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 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.It’s friday and I’m going to have plenty of drinks, there will be no soda in sight.
Um… congratulations?
Um…thank you
I wish you a good weekend too
with or without sodas
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
A man of the people
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.
Mine comes from a cistern collected from roof water. If you wanna chug a nice tall glass, be my guest.
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.
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’.
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.
Just like coke cans
*ColOmbia
100% correct, thank you.
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.
Good enough to contact one’s consumer organizations or government watchdogs.
Fun fact, a taller, narrower can uses more aluminum!
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
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
Someone should weigh both and see!
The only real way, speculation by photo is not that great. They also could have made the metal thinner.
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
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.
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 :)
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”…
So,
“Problems exist because there aren’t enough good people [with enough power].”
Or what can we state confidently?
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.
And it has been humming
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)
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 :)
People who bought cola before won’t stop anyway. That has little to do with the shape
Cones are like runescape leveling, heard
Psst! Your comment has a typo that makes the joke not work. Just letting you know :)
How much critical thinking is going on in a supermarket? Anyway, the tall ones also warm faster 😡
Oh good point, another downside of the taller shape. More surface area = warms faster and uses more aluminum.
Critical thinking (or at least reasoning) is everywhere, even when people drive or do chores, an ounce of thoughtfulness at the very least makes a difference.
And yes, warm soda. Lol
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
It surprises me none at all that a significant market share of an American brand are stupid enough to fall for it.
Makes me remember a study where conservatives fall for internet scams at like a 3x higher rate than everyone else lol
Removed by mod
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
Semms 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.
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
