• azalty@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        It’s far from being that only, check the ingredients (especially if using the zero sugar/calories version)

        Yuka is a great app to tell you this as well, if you’re okay with it

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oil prices go up - petrol goes up.

      Oil prices go down - petrol goes up.

      Oil prices do nothing - petrol goes up.

      Petrol is purposeful and independent.

      Be like petrol!

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    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?

    • oni ᓚᘏᗢ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • drop_table_username@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

  • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Not only do they cost more, the greater surface area means your cold drink warms up faster.

    Neat.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

    • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

  • Mike_The_TV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days 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.

  • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days 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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days 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
        ·
        4 days 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.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days 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??”

      • SuperApples@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        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’.

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days 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

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days 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.

      • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days 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
          ·
          4 days 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
            ·
            4 days 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.

            • Jhex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              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”…

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.