• taiyang@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 month 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.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      1 month ago

      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)

  • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
    0·
    1 month ago

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

    Neat.

    • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
      0·
      1 month 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.

        • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
          0·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 month 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.

  • houstoneulers@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Crampon@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 month 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.

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    0·
    1 month 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.

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 month 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
      0·
      1 month 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.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 month 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
            0·
            1 month 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

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
      0·
      1 month 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