3 ms·
Yeah. It's unfortunate that alongside this incredibly important detail the article carries a bunch of highly judgemental wording that encourages people to inco
by jjoonathan 5y ago
Yeah.
It's unfortunate that alongside this incredibly important detail the article carries a bunch of highly judgemental wording that encourages people to incorrectly interpret "use" not as "cycle through" but as "remove from water supply and banish to a superfund site."
The rest of the comment section is guilty of this too.
I fully appreciate the need for independent verification, but assuming the worst is not that, and it actually leads to bad incentives in the same way as assuming the best (or refusing to think about it at all) leads to bad incentives.
- rrss 5y agoyeah. If there is something I’m missing, hopefully someone can point out what it is, because I don’t really understand why this matters.
- 8note 5y agoHistorically, companies have shown that they will do the worst imaginable. The bar needs to be set high on holding them too account, or else the shareholders will get their way and Arizona will gets new superfund site. Being charitable will be abused by companies