating and c) everyone else would think you were a bit weird when you were looking up calories instead of having a conversation. As a customer you don't get a choice whether or not you get exposed to a lot of intrusive advertising encouraging you to eat more (at least in your McDonald's example). It seems to me this is in a small way redressing that balance. In purely pragmatic terms you are balancing the health of the population (heart attacks, strokes, mental state quality) against the right of a multinational restaurant chain to be slightly more profitable. I think it is well worth it. There are far more egregious abuses of personal liberty you could complain about.

nsxwolf 10y ago
This is just utter baloney. The information exists. You can get it before you leave the house. Standing in line was just an example of how absurdly easy it is. Enough with treating the population like babies. This isn't even going to have any effect! And it would still be wrong to do even if it made everyone skinny.
- linkregister 10y ago
  This argument borders on the absurd. Government/voters have regulated commerce since the inception of the United States. You benefit from plenty of regulation mandating additional information. A decade ago, airlines weren't required to include additional fees in their advertised prices. Now they are. I find it bizarre that requiring companies engaged in interstate commerce to provide information germane to the business transaction to be babying consumers. If we as HN commenters praise a reduction of 1 second of latency for an RPC call to a microservice, surely reducing the latency for consumers standing in line by 5 minutes is laudable! Especially because of the low burden by fast food owners! If you want to discuss some other encroachment of liberty by the government, feel free. But this proposal in isolation is reasonable.
- chimprich 10y ago
  If you don't think this is going to have an effect, the cost of this is that calories are going to be presented on a menu which customers can choose to look at or not. I am genuinely bemused as to why anyone would find this offensive. Do you think alcoholic drinks should be labelled with the percentage of alcohol contained? Should food be labelled with the ingredients? Should you be allowed to know if your food contains nuts? And so on.
  - nsxwolf 10y ago
    Alcoholic drinks aren't universally labeled, and even when they are the value is dubious. You can see a proof number on liquor bottles but that tells you nothing about its effects on your physiology. You still have to educate yourself. You can argue a compelling interest for labeling food allergens, because they can kill people almost immediately. Calories can't.

nsxwolf 10y ago

This is just utter baloney. The information exists. You can get it before you leave the house. Standing in line was just an example of how absurdly easy it is. Enough with treating the population like babies. This isn't even going to have any effect! And it would still be wrong to do even if it made everyone skinny.

linkregister 10y ago
This argument borders on the absurd. Government/voters have regulated commerce since the inception of the United States. You benefit from plenty of regulation mandating additional information. A decade ago, airlines weren't required to include additional fees in their advertised prices. Now they are. I find it bizarre that requiring companies engaged in interstate commerce to provide information germane to the business transaction to be babying consumers. If we as HN commenters praise a reduction of 1 second of latency for an RPC call to a microservice, surely reducing the latency for consumers standing in line by 5 minutes is laudable! Especially because of the low burden by fast food owners! If you want to discuss some other encroachment of liberty by the government, feel free. But this proposal in isolation is reasonable.
chimprich 10y ago
If you don't think this is going to have an effect, the cost of this is that calories are going to be presented on a menu which customers can choose to look at or not. I am genuinely bemused as to why anyone would find this offensive. Do you think alcoholic drinks should be labelled with the percentage of alcohol contained? Should food be labelled with the ingredients? Should you be allowed to know if your food contains nuts? And so on.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  Alcoholic drinks aren't universally labeled, and even when they are the value is dubious. You can see a proof number on liquor bottles but that tells you nothing about its effects on your physiology. You still have to educate yourself. You can argue a compelling interest for labeling food allergens, because they can kill people almost immediately. Calories can't.