• taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month 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
        5
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • Jhex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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)

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      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)

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                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 :)

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

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

  • houstoneulers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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.

      • Sarcasmo220@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

        • OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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

  • Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

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

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month 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.

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.

  • Mike_The_TV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month 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.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    yeah but also that’s too much coke. 355ml? jesus, are you eating lava wtf do you need that much sugar water for

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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

            • oni ᓚᘏᗢ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              Yes, that was what I meaning.