> In your quest to unmask me as a filthy article-dodger > it was a grave error on my part to only talk about the main charge of the article -- which is the on

> In your quest to unmask me as a filthy article-dodger > it was a grave error on my part to only talk about the main charge of the article -- which is the only part I had something to say about -- and not the whole domain of implications -- which I have nothing to say about. That's more the issue, isn't it? You don't have anything to say about the whole domain of implications? Come on. I'm sure you can think of some. I dislike crappy clickbait articles as much as the next person, and I don't deny that this article belabored a point that could have easily been condensed into something much terser and to the point, which is that it's borderline false advertising to use this kind of dark UX pattern with packaging. Moreover, I disagree that "anything that makes more nutritional food compete easier with packaged food seems like a good thing" when you don't have to look very far into the past to see masses of people killed by famine time [1] and time [2] again. Obesity is surely not aided by lower quality food, but it surely is even less aided by an increasingly sedentary lifestyle that is sweeping much of the world, and no amount of good nutrition will save folks from that. It might be true that packaged food (and packaged products) becoming lower quality makes "nutritional food compete" more easily with it, but that presupposes that we should accept that packaged products are out to dishonestly swindle us, and that this is just the price of doing business. You notice that "the only thing perishable at my local 7/11 is a mealy saran wrapped apple and it has to somehow compete with all the tastier packaged food" but have you thought about why that is the case? Have you thought about the economic incentives, and all the lobbying that is in place to create continual financial incentives to adulterated packaged food created by a megalith of large corporate lock-in? Do you think that for those who have the means to eat higher quality food, they won't be buying from a 7/11 anyways, and for those who cannot afford that, they're stuck eating increasingly poorer quality trash which doesn't nourish them and slowly starves them? And the whole domain of implications of that -- again, you have nothing to say there about that? Come on. Whether you think that it's something that's good or bad, something that can or could be stopped or not -- I'm sure you can think of a few. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943