Diet Pepsi tastes much more like Pepsi compared to Diet Coke/Coke. Pepsi Max could easily be second though depending on my mood.
I've convinced people with blind taste tests, but not much I can do over the internet.
Coke is too sweet and makes my teeth feel weird which is why most of the Pepsi products go above the Cokes.
Diet Coke and Coke Zero are both 0 calories but taste very different.
Pepsi Max was meant to compete with Coke Zero (also uses black in the marketing/logo)
Edit to add: also Diet Pepsi has been around way longer than Pepsi Max, so the correct question is "what the hell is Pepsi Max!?"
Why? Is there a difference? (I haven't tried the new one and haven't used Origin in years)
It goes:
Pepsi
Diet Pepsi
Pepsi Max
Coke
Coke Zero
.
.
.
Diet Coke
.
.
.
.
.
Crystal Pepsi 😭
They're right though, Pepsi is not god damn "okay". Pepsi is great. (though I'll drink any of my top 5 interchangeably, except for the sugar, and I only have any of them as a treat now after years of drinking way too much.)
It was just ahead of its time. You know, that time when "Skip Intro" became a thing.
Operator: Hotline.
Andy: Hi, yes, I'm calling because it's more than four hours and your ad said to call if it's been more than four hours.
Operator: How much of the medicine have you taken, sir?
Andy: I haven't taken any, but your ad said that if you've had an erection for more than four hours, you call.
Operator: You're only supposed to call if you've taken the medicine.
Andy: Okay. I'm sorry. I must not have heard that part.
Operator: Yes. If you haven't taken the medicine, you don't call.
Andy: Right. I'm sorry. Right. So, there's nothing you can do? I just don't wanna--
Operator: There's nothing I can do. I'm in Bombay, India.
Andy: Okay. No, not you personally. I just don't want--I just don't want to have an erection anymore.
Operator: You know, you could have sex.
Andy: Okay. Yup.
Operator: That's one thing people do when they have an erection.
Andy: Yeah, that's not an option. I don't have sex.
Operator: Okay, well, then you can masturbate.
Andy: I'd rather not masturbate.
Operator: If you'd like the erection to go away, you can light a match, blow out the flame and put the hot ember on your wrist. And that will focus the brain elsewhere, and you will lose your erection.
Andy: Really? That'd work?
Operator: Take your finger and flick your testicle, and if you do that till it hurts, your erection will go away.
Andy: Okay, all right. It sounds unpleasant and it is.
Operator: It is a trick we use in India.
Andy: Okay, those are all good pieces of advice. I really appreciate it.
Operator: We appreciate your business--oh, no. We didn't get your business!
Andy: No, not this time. I guess I didn't need you this time. Thank you.
I think the point a lot of people are missing is that we know forest management as it was done in the past 20/30-100 years ago was a bad idea. Forest management practices have changed significantly: prescribed burns, letting fires burn naturally (when possible), and other mitigation techniques are a part of the practice on a much wider scale now.
You can scream up and down that they should have done more to clear out the dry vegetation, but it's just not that simple. Remember, we are currently right in the middle of what is the prescribed burn season! You can't just do prescribed burns willy nilly. You need the right conditions of wind, cool weather, etc. If you never get that weather, you can't do them.
These aren't your typical forests like in NoCal, Oregon, Washington and BC. The area is pretty much desert with dry grasses and low brush. AKA, tinder. Some of the practices that caused forests to be susceptible to fires aren't even a factor here, e.g. clear cutting.
Dead vegetation needs to be removed with care and takes a lot of time. You have to be careful not to destroy the habitats of wildlife. We're not talking about a small area here. You can't just bulldoze all of southern California.
So, continuing to say "it's because of bad forest management" is a bit disingenuous. If you look at this particular case, as pointed out in the posted article (and backed up by what you posted), a confluence of factors are creating the current situation: particularly high winds, particularly dry vegetation, and particularly abundant vegetation (due to particularly high amounts of rain early in 2024). All of which are happening more and more often due to the climate changing. This doesn't give a lot of time to do wildfire mitigation, no matter how much you want to spend on it.
Yes, so what's "misleading" is that they're using these talking points to blame current forest management policies on the problem. Also they're doing this so they can ignore/deny that the climate is changing and making the area more susceptible to fires, no matter what your fire management policies are.
I didn't say 3M home I said 300K home. https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/california/los-angeles/
When I saw NP that's where my mind went first... Hence my confusion lol
That's an entirely different argument, and your math is way off.
You pay $2000 a month for 360 months
I'm pretty sure the insurance is closer to $2000 per year. So $2000 per year for 30 years is $60000, which is not going to cover the total loss on a $300000 home. $2000 per month would be on something like a $10million home.
They've been collecting insurance payments on those houses WITHOUT LOSSES for many months.
If there had been no losses, people wouldn't have needed insurance. There are 1000s of homes insured and some percentage of them will have had some amountof payouts from the pool of money. Insurance pays out for lots of different types of losses, and they have to weigh the risks. They're not charities.
Don't get me wrong, insurance is a racket and they will do everything they can to deny coverage and stuff the pockets of their investors. But if you want to force them to provide coverage when there's pretty much guaranteed losses, they will just exit the business altogether.
I don't find Pepsi as bad as Coke with that. Coke leaves my mouth feeling gross.