• houstoneulers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Just straight up stop buying shit. Drink filtered tap, and live off only what you need and shrug off ppl that think buying expensive shit will make them cool.

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Also stop paying for filtered tap water when there’s nothing wrong with your specific tap water.

      • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Sadly not everyone has great chlorine-free water. One of the most annoying experiences every time I go abroad (for example to Italy)

        • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Quite true. Not everyone has lead-free water either. But people whose water is perfectly great do not need to pay for filtered water - especially not in single-use plastic bottles.

          • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Absolutely. I’m always drinking tap water at home, we have perfectly clear, chlorine-free, mineral-rich water directly from the mountains. One of my favourite aspects of Austria.

        • theangryseal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I would have been more than happy to drink tap water and have my kids drink tap water.

          We’ve had a couple lead warnings though and I don’t want to fuck with it. They’re going to have a hard enough time with the misfortune of getting my genes. I don’t want to make it even harder for them.

  • Mike_The_TV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    A few years back we literally had frito lay vendors come in before store open to reset the chip aisle, all the bag sizes shrank and they credited out the previous size.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I think this falls under the term “merchandising”, which includes “family size” or “party size” things that cost more per ounce than regular size.

  • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    So that’s why they changed the shape. I saw no valid reason so I just assumed they were trying to evade taxes in some way. I’ll admit I have no idea how much anything I buy at a convenience store costs.

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      If anything the taller cylinder will use more aluminum for the same volume, so they’re kinda shooting themselves in the foot here with aluminum and steel tariffs, lol

      Seems pretty clear the only reason for this was to change the price without as many people noticing.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Regular cans are somewhat inefficient shapes as well, shorter and fatter would be more economical, but less ergonomical and for once that won out, for a while anyway. Now we get designed by marketing instead.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Yeah, there’s an awesome video on aluminum drink cans from TheEngineerGuy on YouTube. The ideal shape for holding pressure with minimal material is a sphere, but there’s 2 problems with that: They roll, and can’t be packed as efficiently as cylinders.

    • imvii@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I’m not sure of the shape change reason, but I prefer the thinner cans. I have a candy store with soft drinks and I can put more of the thinner cans on the shelf. Usually one more can per shelf.

      • Yoga@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If the cans were even shorter (closer to cube/ more efficient for amount of aluminum used) you might be able to put 2 on top of eachother

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yes! I love this comic (well, I guess it wasn’t originally) and reference it all the time. I was randomly very curious which shot glasses we own are the biggest and was trying to use this as an example because we have some tall skinny ones and short fat ones. “You know! The thing where kids think the tall one is bigger??”

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The liberal media wants you to think that the two volumes of liquid are equal using their woke science, but if you use your common sense, you can clearly see that the narrow tube is filled higher and therefore contains more liquid. There is nothing wrong with the economy, real Americans just need to use narrower glasses. Checkmate, leftists. /s

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    yeah but also that’s too much coke. 355ml? jesus, are you eating lava wtf do you need that much sugar water for

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    15 hours ago

    You know, this should only trick young kids as they genuinely believe taller = more. The fact that it probably tricks a ton of adults just suggests their critical thinking never made it past adolescence and we should be very concerned by that.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      There’s a book called “Thinking Fast and Slow” that talks about a bifurcation of the mental process between intuitive mental work and deliberative work. It goes through a bunch of examples of people with established credentials, careers in intellectual professions, and proven records of deliberative thought being tricked by relatively casual visual and verbal illusions.

      Getting tricked by Tall Can isn’t something you can “Critical Thinking” your way out of reflexively. It is something you have to exert continuous mental energy to achieve. When the overwhelming majority of your decisions are made reflexively, and even the process of stepping over from reflexive intuition to deliberative intuition is ultimately an intuitive process, you’re going to get fooled more often than not. The only real defense is to intuitively train defensive behaviors, and that doesn’t avert being fooled so much as it averts falling for the most common scams.

      In the end, a handful of marketing flacks can consistently outwit any audience, because they can knowingly engage in a campaign of strategic deception more easily than you can reflexively catch every deceit thrown your way. What you need is a countervailing force. A regulatory agency dedicated to imposing transparency at the barrel of a gun can render calculated deceits more expensive to implement than they return in revenue.

      But the “lolz, just don’t fuck up” mentality is what leads to people getting gulled at industrial scales. You’re not going to outsmart the professionals and its painfully naive to think otherwise.

      • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Wow that is so fucking interesting. I gotta read that book. I think I have a messed up relationship between those two states if that makes sense

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      This doesn’t really have anything to do with critical thinking, it’s just that our brains work on estimations and approximations, although experience can balance it out.

      Try this: draw a martini glass (inverted cone), and draw a line where you think it would be half full.

      It will be wrong. Numberphile - Cones are messed up (YT)

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That’s more an argument in semantics. Developmental psych actually has this as a brain development stage, with the later stages being about critical thinking even if the earlier phase doesn’t seem so. Experiments were done where children of various ages were tested on benchmarks such as volume and kids under a certain age failed almost universally (I forget the age, something like 5 or 6) in the same way that infants lack object permanence. Later, at 9 and around 13 (?) the same framework argues that the brain gets basic and advanced problem solving and critical thinking, although even that theory admits plenty of people skip that last milestone.

        Your point is more a common logical (sensory?) fallacy that plenty of adults fall into, but isn’t necessarily the same thing. At least, I think it is, I’m a bit busy right now to check and it’s bad enough I’m typing this out instead of taking care of my own toddler, lol.

      • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Essentially all of America’s problems are because its population is so uneducated. We want simple answers to complicated questions because that’s the best we can hope to understand. 52% of us can barely read at a 6th grade level FFS. The ignorance then allows us to entertain some pretty dark thoughts leading us to Trump.

        • Jhex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Hmmmm while I agree a large uneducated population is a terrible problem, I would not say this is the cause. I would characterize it as a “condition” necessary to get this low.

          I find just saying all problems are because of lack of education feels like an indirect way of saying “If I take advantage of you, it’s only because you let me” which I believe leaves the evil-doers off the hook

          Kind of like saying “the problem with school shootings is because kids are so soft and squishy, they are easily destroyed by bullets” (obviously I am exaggerating here to make my point clearer)

          • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Except the evil doers are the ones specifically making sure people are uneducated.

            I’m also curious what you would say is the cause? You argued against the point but didn’t make any new ones.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The fact they kept the lid the same size probably helps the deception, especially once there’s no old cans to compare it to. This could actually work out to be a good thing if people buy fewer sugary sodas while thinking they’re drinking about the same

      • naeap@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Didn’t knew about that one
        What’s up with that?

        Would have thought that a legal trade of coca leaves would work out reasonable…well, I’m naive it seems

        • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Coca Cola is an old company with a long and dark history. If they appear reasonable, it’s only because they’ve used the massive weight of their resources to create an international marketing campaign over decades to make themselves appear benign and refreshing.