- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27121839
You must log in or register to comment.
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
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??”
This is Piaget’s conservation of volume test. I did this experiment at school (we went to the elementary school next door and ran tests on the kids). Most of the kids said the higher one held more liquid because it was ‘taller’, though some said the short one had more because it was ‘fatter’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is over a year old and completely made-up.
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.
deleted by creator
Love it!
Make it happen, captain.
Good enough reason to boycott coke products, anyway.
The funding of Death Squads in Colombia is a better reason IMO but this works too, haha
The reasons keep on stacking up.
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
It was a way to break up worker organizing and strikes.
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.
Fun fact, a taller, narrower can uses more aluminum!
I thought it was the other way around. The thickest part of the can is the top, followed by the bottom. The sides are much thinner. I thought the reasoning behind switching to tall and narrow cans with the same internal volume was to save on aluminium.
The top seems to be the same size, the old one just bulges more while the new one almost goes straight down.
Tops are pretty much standars size on all cans I’m pretty sure. So that part should be constant.
That looks like a 202 vs a 200 can end, so a “sleek” not a “slim” (red bull can is slim)
The sleek can is 355 ml and uses a 200 end.
As for which uses more aluminum… Good question. It’s probably close
The tops are the same on both
Well, I assumed constant thickness, so if that’s true, you might be right.
It’s definitely more surface area per volume, but a 200 vs 202 lid and a smaller hermetic seal cancels some of those losses. Sidewall is cheap aluminum wise, but you’re likely right in that it’s a little more aluminum. Definitely costs more to make since they do fill a little slower.
Also fuck coke, what a bunch of assholes
The larger diameter of the original can plus the angled transition at either end probably means same surface area of aluminium. Small diameter differences make larger circumferential changes.
They do, but overall the can end (lid) is a LOT more aluminum than you expect and the whole rest of it isn’t as much as you expect.
So a little less lid is worth a fair bit more sidewall in terms of weight of aluminum
Since they apparently have the same volume, could one of you be a hero and steal one of each and weigh them?
If I still worked where I used to I 100% would. No cans around me now :(
Aren’t these the same lid?
I guess I’m a bit rusty, so I am not sure at 355ml and the skinny profile if you can get a 202 end can, or have to use a 200
Hard to tell if it’s sleek or slim
Edit: Actually no, that’s a 200 not a 202. Look at the profile around the tab.
They look so similar hard for me to tell
Look at the indent around the opening. On the shorter can it goes from wide to narrow at the back of the tab. It’s more of a straight line on the taller can
Babe, wake up. New shit corpo practice just dropped.
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.
You know, this should only trick young kids as they genuinely believe taller = more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-pound_burger?wprov=sfla1
Adults in Murica are just as dumb and unneducated
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.
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)
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.
Except the evil doers are the ones specifically making sure people are uneducated.
That is exactly the point I am making. I didn’t argue against the point, I argued against the framing
So instead of framing it as “the population is uneducated” it would be framed as “oligarchs are keeping the population uneducated”…
Of course we are, our education system is designed to churn out undereducated, incapable of critical thought, silent, obedient cogs for the corporate machine.
Edit: made a typo
I want to point out that, especially after No Child Left Behind, we’ve actively worked to teach-to-the-test in public schools. That was a bipartisan compromise to make education “accountable” that ultimately worsened education. Obama’s DoE helped, slightly, in 2015 adjustments but it’s still no where near where it should be and made only worse by a push to get more charters and affordable private schools that don’t understand pedagogy.
That is to say, uneducated isn’t quite right as It’s not a lack of education, but more of a misguided pedagogy that prioritizes rote memorization over deductive reasoning and critical thinking. It’s not a lack of trying, but an avoidence of evidence based approaches.
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.
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
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)
Cones are like runescape leveling, heard
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.
Fair, good point :)
Removed by mod
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
I mean we’re not buying this stuff any longer but I’m surprised coke seems to be more expensive in the US than it is in Denmark?!?
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.
Also stop paying for filtered tap water when there’s nothing wrong with your specific tap water.
Sadly not everyone has great chlorine-free water. One of the most annoying experiences every time I go abroad (for example to Italy)
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.
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.
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.
I meant use a brita or something
chant with me
dont
buy
american
I think this falls under the term “merchandising”, which includes “family size” or “party size” things that cost more per ounce than regular size.
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.
People with vending machines aren’t going to be happy, those new ones won’t fit.
Not only do they cost more, the greater surface area means your cold drink warms up faster.
Neat.
Hey we get this revolutionary super can which is supposed to keep your beer cool.
The ribs are supposed to reduce the contact area of warm fingers.
It doesn’t work obviously since they aren’t big enough and skin on fingers are flexible enough to touch everything.
You only pay 30 to 50% more for this nonsense.
Everyone tries to avoid them but somehow the normal cans are more than often ‘sold out’ in stores.
Greater surface area also means more material for the same product, which leads to less effective transport, more waste and increased polution. Non-standarized can size means every can storage system and cup holder which have taken can size into consideration will be worse. I’m sure a lot of vending machines will have to be modified or scrapped for this can design.
Everyone are worse off because of this, and it’s all for attempting to trick consumers and increase profits. Shit sucks.
The fuck is a fluid ounce?
Ounces that are wet.
1/8th of a cup
Common mistake. Its actually Florida ounces.
Damn liberals and their woke-genderized measurements smh
Fluid ounce is volume, ounce is weight. Liters vs grams.
Ah wonderful, so I’m sure one fluid ounce of water weighs precisely one ounce weight wise?
Almost identical, my understanding is it’s slightly off since it’s such an old measurement. But for everyday purposes it’s the same.
So fluid ounces are just metric with extra steps :/
…two-thirds a dram of scotch whisky…
About 4.835 micro cubic fathoms.
This cannot be a real question.
Because everyone on Reddit is American? Or that the entire planet is supposed to understand nuanced differences between ounces and fluid ounces that only… what, 3 countries on the planet use?
