• whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

  • Mike_The_TV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months 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.

    • Crampon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months 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
      ·
      4 months 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
        0
        ·
        4 months 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.

          • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            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

  • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months 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
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months 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
        0
        ·
        4 months 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
          0
          ·
          4 months 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
      0
      ·
      4 months 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.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months 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!

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months 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
        0
        ·
        4 months 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
      0
      ·
      4 months 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

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months 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.