A lot of these examples are pretty subjective or missing context...

There are of course other decisions that might help cope, like moving to one of the few walkable cities we have or structuring your life to reduce the lifestyle, but those all have a lot of other effects like completely upending your current life.

The "optimal" drinking temperature of espresso is still considered higher than 50 degrees, like 60-65 degrees, though of course that is subjective, but the nice aspect of serving it hotter is that those that enjoy it hotter can have it and then it cools quickly and the customer can choose when to enjoy it or get to enjoy it at multiple temps.

"This doesn’t mean drinking room-temperature coffee exclusively. The complete experience encompasses the entire temperature journey." and "High temperatures deliver immediate aromatic impact—the unique, irreplaceable value of fresh coffee."

I'm also not sure bitterness should be considered a defect in coffee, it's part of the flavor profile and actually peaks in perception at a higher temperature according to that article.

It was a pop culture example of incentives gone wrong to hopefully support why incentives aren't clear cut.

We also regularly see how the incentives we see as outsiders (and somewhat insiders) are regularly perverted. For the VW emissions scandal someone could have argued that the incentives were plain and clear, "Design better engines", but they instead went with "Design better ways to scam the tests". This is on top of the way companies will mask their true incentives, like how renewable energy programs are sometimes actually just the smart financial decision but it'll be portrayed as part of the green movement.

To include some explicit personal opinion, I can't throw a stone without hitting a news story about a company that thought they could get away with something but then eventually got called out by it... and they ultimately still got away with it.

We don't "know" anything unless we are at that company in particular and part of the management conversations. We at best can theorize based on incentives, but that's assuming companies and people are logical, which is a large assumption. I could easily see someone in the midst of layoffs and reduction of overhead initiatives thinking that the solution is to convince everyone you do payouts, but actually minimize payouts, which you could do by creatively using scopes.

Off the top of my head, we've recently had shortages of fresh strawberries because of weather in California, a shortage of peas because of weather too, and various changes in Trump's tariffs were done to try and alleviate the rising cost of certain fruit and veg.

It it generally legal in the USA to put a fence around my property, but it is not generally legal to put razor wire around my property, so even the US govt thinks there's a difference.

It's important to consider the words and the portrayal of events when discussing politically charged topics.

Now if we're in a discussion around the cartels, plenty of people do bring up (and there's also those that get annoyed by it) that the drug users are actually the ones funding the cartels via their drug use.

Along these lines, I think another fun comparison might be opioid use and Purdue.

The same can't be said for war (bombings), which Polymarket allows betting on.

Seems like a fundamental difference to me.