user541686

@littleadv: Claiming doesn't mean he physically did something on the website, it just means he got the discount. Heck, the question also says "that operation", but "create account" + "do something else" is two operations, not one...

@littleadv: OK, so that's where we differ. You're imagining a situation where the user not only creates a new account, but actively enters a coupon code, whose conditions affirmed that they're a customer. Whereas the rest of us (well, at least some) are just reading the question as: they made new accounts, and therefore the system gave them the discount. Do you agree the answers are different in the two scenarios? If so, then I think we're in agreement.

@littleadv: An advertisement is not a contract and nobody has accepted an ad's terms just because they made an account and started shopping. I think your statement here got to the heart of the question: "Claiming a discount (actively, not relying on the system to automatically give it) is lying." What does that even mean? Are you imagining there's a button to say "I am a new customer" after you've created a new account, that only applies the discount once it's clicked? Have you ever seen such a thing? I have not. These discounts are always auto-applied when you make a new account.

@littleadv: Perjury or the explicit warning wasn't the point of my comment. The point was that the statement about limiting to 1 discount per household is not binding on anybody. The seller is still perfectly entitled to give the discount anyway, and the buyer is still entitled to ask for discounts beyond those in the advertisement.

@littleadv: I feel the little details you're ignoring matter a lot here. "Limit 1 discount per household" does not mean "you hereby agree under penalty of law not to request multiple discounts per household". What it actually means is "FYI, we don't currently intend to give multiple discounts per household". But buyers are free to ask for discounts anyway -- and it's perfectly legitimate to offer (say) a new email address in exchange for a discount, or to offer nothing at all. When the seller's own automated decision system accepts a request without anyone lying, where's the fraud?

-1 because this guy's crime included supplying bogus information, which wasn't part of the question. If you just open multiple accounts with truthful information, and get discounts every time, it's not clear how this case would imply that to be fraud.

My head is exploding over how illogical you guys are

Nobody was asking you to take responsibility for my medical advice, you're putting those words in my mouth. You have no clue what condition I have (if anything even)

@BryanKrause and if it didn't have that note you would be arguing why such a note would be impossible to put because "I can't give you individual advice, ask your doctor"... until the moment they put that note, where suddenly you believe it's possible

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to an LLM that keeps falling back to "if you're not sure, ask your doctor"

what?

pick a number that's safe

?? the 5 was just an example

both of those would be trivial to address with "wait at least 5 days before retaking the medicine for new symptoms"...

No you're not

@BryanKrause Yes? You keep saying "ask a doctor" but the whole point of OTC is you don't always need to ask a doctor, some common sense lets you treat yourself in some cases. Otherwise you might as well just make everything prescription based

Unsure about what, even?

@BryanKrause this is such a frustrating response

right?

@BryanKrause The directions are unclear on "if your pain goes away after 10 days and then you hurt yourself AGAIN in a week, can you retake this"

@BryanKrause but you see how as a consumer this is an entirely valid question to ask?

@BryanKrause It also says "stop use and ask a doctor if: pain gets worse or lasts more than 10 days." But that doesn't address the scenario where you just got a totally unrelated pain a couple weeks later.

@BryanKrause Let me look again, but it didn't seem to be

If the separation was 6 months (i.e. I injured myself today, after injuring myself 6 months ago), no sane person would go ask a doctor to see if 6 months is enough separation, right? Everyone would assume it's OK, and just take acetaminophen both times.

@BryanKrause or I could just figure it out on my own? There's literally no need to involve the doctor, and the package doesn't say I need to. It would be entirely consistent with the directions for me to just start retaking it if I knew how long I would have to wait in between.

@BryanKrause That was the exact language

@BryanKrause That's emphatically not true. Maybe your arm hurt for a couple weeks cause you hit it somewhere. Then you had bad luck and hit your leg somewhere after that. Or whatever.

@BryanKrause but isn't that exactly what I explicitly addressed in the second bullet point in my question, to make it clear that's not what the question is about?

@BryanKrause Yes. I have acetaminophen that says "do not use for more than 10 days unless directed by a doctor", and dextromethorphan saying "stop use and ask a doctor if: cough lasts more than 7 days, or [...]; these could be signs of a serious condition." The latter would obviously prompt me to go ask a doctor like you say, but the former would in some cases (depending on whether I know the cause of my pain) make me wonder how long I can wait before taking it again, without seeing a doctor.

Like I said here: if nothing else, "365 days" seems like a valid answer here. Given your understanding of the question right now, do you seriously challenge that? Do you think anybody here would challenge that?

Now you're telling me I'm being unclear here, instead of others who understand the question perfectly well exaggerating it into strawmen?

Same thing in a later comment: "one cannot do so and have it be true for every person and every drug"... again, we just established I never asked for that.

Literally in the same comment, anongoodnurse snaps back to the same strawman we just established wasn't the question: "formulas don't take individuals into account, and you're an individual." Yeah, I never asked for that, didn't we just establish that?

BTW: To be clear, ^ I'm literally asking why you're doing this. Why do all of you keep setting up strawmen that I repeatedly told you contradict what I was asking for? Do you realize how frustrating it is?

@CareyGregory "there's not going to be a generic method or formula that applies to every drug in every person in every circumstance" ...why do you say this when I explicitly told you that is not what I asked for?

@CareyGregory here's why I don't believe you (and I've said this before): I'm pretty darn sure "365 days" would be an answer for every OTC drug on the market. If you think I'm wrong, name 1 drug for which it would actually be dangerous to retake after that long?

And third, like I said before: they clearly came up with that N in the first place somehow, without saying "there is no possible way we could come up with an N". Your logic would dictate that's somehow impossible, and yet they did it in a way that is generally sufficient. There is no reason to believe the same cannot be said for the waiting period. You've spent so much time insulting and berating me here I don't even know why I'm entertaining it here, but don't expect me to keep going.

@anongoodnurse "Well, now you've made it very much about you" no, this is just utter nonsense. First of all, "assuming you are otherwise healthy" does not somehow turn this into individualistic advice. Second, Tylenol literally says "ask a doctor before use if you have: liver disease". Taking it in that situation is literally not taking it as directed, and my question was obviously about use that was as directed on the box.

@anongoodnurse: I'm looking for the same kind of "relatively safe thing to say". Hence why I wrote "generally sufficient". I never said "must be safe" or all the other stuff you're projecting on me and putting into my mouth. Instead of strawmanning what I wrote and then telling me to look up what a strawman is, please try to steelman what you read. It's a lot more helpful.

@JiminyCricket: The reasoning is (a) the N itself was never tailored to the individual in the first place, and (b) if it was this easy to mess up, people would be hurting themselves a lot more than they already are, and the drugs wouldn't be OTC. Seriously, do you think a drug that would be safe to take for 7 days but unsafe to retake after 365 would be left as OTC on the shelves? anongoodnurse: You're not helping.

@anongoodnurse: Wow what? You're telling me my common-sense assumption is wrong but can't give a single counterexample?

@anongoodnurse: Are you seriously saying there are OTC drugs that are unsafe to retake after 1 year even though they say "do not take more than 7 days"? Is that seriously true? If so please post 1 single example as an answer, I'll gladly accept it.

@anongoodnurse: I don't believe I said your answer was confusing (did I?), I was just double-checking that we're on the same page. Regarding the "conditionals" I added, I thought they were obvious, but I'll add them since they apparently weren't. As for why I believe a formula can be applied: because it's... common sense? If an OTC drug says "do not use for more than 7 days", then every sane person would assume it's safe for them to use the drug again after waiting 1 year. Or half a year, for that matter. The question is how low can that number go before it starts getting iffy.

@anongoodnurse: Note the question isn't "how long can I wait" (which is a number that obviously varies across drugs), the question is "how do I figure out how long I can wait" (i.e. I'm seeking a method). You're saying even the latter doesn't have a generic answer? Like, there's e.g. nowhere I can look this up for common OTC drugs? As for the reason to be taking the drug, assume the reason is the symptoms are literally those the drug is intended to treat. And the waiting period question is only concerning the drug's (side-)effects on your body -- not about the disease progression.

@FrancisDavey: where did I deliberately exclude contract law for an "if they had realized" argument? I certainly didn't intend to. (If I had realized... I wouldn't have...)

@FrederikVds: Oops yes, let me repost my comment, sorry/thanks!