The Recalled Mayonnaise That Tragically Led To One Death
While the manufacturer of Bon Tum mayonnaise was ultimately found responsible for the outbreak, and unscrupulous food inspectors allegedly attempted to conceal and destroy evidence, questions remain as to whether food safety practices at Hamburgini contributed to the tragic event since only those who dined at the restaurant fell ill. On Reddit, a commenter wondered whether high temperatures and improper storage of the mayo were factors in the botulism infections that occurred, stating, "The main concern wasn't the type of or cost cutting of the mayonnaise but that it was a large tub probably being used over a number of days, this is basic mishandling of mayonnaise in the warm weather."
Read more: We Tried 19 Sauces From Hot Ones, Here's How They Rank
Botulism results from ingesting a certain strain of bacteria that produces a dangerous toxin that can cause significant nerve damage. Early treatment with an antitoxin can prevent lasting damage, but medical attention must be sought immediately to avoid serious and potentially life-threatening effects. In the case of the Hamburgini outbreak, authorities were mulling fines against the restaurant for its part in the incident, but it's not clear what sort of legal actions took place, if any.
While Hamburgini shut down temporarily, it has since re-opened. The establishment currently has a good rating on Tripadvisor, though recent reviews aren't exactly glowing. (One person complains that their food was cold, while another states, "Very bad burger ... If there was -5 stars I would've given that.") As for Bon Tum, there's no information online regarding the mayonnaise, which could mean that the product has been permanently discontinued in the aftermath of the outbreak. While avoiding green potatoes and recognizing restaurant red flags can reduce your risk of foodborne illness, the Hamburgini outbreak shows that consumers can only do so much to protect themselves from harm.
Read the original article on Mashed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Juggling Multiple High-Paying Jobs Is Risky Business. One Overemployment Veteran Says There's One Mistake That Can End It All
For some workers, one full-time job isn't enough. They're quietly taking on two, three or even more high-paying roles at the same time, a practice known as overemployment. But with bigger paychecks comes bigger risks, and one veteran says there's one slip-up that can ruin everything. Double-Booked Meetings Are The No. 1 Danger In a viral post on Reddit's r/overemployed forum, one contributor recently shared 20 rules from five years of working multiple jobs. They've been caught once before, and it was for the same mistake that takes down most people. Don't Miss: The same firms that backed Uber, Venmo and eBay are investing in this pre-IPO company disrupting a $1.8T market — 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can "Avoid double meetings at ALL costs. It's the No. 1 way people get caught, including me. Use a sick day if needed," the poster wrote. The survival guide covers everything from using separate devices for each job to avoiding shared human resources systems. The poster recommends completely separate laptops, webcams, keyboards and phones for each role, instead of juggling accounts on a single machine. They also change notification sounds, block off calendar time to separate each job's hours, label devices to avoid mix-ups, and use preferred names so coworkers can't link profiles across companies. They caution against letting a company install device management on a personal phone, using a real headshot in Slack or Teams, which are popular workplace communication platforms, or sharing payroll logins between jobs. "If they want to manage your device, they should provide a separate phone," the post said. Trending: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a ? LinkedIn And Legal Risks When it comes to LinkedIn, the advice is to create a burner account with no photo and strict privacy settings. Others in the thread disagreed, saying they've simply hibernated their main account without issue. One commenter noted, "You raise more red flags by having different LinkedIn accounts, with different versions of your name." The post also stresses that if an employer catches on, you should never admit to overemployment. "That lets them fire you immediately with no severance," it said. Instead, it suggests mentioning "tortious interference" and possibly contacting legal counsel. Other Survival Tactics The list also includes avoiding overlapping jobs that use the same HR systems, steering clear of multiple active health insurance plans that might prompt questions, and never listing both jobs on a mortgage application. For those facing a return-to-office mandate, documented accommodations like a therapist's note, caregiver responsibilities or religious practices can keep you in the comments offered their own tips—from working for companies in different time zones to create natural schedule gaps, to always prioritizing the original job, to using visual mute indicators to avoid being overheard on the wrong call. Despite the risks, the original poster remains confident the payoff is worth it. "The risk of a sudden layoff from a single job is FAR greater than the risk of being caught," they wrote. "With OE, a layoff or termination is a minor setback, leaving you with another income stream and a powerful financial cushion." Read Next: In a $34 Trillion Debt Era, The Right AI Could Be Your Financial Advantage — Imagn Images UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Juggling Multiple High-Paying Jobs Is Risky Business. One Overemployment Veteran Says There's One Mistake That Can End It All originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Crypto Payment Paradox: Why Nobody's Actually Buying Coffee With Bitcoin In 2025
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Despite years of 'crypto is the future of money' rhetoric, a candid discussion among cryptocurrency enthusiasts on Reddit reveals the stark reality: most people still aren't spending their digital assets like traditional currency. While the infrastructure exists to buy everything from burritos to luxury cars with crypto, fundamental barriers continue to prevent mainstream adoption as a payment method. The Infrastructure Is There—But Is Anyone Using It? The good news for crypto believers is that spending options have expanded dramatically. Major retailers including Whole Foods, Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX), Home Depot (NYSE:HD), Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT), and luxury brands like Gucci now accept crypto payments through processors like Flexa and BitPay. Crypto debit cards from Coinbase Global Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN), and other exchanges allow users to spend digital assets 'as easy as a tap' at millions of merchants worldwide. Don't Miss: The same firms that backed Uber, Venmo and eBay are investing in this pre-IPO company disrupting a $1.8T market — 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. Gift card platforms have become particularly popular bridges, enabling crypto holders to purchase everything from groceries to flights. Some users report successfully buying houses and cars after converting crypto to cash, while others highlight El Salvador as a rare example where Bitcoin functions as preferred everyday currency. The Dirty Secret: It's Not Really 'Crypto Commerce' Here's where the narrative gets complicated. Most crypto spending today doesn't involve true peer-to-peer digital currency transactions. Instead, crypto cards and payment processors typically convert digital assets to fiat currency instantaneously at the point of sale. Critics argue on Reddit that this is simply 'adding a crypto backend on top of the fiat system' for marketing purposes rather than genuine blockchain-based commerce. This technical distinction matters because it means merchants still receive traditional dollars, not cryptocurrency. The infrastructure resembles a complex currency exchange service more than the revolutionary payment system originally envisioned by Bitcoin's creators. Trending: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a ? Three Major Barriers Killing Crypto Adoption Tax Complexity Remains King Every crypto transaction triggers a taxable event for capital gains purposes in most jurisdictions. Buying a coffee with Bitcoin means calculating and reporting the gain or loss on that specific portion of your holdings. This accounting nightmare encourages people to make lump-sum conversions to fiat rather than frequent small purchases. The 'Digital Gold' Mentality Many crypto holders view their assets as stores of value rather than spending money. Following Gresham's Law—that people spend 'bad money' and save 'good money'—investors prefer to spend depreciating dollars while hoarding appreciating Bitcoin. This psychological shift from currency to investment vehicle fundamentally changes user behavior. Volatility and Fees Still Bite While transaction costs have decreased, payment processors still charge 1%-2% fees comparable to credit cards. More importantly, Bitcoin's price volatility makes merchants hesitant to accept direct crypto payments due to settlement Stablecoin Exception Interestingly, stablecoins like USDC and USDT face fewer adoption barriers since they maintain dollar parity. Some users report successfully using stablecoins for international transfers and online purchases, suggesting these assets may represent crypto's true payment future rather than volatile tokens. Reality Check: Investment Asset, Not Daily Currency The honest assessment from the crypto community itself is telling: most view cryptocurrency primarily as 'an asset to invest in at this point,' not revolutionary payment technology. While enthusiasts predict mass adoption within 5-10 years, practical users recommend simply selling crypto for dollars when purchases are needed. This doesn't diminish crypto's value as a financial innovation—it just acknowledges that digital gold and everyday spending money serve different purposes in modern portfolios. Read Next: Kevin O'Leary Says Real Estate's Been a Smart Bet for 200 Years — Image: Shutterstock This article The Crypto Payment Paradox: Why Nobody's Actually Buying Coffee With Bitcoin In 2025 originally appeared on
Business Insider
5 hours ago
- Business Insider
Even CEOs get a do-over now and then. Just ask OpenAI's Sam Altman.
All hail the new ChatGPT, which is much better than the old ChatGPT, which we're getting rid of. That was the messaging from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his team last week. A day later, Altman changed his mind. He told the world the older version of ChatGPT was going to stick around, after all — in addition to the new version that was meant to replace it. I'm not getting into the weeds here about the change and change back, which is confusing for people who use ChatGPT, and impenetrable to non-users. (If you want to, I suggest you head to Business Insider's coverage, or this post from analyst Ben Thompson, for details.) I'm most interested in Altman's incredibly quick pivot. Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a CEO hyping a new product launch, and almost immediately changing course afterward, supposedly because his customers didn't like it. Can you think of one? The most obvious one I can recall is New Coke, which you have to be pretty old to have tried. It only lasted for a few months in 1985, because lots of Old Coke drinkers hated it, and it's now synonymous with Corporate Mega Flops. But it still lasted for a few months — not a single day. And this is different than product flops like the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, which was pulled off the market after a couple of months because some of them exploded. And to be clear — Altman isn't recalling his newest, very high-profile AI engine. It still exists; he's just reversing his call to get rid of the older one. (Business Insider owner Axel Springer has a commercial agreement with OpenAI. And our CEO thinks we should all use AI in our day-to-day work.) It's possible that there are other, yet-to-surface explanations for Altman's change of heart. But so far, the only one he's offered is that he heard from people on Reddit and presumably other places who were upset to lose the versions of the service they already had. If you are an Altman fan, you can paint the episode as a story that shows you how nimble and responsive a Big Tech CEO can be. If you are less generous, you might argue that this was something Altman and his company should have seen coming, and acted accordingly. Either by not budging, and explaining to users that they were wrong, and would learn to love the new tech. Or by not making the move in the first place. Thompson, in his Stratechery newsletter, worries that Altman's quick flip is a sign of a bigger problem — that he's too willing to tell people what they want to hear: The real question for OpenAI is if they are in fact ... just a bit too obsequious and sycophantic. The paradox of successful consumer companies from Apple to Facebook is that they give customers what they want, but they don't ask them; they make decisions and then seek out revealed preference through data, not stated preference on social media. Hopefully OpenAI did that in this case; my concern is that the more realistic explanation is that this is a company that, in the end, can't say "no" to anyone. Maybe! But I think this is probably a pretty small chapter in the OpenAI story — a visible, but ultimately not-that-consequential misstep. Maybe OpenAI really did misjudge its customers. But it was pretty easy to make those customers happy, simply by … not taking something away from them. It also helps that this was a do-over Altman and crew could do with a couple key strokes. There were no devices (yet) to recall, no refunds to issue. In that sense, this reminds me of something closer to a branding or marketing snafu, like a new Gap logo that lasted for 10 days in 2010, or that Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad from 2017 that disappeared after people called it stupid and tone-deaf. Embarrassing screw-ups, but not the first thing you think about when you think about those companies. I myself had forgotten those stories until ChatGPT reminded me of them, when I asked for comparable flip-flops. (I don't use ChatGPT to write my stories, but I definitely find myself using it as a superior version of Google more and more these days.) And yes, if we see more waffling from Altman in the months and years to come, we'll be able to point back to this botched rollout as the start of a pattern. But for now, this one seems like an odd and interesting footnote, and not much else.
