• AntY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • De_Narm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The top seems to be the same size, the old one just bulges more while the new one almost goes straight down.

      • Redex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Tops are pretty much standars size on all cans I’m pretty sure. So that part should be constant.

        • frank@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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

        • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The only real way, speculation by photo is not that great. They also could have made the metal thinner.

    • frank@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • frank@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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

            • frank@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months 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.

      • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months 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.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      How much critical thinking is going on in a supermarket? Anyway, the tall ones also warm faster 😡

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months 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)

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It surprises me none at all that a significant market share of an American brand are stupid enough to fall for it.

    • PNWKid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Makes me remember a study where conservatives fall for internet scams at like a 3x higher rate than everyone else lol

  • Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Who cares. Stop drinking soda that shit is awful for you.

    If you’re dumb enough to consume this shit all the time then you’re exactly the one who is being fooled at the same time.

    • Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You should care cause its not just soda, its everything. companies just your exact reasoning to justify it.

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I haven’t bought any American brands for the past few weeks. Surprise surprise, my intake of soda and candy and unhealthy stuff has fallen like a stone.

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you really have to drink it, drink the zero versions of most sodas. Dr Pepper in particular has some really decent flavors without the gross aftertaste. Pepsi zero is also really good. Just stop drinking regular soda. We have the technology to make diet taste good now so use it.

        • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think the consensus on health effects of artificial sweeteners is unclear so long as you only consume a reasonable amount. There are plenty of other synthetics in highly processed foods that are much more concerning.

          That said, water is obviously healthier.

          • Nora@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes. Do run an experiment on your health. Find out in 15 years if it causes cancer.

            • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              Like I said, it’s not the healthy choice, but I’m also not going to demonize a person for having the occasional sweet drink.

              A much better hill to die on is the systemic use of known carcinogens in products that we come in contact with everyday as well as the dumping of even worse materials into the environment that make their way into our bodies via the water we drink and the air we breathe. You don’t get to choose whether you are exposed to these things.

  • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    Neat.

    • Bloomcole@lemmy.mlBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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.

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