this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
406 points (94.9% liked)

Casual UK

2180 readers
29 users here now

Casual UK

A casual place for banter and anything that doesn't fit in anywhere else.

Have chat and a natter. Talk about anything and everything.

Keep it casual.

Rules

Other communities:

Here:

Elsewhere:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 139 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I tend to always give the underdog the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

Remember when a lady suffered third degree burns from coffee at a McDonalds drive through? Everybody made fun of her but she was right, she won in court, and McDonalds had to retrain staff and change how equipment was operated at every single location.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 111 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

And she didn't even ask for the massive compensations she eventually got, she only asked McD to cover the medical expenses, as she had to spent a fair amount of time in a hospital because of the burned crotch she had.

Not unreasonable by a mile, but after that case, corporations have tried making pretty much all lawsuits against them seem completely ridiculous. I wonder why...

That said the dude in the photo does look guilty af.

[–] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 44 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Third degree burned crotch too. It wasn’t just a little too hot and she got a little burn. It was extensive.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

Yes, literally life-threateningly bad burns. Not just an owie.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

Melted labia. They gave her so much money because of course they did, the lady’s labia melted and McDonald’s had been warned before

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's how shitty they are, they wouldn't even pay the medical bills when they knew that their coffee was way too hot. They knew it was way too hot because their guidelines said to make it too hot to mask how bad it is.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Agree strongly.

However the reason they used such hot water to create coffee was that using 98C water to make coffee gives you more coffee from the same amount of coffee grounds than using the recommended 90C. Shittier coffee yes, and hotter, but more of it.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

The actual reason they kept the coffee at that temperature (since it usually wasn't freshly brewed the brewing temperature doesn't matter) is that hotter coffee takes longer to drink, which means fewer refills (which used to be free when this happened).

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 27 points 7 months ago

Come on, don't sugarcoat it. She suffered third degree vagina burns and a fused labia.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That lady had ~~polyester pants melted deep into her skin.~~

Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[

I doubt her settlement paid all the bills, especially after attorney fees

Edited because I was wrong.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

In the end it was apparently $640 000, so I honestly don't know whether it would've covered medical costs and attorneys fees in America.

[–] BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It was in the 90s. It was bad then but not nearly as bad as it is now.

640k was worth a lot more.

[–] Twig@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago

Hi thank you. I was wrong about the polyester pants, and I edited my post, to reflect that.

[–] deadbeef@lemmy.nz 54 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's no way of knowing what happened there.

But back in the mid to late 2000's we had a whole bunch of residential internet customers and every so often one would blow their traffic cap by a bunch and would ring up and say "Your billing system is wrong!".

Then whoever could be bothered in the office would do some modest analysis on their netflow data and come up with something like "18% of your traffic this month was redtube.com, 33% was pornhub.com and 9% was xhamster.com.

We never knew if whoever was on the phone was the raging porn addict or it was one of their associates. Either way they would say "Oh well, I guess we will never know then. Thanks for your help. Bye.". Followed by them quietly paying the bill.

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Current ISPs have to by law. Just incase you go on howtobeaterrorist.com and need to be stopped. It's not overstepping at all. Definitely not.

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You know, I would also like to beat errorists.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Greetings, gellow perfectionist.

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

Greetings, yellow perfectionist.

FTFY

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

I just tried that url and it's down

[–] ElectroLisa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 7 months ago

ISPs still can track your online activity, it's up to them whether or not they will store it

[–] deadbeef@lemmy.nz 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yep, any time you have a traffic cap or bill for traffic you've got to have data to back up what you are billing for.

More recently CDN's ( and widespread SSL adoption ) have made it a whole lot less obvious what sites the user is going to. I suspect that nice clearcut list of porn sites from 2007 would just look like some cloudflare, akamai and google these days.

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 53 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's the face of a man who thought she wouldn't take it this far

[–] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
  1. This joke is old and tired. Stop making it.

  2. That bloke looks like he doesn't even know HOW to order porn over the TV.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I honestly don't know of a bigger incentive driving people to learn tech, than porn.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I learned because of videogames but that was also before puberty so...

[–] summerof69@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

He's been mastering this look to trick fools like you!

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 7 months ago
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ok I got this, just keep calm and give them your most disappointed look, I can do this.

[–] Raxiel@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Daily mail sadface

[–] AncientFutureNow@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

This reminds me of the film Cuff and Collars, from Arlen Video.

[–] anarchist@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago

Adult films??? Oh my, how scandalous!!

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago

It's Ron! Absolute classic!