- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27121839
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Someone should weigh both and see!
Well, I assumed constant thickness, so if that’s true, you might be right.
you could use your coke scale to confirm
The tops are the same on both
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
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
I don’t know about “messed up”, but its useful to understand when you’re responding on reflex. The intuitive response is the normal response, with deliberative thinking tending to be the exception rather than the rule. So you can recognize the impulsive action as a problem. But you shouldn’t see reflex as a problem. Reflexes are useful precisely because they let you make decisions quickly and effortlessly. Ask any pro-athlete.
Oh I don’t mean it that way, I have always felt like I’m “on” too much of the time and it wears me out, especially in the years since my “big T” trauma event happened. It’s at least partially hyper-vigilance, but I think it’s also just how I am. Thats what I meant by messed up, it kind of seems like I’m in the deliberative state more than I “should” be (or what’s average, whatever) and when the reflexive state happens it’s not always at a helpful time.
Well, that sucks and I’m sorry to hear it. Yeah, could just be anxiety issues. I have a friend with a severe enough case who ended up getting on SSRIs to treat it and it genuinely turned around her personality immensely. That might go a bit above the raw psychology of Thinking Fast And Slow (or it might not, idk, I’m no doctor). But one of the things the book gets into is the real physical toll deliberative thinking takes. Chess professionals can burn calories comparable to a pro-athlete planning out their next move, for instance.
Yeah I definitely need to read this book. For me it’s lead to a lifelong substance abuse issue (one month clean from my current DOC (I’m a polysubstance user), cannabis still but that’s not a problem for me) in which I was self medicating my intense sensitivity to any and all stimuli including emotional (I’m extremely empathetic and have strong feelings at all times unless dulled by substances, yes that includes during sleep) as well as sensory (my dad noticed first when I was young, he said I was "more tactile " when I was in elementary and he was partially right and that how I thought of it until I learned more and developed a better understanding with better coping skills and habits), along with the way I think being pretty rigid in some ways, for example I became a militant atheist in elementary school; I later developed a more accurate understanding of my beliefs but as a child I strongly resisted attempts to proselytize to me and bring me to church and church classes or whatever it was and all kinds of shit that never made sense to me the way it was being explained by religious people who were not well informed but had strong feelings about the topic. I have rarely felt well understood even through years of various therapies and treatments with many providers for my many health issues, including the aforementioned substance abuse issue. This book sounds like it might help me understand myself at least. Thank you for sharing :)
Btw I was very underweight for years, I wonder if that has anything to do with what you mentioned about burning calories thinking. I am literally constantly explaining in my head what I’m doing as if someone was watching me and asking what I’m doing. I’ve gotten really good at explaining myself and during my addiction that came in handy, but now I can use it for good, like having this positive interaction with you :)
It surprises me none at all that a significant market share of an American brand are stupid enough to fall for it.
Removed by mod
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.
Where I live has heavy agriculture and oil industry presence. People here are concerned over pesticides and random chemicals randomly seeping into the water system.
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
Just a heads up Brita filters do basically nothing it’s mostly just a carbon block which will help remove chlorine flavor which makes it taste a little better but in terms of actually removing contaminants it does very little to almost nothing.
Zero water is the closest thing in brita drip form that actually removes things but getting a counter top reverse osmosis is the way to go if not getting a dedicated under sink unit
Just remember! Reverse osmosis filters are NOT eco friendly, it cost 3 to 4 gallons of waste water discard to gain 1 gallon of drinking water.
Using modern filters, and using a pressure booster pump to ensure proper pressure level this is actually nowhere near as bad it’s now possible to achieve a one-to-one clean to waste ratio.
If you don’t want any waste you can go to nanofiltration which is roughly as effective as Reverseosmosis and does not have the Wastewater issue but they are significantly more expensive.
And it’s not as if that Wastewater is sewage it’s just the same water that came in with a higher concentration of the stuff that you didn’t want that was already present in the water so that Wastewater can be reused for gardening, or gray water such as showers and toilets
I get that they aren’t perfect but everything has a trade off and reverse osmosis or nanofiltration is really the only way to get rid of many different sources of water contamination especially things like microplastics and pfas
How do I fit my coke addiction in your filtered water?
A lot of the world can’t just drink tap water with a basic filter
Babe, wake up. New shit corpo practice just dropped.
Where is the one on the left no longer available? I live in the US and see those all the time.
People with vending machines aren’t going to be happy, those new ones won’t fit.
As a consumer you should have thought about the consequences of your habits. Because of you they now have to replace all the vendig machines.
Its the consumers fault. Companies have absolutely no responsibility.
Huge /S if there ever was any doubt.
Prices go up up up Never come back down down down
The invisible hand job economy
when they do go down economist scream that its the worst thing to ever happen (deflation)
I’m surprised the new one isn’t something less than 12 ounces.
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.
mm sugar water
Who cares. Stop drinking soda that shit is awful for you.
If you’re dumb enough to consume this shit all the time then you’re exactly the one who is being fooled at the same time.
Hmmm careful with the slippery slope of victim blaming
You should care cause its not just soda, its everything. companies just your exact reasoning to justify it.
I haven’t bought any American brands for the past few weeks. Surprise surprise, my intake of soda and candy and unhealthy stuff has fallen like a stone.
You’re only a victim if you get victimized. Stop buying from companies that do this shit.
If you really have to drink it, drink the zero versions of most sodas. Dr Pepper in particular has some really decent flavors without the gross aftertaste. Pepsi zero is also really good. Just stop drinking regular soda. We have the technology to make diet taste good now so use it.
Its cancer to drink sweeteners or isnt it
I think the consensus on health effects of artificial sweeteners is unclear so long as you only consume a reasonable amount. There are plenty of other synthetics in highly processed foods that are much more concerning.
That said, water is obviously healthier.
Yes. Do run an experiment on your health. Find out in 15 years if it causes cancer.
Like I said, it’s not the healthy choice, but I’m also not going to demonize a person for having the occasional sweet drink.
A much better hill to die on is the systemic use of known carcinogens in products that we come in contact with everyday as well as the dumping of even worse materials into the environment that make their way into our bodies via the water we drink and the air we breathe. You don’t get to choose whether you are exposed to these things.
Living will kill. Pick your battles.
Sad day for people drinking cancer
Quick ‘proof’ the taller the can, the more material used:
Consider two cases ignoring the top and bottom only focussing on the surface area. In the first case, you flatten so much the can has no height. This forms a ring that when unwrapped makes a length of 2 pi R.
Now stretch the can to be ‘infinitely’ long. By construction, this is longer than 2 pi r. Given both are made of aluminum, and have the same density, the larger can has more mass requiring more material.
The total mass must be a continuous function ranging from the linear mass density times the circumference of the circle to the same mass density time times the ‘length’ of the infinite line. This must remain true for any small increase in length between the two.
I’ll leave this as an exercise to the reader. What if the circle has an infinite radius?
Isn’t the larger the can proportional to how does both top and bottom shrink? like, being the same amount of material, but with a different distribution.
No he’s right. The solution for an optimal surface area to volume ratio is a sphere. The farther you deviate from a sphere the less optimal you become. The actual math for this is finding deltaSurfaceArea in respects to cylinder radius for a given volume and then finding the maxima, which is a Uni physics 1 problem I really don’t feel like doing. Long story short, optimal is when height = diameter, or as close to a sphere as a cylinder can be.
Thanks fot the aclaration.
It’s not really ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ it’s under a fixed set of assumptions. You raise a valid point. What does happen to the top and the bottom? I was ignoring them considering only the sides in the two most extreme cases.
If I understand your case when the can is flatted the area gets much larger and when it gets taller it shrinks to a pin point. An equally valid approach
If I understand your case when the can is flatted the area gets much larger and when it gets taller it shrinks to a pin point.
Yes, that was what I meaning.
Welcome to the world, m8! :,-)
