If you suddenly find yourself with $1,000 more than you had a few seconds ago, would you hold on tight to that newfound reward, or use some of it to try to gain even more lottery glory? A California man let it ride, buying more lottery tickets with his winnings, and his gamble paid off, to the tune of $10 million.
The Modesto, CA man usually buys four or five lottery tickets per week, reports KCRA-3 (warning: link has video that autoplays), and had decided to pick up some $30 California Lottery 30th anniversary scratchers tickets at a local convenience store while he was out running errands.
Right away, he won $1,000 on his first ticket, and he didn’t stop there.
“[He] scratched $1,000 and he came back,” the convenience store manager told the news station. “We had three last tickets left on that row and he said, ‘give me those three too.'”
Moments later, he was a millionaire.
“First off, I could not believe it,” the lucky guy said. “I had to ask the clerk at the store, and he said, ‘You better check it again at the machine.'”
He hasn’t decided what he’ll be doing with his winnings. Perhaps $10 million worth of more lottery tickets would be pushing it.
Nearly two months after Starbucks launched a test of its “Green Apron Delivery” concept at the Empire State Building, the coffee giant’s drinks have hit the streets of select Seattle neighborhoods. While the service could no doubt be a welcome convenience for some, the added fee creates a bit of sticker shock.
Starbucks announced its first neighborhood delivery service on Wednesday, noting that the option would be operated by Postmates and available through the Starbucks app — but only on the iOS version.
The service has been long been seen as a way for the coffee company to attract more customers and increase its mobile footprint, but the option comes with a hefty $5.99 delivery charge, Re/Code reports.
While it’s not surprising that you would have to pay extra for the convenience of delivery, the current fee effectively doubles the cost of many single drink orders from Starbucks. The charge will do less per-drink damage to your wallet if you’re ordering along with a bunch of co-workers.
Starbucks says the service will work much like the one currently being tested at the Empire State Building, which comes with a $2 fee: individuals simply select “delivery” when placing an order on the company’s iOS app.
Once the order is placed, a Postmates courier is dispatched to the closest Starbucks store. During this time, customers can track the progress of the delivery by watching a real-time map.
Unlike the Green Apron Delivery at the Empire State Building, Starbucks lovers in Seattle may have to wait up to 60 minutes for their drinks to arrive, at least initially. However, the company notes that most orders should arrive in less than 30 minutes.
The company doesn’t specify how close a delivery order must be for it to actually go through, only that the systems will select the closest location to ensure
“customers receive the highest quality product.”
Whether or not that product is piping hot by the time it gets to your hands is another question.
A maintenance employee for Walmart thought he was doing the right thing by handing over a stack of bills totaling $350 that he found discarded in the store’s parking lot. But instead of being thanked for his honesty, the man says he was fired because he waited 30 minutes before handing over the cash.
The Albany Times Union reports that the employee, who had worked full-time at different Walmart stores in the area for about 18 years, was fired for “gross misconduct” two days after he turned in the $350 in cash.
“The only thing I did wrong was hesitate,” the 45-year-old man says. “I didn’t steal anything. They didn’t give me any warning. They just fired me.”
According to the man, on Nov. 6 he was picking up garbage and collecting stray shopping carts in the Walmart Neighborhood Market’s parking lot when he found $5. He says he immediately went inside and turned the bill over to a manager.
After returning outside to continue his duties, the man found a small stack of $20 and $10 bills. The cash wasn’t in an envelope and didn’t contain any identification.
The worker says he completed the task he was doing, counted the bills – totaling $350 – and went back inside the store.
He says he was about to turn over the money when he heard a customer “yelling at a manager, freaking out that she lost her money.”
The man, who says he has anxiety issues, got nervous and “kind of froze and didn’t want any trouble.”
Instead of interrupting the dispute, he says he simply went back to work and handed over the cash about 30 minutes after finding it.
Two days later, the man was called into a manager’s office and shown a time-stamped tape that confirmed 30 minutes had passed between finding the cash and turning it in.
“They didn’t let me explain and said they knew what happened. They told me how it happened in a way they wanted it to go,” he said.
He was told to sign a statement, but was not given a copy, the Times Union reports. He was then told to turn in his badge and his employee 10% discount card and that he was being fired for “gross misconduct.”
A manager at the store told the Times Union she could not comment on the man’s firing and a spokesperson for Walmart had no comment.
The man says that in all his years with the company, he was never given a handbook of employee rules or policies about items found in the parking lot.
“I got treated like a common criminal,” he tells the Time Union. “I got scared and didn’t go about returning the money in the right way. I told them I was sorry. I thought they would have given me a warning or suspended me. Instead, they just fired me.”
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever genetically engineered animal for sale as food in the U.S., but declared that this salmon would not need to carry any label identifying it as a genetically modified food product, much like the many items currently on grocery store shelves made with GMO grains and other ingredients. But the results of a new national poll seem to indicate that most consumers would appreciate having a heads-up about the GMO content of the food they buy.
The poll, conducted by the Mellman Group and commissioned by a coalition of advocacy organizations (including our colleagues at Consumers Union), found that nearly 90% of American shoppers support the idea of requiring food producers to clearly label GMO ingredients, with 77% of them “strongly” in favor of the mandatory labeling.
In addition to the recently approved AquAdvantage salmon, GMO labeling is in the spotlight right now because the Senate is set to consider HR 1599, which supporters call by its official title — the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” — but which critics have taken to calling the DARK (Denying Americans the Right-to-Know) Act because it would prohibit the FDA from requiring labels on GMO food unless the genetic tinkering resulted in material changes of nutritional properties, allergens, or other important characteristics of the original food item.
The bill, which was approved by the House in July, would also preempt state-level efforts to mandate GMO labeling. In a letter sent to lawmakers before they passed the legislation, Consumers Union noted that “the ability of states to act democratically to carry out the wishes of their citizens on GE food labeling should not be impeded by Congress.”
The act’s author, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, claims that this preemption of states’ authority is actually for the benefit of consumers — that the “patchwork” of state laws “could mislead consumers” and “raise the price of groceries” by forcing food companies to change their labels.
However, critics of the bill point out food companies are constantly changing their labels and packaging for marketing and promotional purposes. A GMO or GE label would require just as much ink and paper as these companies currently use for their products.
Speaking of labeling, another concern about this legislation is that it would allow the use of “natural” in the marketing of GMO foods, at least until the FDA determines exactly what that term should mean.
Some opponents of GMO labeling have proposed a compromise that would allow this information to be included on the label — not as words, but as a scannable barcode or QR code.
According to the new poll, 88% of American shoppers would prefer to not have to scan a barcode just to find out whether their food contains GMOs.
In fact, only about 1-in-6 survey respondents have ever scanned a barcode to get more information about a product, meaning more than 80% of shoppers would be left in the dark about what they are purchasing.
“Americans have yet again expressed an overwhelming desire to know what’s in their food,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union. “Shoppers want to see clear labels on food packaging that tell them if products are made with genetically engineered ingredients without having to use confusing codes or smartphone apps. We hope lawmakers hear consumers’ call for meaningful, mandatory national GMO labeling.”
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety, says that the barcode suggestion would have the effect of discriminating against the poor, minorities, rural populations and the elderly.
“They are a completely unacceptable substitute for clear, concisely worded on package labeling,” says Kimbrell. “The right to know is a right for all, not just those who can afford it.”
If you left a package containing a bunch of bricks of cocaine on an American Airlines jet, law enforcement in Tulsa, OK would like to speak with you.
Maintenance workers who were assigned to an American jet that was in for service at Tulsa International Airport stumbled upon 26.2 pounds of white powder stowed on the aircraft, reports KJRH.com (warning: link has video that autoplays).
It’s unclear where the drugs were stashed, or if there are any suspects. The Drug Enforcement Agency was notified, and agents removed a total of 10 packages of the white powdery substance from the plane. It was later identified as cocaine.
“Narcotics were discovered on a Boeing 757 during routine maintenance at the Tulsa Maintenance and Engineering Base,” the carrier said in a statement. “Upon discovery, American immediately contacted law enforcement. Our Corporate Security team is working directly with law enforcement during their investigation.”
Yahoo, one of the few remaining old guard Internet biggies still standing, has been trying to reinvigorate its business in the last few years, even spending oodles of cash in an effort to stake claims in the streaming video and daily fantasy sports markets. But so far, consumers have responded with a shrug and the company’s stock price has continued to fall since the beginning of 2015. That’s why the Yahoo board will reportedly be looking into the possibility of getting out of this whole “Internet” thing.
Some Yahoo investors had previously pushed for a merger with AOL, but that option went “poof” earlier this year when Verizon acquired that other web 1.0 relic for $4.4 billion. Before that, there was talk of an acquisition by Microsoft that never came to fruition.
The most enticing piece of Yahoo’s business is its 15% stake in Chinese e-commerce biggie Alibaba. That investment alone is estimated at being worth around $32 billion, many times the estimated value of Yahoo’s core Internet business.
Yahoo has been planning to spin off this Alibaba stake at the beginning of 2016, but activist investors at Starboard Value have publicly called on the company to halt that spinoff — and look to sell the Internet businesses — because of uncertainty about whether the Alibaba deal would incur billions of dollars in taxes.
If you’ve wasted minutes of your life scouring the hundreds of available TV listings for something — anything — to watch, you’re not alone. A new survey shows that the large majority of TV watchers (especially those with families) are frustrated by the difficulty of locating something you might enjoy.
This is according to a new survey from Digitalsmiths, which asked thousands of U.S. consumers about their TV and streaming video behaviors and found that many of us are staring at the TV listings with glazed-over eyes.
Nearly two-thirds (64.2%) of all respondents said they at least occasionally experience frustration at their inability to find something worth watching. More than 1-in-10 (11.1%) of us say it’s so bad that they “always” have difficulty locating a show that won’t be anything other than background noise for them.
If it’s that problematic for an individual to pick a TV show, it only gets worse when more people are in the room. When asked about trying to find something that pleases multiple viewers, the overall level of frustration jumps to 71.4%. Interestingly, the percentage of people who “always” get frustrated finding a show remains virtually the same (11.4%), perhaps indicating that these folks might be a little hard to satisfy.
While it might seem like throwing more channels at people could solve this problem, the overwhelming majority (76.7%) of TV viewers say they are sick of paying for channels they don’t watch and would love to be able to cherry-pick their ideal TV lineup.
As shown in a previous Digitalsmiths survey, most respondents would only go with about 17 to 18 different channels and would be willing to pay around $40/month for that privilege.
And once again, the top choices for channels that would be in this ideal a la carte lineup were dominated by the broadcast networks and the biggest basic cable channels (A&E, Discovery, History), but not ESPN, which didn’t even make the cut for the top 20 in this survey — in spite of being the single-most expensive basic channel in anyone’s pay-TV package.
Another takeaway from the Digitalsmiths report is consumers’ shrugging off of their cable companies’ “TV everywhere” [TVE] options. Most cable and satellite providers have some sort of app that allows subscribers to watch certain live and on-demand content on their mobile devices outside of the home, but the survey found that many consumers don’t even know they have this option.
According to the charts below, only about half of U.S. pay-TV customers are aware that they can access TVE content, and only about half of those people have taken the step of actually downloading their providers’ apps.
Pay-TV providers are also failing to keep up with their streaming video counterparts in terms of making their listings easier to search.
More than three-quarters (78.2%) of respondents said that streaming services make it easy to find something to watch, compared to only 58.2% who said that traditional set-top box listings were easy to navigate.
