- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27121839
You must log in or register to comment.
Prices go up up up Never come back down down down
The invisible hand job economy
I mean it sucks and I drink coke (it’s my mix for booze) but it’s a welcome change (price increase). Soda pop should not be drunk as frequently as it is by people and anything to make it less common is a welcome change IMHO. If becoming more cost prohibitive to people makes them drink it less that’s not a bad thing
Now the challenge becomes, because America is becoming a 3rd world shithole it’s possible that coke is the only safe drink because thanks to the EPA being gutted over decades water isn’t safe in many areas due to contamination. That’s not cool.
You know that has a lot of sugar, which is a poison and will kill you right?
Everything will kill you in excess. Live life and don’t be a Debbie Downer.
Hey friend, I’m not the one complaining about the water or people drinking too much.
It’s friday and I’m going to have plenty of drinks, there will be no soda in sight.
I wish you a good weekend.
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.
Not only do they cost more, the greater surface area means your cold drink warms up faster.
Neat.
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.
Is this a new thing in the US? We’ve had these in Europe for years - and I mean 10-15 at least.
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.
That’s what you get for drinking jupiler
I only partake in the finest carapils
Hey Stella snob, it’s not like you always have a choice.
Also it’s standard thirst or get drunk gulping beer, not a fancy trippel or geuze.
Doesn’t really matter that much.
😂
deleted by creator
Dickflation.
Where is the one on the left no longer available? I live in the US and see those all the time.
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.
A lot of the world can’t just drink tap water with a basic filter
How do I fit my coke addiction in your filtered water?
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.
Is it not tested regularly?
They’re shutting down federal testing requirements in the U.S. - a lot of people do need to start thinking about this.
Sadly not everyone has great chlorine-free water. One of the most annoying experiences every time I go abroad (for example to Italy)
Chlorine is the least of my worries.
After growing up near a superfund/dump site where benzene, toluene, phthalates, etc. were found in the water….I will take the chlorine.
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
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.
I’m surprised the new one isn’t something less than 12 ounces.
Babe, wake up. New shit corpo practice just dropped.
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’.
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.
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.
The tall cans have more surface area. It does mean slightly more materials (but not that much because the can thickness is not uniform), but also more visibility in vending machines and stores. It’s a purely marketing decision.
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.
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
Love it!
Make it happen, captain.
surely this uses more aluminum
It may use less aluminum, as the top and bottom surfaces are much thicker
I’m shit at math, but probably not? If both contain the same amount of liquid, are filled to the same point and both are round (which they are lol), I don’t see how those would require more material.
And even if, if they double the price per can, it’s absolutely worth it.
I found this same thought on this same post a year ago. Someone already crunched the numbers and it seems with the volume constant but height growing, the surface area increases
Original discussion: https://lemmy.world/comment/8371055
A further complication is that the aluminium is considerably thicker on the base and the top… so there’s more thin metal, and less thick metal.
Why don’t we just weigh them?
Shut up with your logic! I’m going to the grocery store…
To illustrate, imagine if we kept getting taller and taller - like trying to fit the same volume of soda in a pencil-thin can that’s about a meter long.
You use more and more aluminum the further away it gets from the minimum surface-area-to-volume container, which would be a sphere
You have never taken calculus.
No, that’s what I said with my very first sentence.
Have you? AP calculus doesn’t count.
