You clearly understood the title, so no, the "reading comprehension" thing wasn't a dig at you. It was a way to say that you shouldn't assume the reader is unable to understand the litteral meaning of the title, because that is honestly condescending.

The title does not misrepresent anything, is not dramatizing the situation either. It doesn't even say "most" or "a sizeable share" or anything that would imply it's a massively widespread problem. It uses one of the least dramatic quantifier: "often". Then it says "up to" because... That is the only way to say it? Are you expecting a title to say "up to, but not necessarily as high as"? It's a title.

Your title alternative is, however, actually dramatizing, making it a bigger problem than it is. "Not all is the same, watch out what you're buying!" Is the emotion it creates in the first part. Then de-dramatizing with "some".

The title of this post is as neutral as it can be. It is, literally, stating a fact. The word "up to" is indeed not magical, it is the proper way of indicating an upper bound without dramatizing.

I am shocked this is even a debate. And english isn't even my first language.

Edit: admittedly it could use "sometimes" instead of "often", or back up with numbersm But that is hardly dramatizing.

The literal wording of the title is "up to". You're criticizing it for cherry picking when it's... not.

If there's a contrarian here, it's certainly not me.

Nice personal attack though!

The title already says "up to" for both the 30% and the sodium content. If the reader understands anything else, that's a reading comprehension issue.

Spoken like an unconditional fan to a shitty team!

Why would I name a football club? Are you alright?

Again, it's not about the numbers. There is no stat on the severity of fouls. Did you even watch the matches? Or are you willfully blind to the shit your favorite team does?

I don't know how you guys play football in South America, but in the rest of the world we tend to follow the rules and play the game, rather than try and takedown the opponents.

You'd probably say that the football that Paraguay offered wasn't dirty either. Lmao.

It's not about the amount of fouls, it's about what the fouls were.

Enzo's first yellow was complaining after faking a foul.

Argentina played dirty, their yellows were completely deserved and they did absolutely nothing but petty moves the entire game.

Glad Spain won. It's a mystery that Argentina, with the level they offered last night, even made it so far.

If companies can't accurately apply it in just one city, then they should apply it to a wider range that englobes that one city. Not that hard!

No, but they have an effect on the amount of daylight you have on your free time, in the evening. Evening being defined by the numbers on the clock.

That's not entirely true. It's only impossible without governments working toward it.

We have plenty of tech options to develop a secure way to have a government-issued digital ID that is able to only share selected information, like your age. But that has to come from governments, not companies needing to verify your age.

The best part is that it can be private, as in: The government doesn't need to know who requested your age, and the website doesn't need to know anything else than your age and which government is confirming it.

And the tech required isn't even necessarily new or recent.

Winners until the very end!