Do You Consider 58c Extra as Rounding up?

n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 02/12/2024 - 22:54
Last edited 03/12/2024 - 00:27 by 1 other user

I’ve been rounded up by like 13c or 18c before to charity. didn’t mind that and was also dealing with a person so I heard the amount and said yes.

This time it was a touchscreen I tapped a bit too quick and didn’t see the amount clearly (I do remember the words “do you mind rounding up” though) but still thought why not. Later I checked the receipt, and it was 58c extra for “rounding up to the next dollar”. isn’t that pushing it?

Like I thought rounding up was $19.98 to $20.00, or maybe $19.88 to $19.90. I’m willing to give some wiggle room for charity and it’s about 1% of my shop but 50c every week is going to make a dent.

Poll Options

  • 132
    Yes
  • 63
    -No
Food & Grocery

Comments

  • CrabLord on 04/12/2024 - 14:05
    +1

    Why would you 'donate' to a Woolworths or McDonalds? Do you trust they actually forward that to a charitable cause, rather than their own corporate bs fluff charity? Even if they wholly do the right thing ( the surely do not), why would you increase Woolworths turnover inflating their cash flow for them to write it off?

    You want to donate to charity, good on you. Do it yourself, not run through the bullshit of a mega corporation.

    • trapper on 04/12/2024 - 15:35

      McDonalds I would actually trust on this.

  • zealmax on 04/12/2024 - 14:47

    The retailer should do their part in donating to charity. Get consumers to donate and for the retailer to get all of the credit for the donations isn't right.

  • coffeeinmyveins on 04/12/2024 - 15:22
    -1

    I’m willing to give some wiggle room for charity

    Except you're not.

    Woolworths and others are just using your money, which you've paid tax on, to donate to their own BS charities or mates charities and write it off as a deduction themselves.

    I'll never understand why people don't see through this BS.

    • gromit on 04/12/2024 - 16:04
      +4

      That is complete conspiracy garbage, they do not get it as a tax deduction, they are issuing you a receipt for the donation, for them to claim a deduction for it would be tax fraud that the ATO would absolutely ream them for. The charities are also listed, things like OzHarvest, hardly a mates pet charity.

  • trapper on 04/12/2024 - 15:32
    +3

    Rounding up could be as much as 99c extra, that's what rounding up means.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 04/12/2024 - 20:21
      -3

      I maintain that it generally makes no sense to always 'round up', regardless of the number involved. Whenever rounding is used, both rounding up and rounding down should be employed to achieve the desired number of decimal places; or the desired 'whole number' or denomination (i.e., tens, hundreds, thousands, *etc.).

      Otherwise, '1' could be 'rounded up' to the nearest trillion, which is 1,000,000,000,000. Does 'rounding' 1 to 1,000,000,000,000 make sense to anybody?

      If anyone can be bothered, perhaps they could suggest to me some instances in which it would actually make sense/be productive/useful/logical to always round up, rather than just rounding numbers properly. The only instances I can think of pertain to medical contexts, for example where there is a condition of 'x' severity (objectively defined on a variable scale), a drug that comes in predetermined/unchangeable amounts (pills for example), and a theoretical threshold of affect for 1 pill, 2 pills, 3 pills, etc. In this hypothetical scenario, let us say that one pill is required to effectively treat the condition if it is rated up to 10 in severity, two pills are required if its severity is rated >10 but < 20, three pills are required if its severity is rated from 20 to < 30, etc. In this situation, I suppose in a loose sort of sense the doc is required to 'always round up' (never down), with respect to the number of pills prescribed. This is a pretty flimsy sort of example though.

      Can anyone else think of any scenario where that 'always round up' excel function that Crow has kindly alerted me to above would be legitimate to use? My bet is that it is almost exclusively used to distort data, then generate a misleading graph that better serves the user's ultimate aim.

      • trapper on 04/12/2024 - 22:39
        +6

        If anyone can be bothered, perhaps they could suggest to me some instances in which it would actually make sense/be productive/useful/logical to always round up

        One example that quickly comes to mind is rounding up during a charity donation. In this case, a purchase transaction is rounded up to the nearest whole dollar, and the extra cents are donated to a charity.

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/12/2024 - 04:19

          touché

          • trapper on 05/12/2024 - 12:43
            +2

            @GnarlyKnuckles: As a serious answer; In most cases in the physical world, rounding up is necessary because many items are sold, supplied, or available in fixed sizes or quantities.

            For example, when ordering bricks, tiles, piping, timber, paint, etc, all these materials are sold in discrete amounts.

            If you don’t round up, you won't have enough to complete the job.

      • rumblytangara on 05/12/2024 - 09:09
        +1

        If anyone can be bothered, perhaps they could suggest to me some instances in which it would actually make sense/be productive/useful/logical to always round up

        Repaying money in a social context.

  • GnarlyKnuckles on 04/12/2024 - 21:55
    -4

    I have now checked out this 'always round up' function of MS Excel that Crow alerted me to. I was interested to test whether it could be manipulated to round zero up to a positive number. As far as my brief testing could ascertain, it can not, and that is a good thing. It can, however, be used to change 0.000001 to '1'. So it can be used to multiply a very tiny actual/recorded/observed value by a million. I am enlightened by this fact, and will scrutinise MS Excel-generated graphs presented to me even more carefully in the future. My personal concerns pertain, again, to the medical field.

    Numerous highly sensitive diagnostic methods/machines/etc. output values such as the following, where all the values that start with '0.0' or less represent 'background noise', and are not indicative of cancer, 1 = stage I cancer, 2 = stage II cancer, etc.

    -0.020
    0.002
    1.181
    0.024
    0.007
    -0.034
    0.001
    3.002
    0.006
    0.010

    The correct interpretation of this dataset is that 8/10 patients have no cancer, 1/10 patients have stage I cancer, and 1/10 patients have stage III cancer.

    Using MS Excel's 'always-round-up' function however, an unscrupulous drug rep', researcher, grant applicant, PhD student, etc. could easily use the actual dataset to generate a seemingly objectively derived graph that in fact totally misrepresented the results as:

    Only 2/10 patients have no cancer, 6/10 patients have stage I cancer, 1/10 patients have stage II cancer, and 1/10 patients have stage IV cancer.

    • gromit on 05/12/2024 - 09:01
      +2

      If they are unscrupulous enough to commit fraud like that then they will do so with or without a calculator/excel and if you are dealing with such people and aren't already double checking their data then YOU have already failed.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/12/2024 - 15:45
        -1

        Clearly you have no idea how 'academia'/the research realm now operates. The frantic quest for funding/grants (and as such, 'professional survival') causes a great many—perhaps even the majority—to 'bend the truth' in various ways. Often this is subconsciously justified by 'deflecting' the responsibility for such bends onto technology/software/etc.

        About a million years ago (when I was a kid) someone gave me a book to read called 'Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science' (Wade & Broad, 1986). I was both shocked and entertained by it. The methods of fraud used in science have of course moved on since then, but rest assured, scientific research fraud is now more widespread than ever.

        • gromit on 05/12/2024 - 16:34
          -1

          I am not the one that only just came the revelation they should be checking claims and data. clearly you have no idea about academia/research or you would know it should always be "trust, but verify".

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/12/2024 - 16:41
            -1

            @gromit: Scoff. Are you suggesting that I should repeat all their experiments myself? 'Re-recruit' all the patients in their clinical trial, and test them again, perhaps? The cavalier manner in which you assert that I should simply 'verify' the data presented by others is laughable.

            • gromit on 05/12/2024 - 17:13

              @GnarlyKnuckles: geez for someone that claims to know so much you sure are lacking in common sense. You can verify data is correctly represented, you can validate their research was adequately peer reviewed and that they have a good rep for not misrepresenting data and if you don't trust the researchers then you shouldn't be doing business with them regardless of the data.

        • rumblytangara on 05/12/2024 - 16:54

          For someone who didn't understand how rounding works (primary school), or know about the existence of round/roundup/rounddown in Excel, claiming that someone else is ignorant is a bit… stones and glass houses.

          Another apt aphorism would involve holes and digging.

          • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/12/2024 - 16:57
            -1

            @rumblytangara: Where did I use the word 'ignorant'?

            • rumblytangara on 05/12/2024 - 20:19

              @GnarlyKnuckles: By extremely obvious inference- "Clearly you have no idea how 'academia'/the research realm now operates."

              Or are you being deliberately obtuse the in same way as just about every one of your other posts in this thread?

              You have consistently shown that you have misunderstood primary school mathematics, and then just doubled down on it with quibbles over semantics. It's time to stop digging.

              • GnarlyKnuckles on 05/12/2024 - 20:33
                -2

                @rumblytangara: Ah, muchacho, I find that it is you that is digging.

                You seem resistant to taking a broad view of demonstrable facts, and instead prefer to read whatever serves your own narrow purposes 'between the lines'—and worse—ascribe that subjective interpretation of yours, to others!

                LOL.

                In the words of Ali G's great accomplice, 'Fix up, man'.

  • ialam99 on 05/12/2024 - 07:20

    Given the billions in profit that Coles and Woolworths are making annually, wouldn't it make sense that Coles and Woolworths make donations to charity rather then ask shoppers to on their behalf?

    • gromit on 05/12/2024 - 08:56

      They both do donate to charity, probably more than most businesses. Would be nice if it was more, but providing a channel for customers to also contribute even if only a few cents each time is great. It all adds up.

      • coffeeinmyveins on 05/12/2024 - 09:17

        probably more than most businesses

        Just like Elon musk pays more tax than everyone else.

        They still make billions in profits because they are screwing Australia.

    • trapper on 05/12/2024 - 20:19

      The charity they should donate to is their customers, by keeping prices as low as possible.

  • gakko on 05/12/2024 - 10:14
    +1

    It says 'rounding up' so it will round any amount up from 5.01 to 5.99 into 6 for example.

    If it was just 'rounding' , it wouldve rounded down in your case. Charity would have had to donate to you! Sweet deal.

  • drfuzzy on 16/12/2024 - 16:59

    The bigger question is whether digital begging should be allowed.
    There appears to be no way of opting out of the rounding harassment.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join