- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
Let me introduce you to tolerance in measuring instruments and measuring errors.
Edit: Apparently I’m pro evil companies because I just pointed out that scales (and more importantly non-professional scales) have relatively high error tolerances (+ the measurament method error). Thus the measuring of this pasta and the possible interpretations of it have to take into account that.
When was the last time OP performed a guage R&R with a traceable calibrated mass standard? 😂
Somehow its always lower than claimed.
“Always” is a really strong word that you should not be using in this context since it’s just not true.
For example, there once was more than indicated on a package of lentils in 1958. So it’s clearly not always.
Got em!
Last year this claim went around for the Loblaws No Name brand in Canada so I went shopping with my kitchen scale, preparing to be outraged. Everything was a solid 10% over the advertised weight.
That does not apply in today’s world where shrinkflation and consumer fraud run rampant.
It us solely the company’s responsibility to ensure each package is labeled with the correct weight, not the consumer to tolerate excuses like “measuing errors” whether they’re valid or not. Companies have too much power to just not know or be able to accurately weigh or label their product, ergo if there’s a problem, they chose to have it in there. And if you dispute that, I will simply block you and move on.
Stop defending evil corporations. Stop doing this.
All that speech does not change that the weighing scales he is using is cheap af and thus the measuring error is high enough. Even if the guys at the company had the best measuring system in the world without error and they packed 410g of pasta, the guy measuring at home with that scale would probably mesure a vaule not equal to the nominal one.
Maybe the scales have measuring errors because they defend evil corporations. “Please scales stop defending evil corporations!!”. Dude i hate scales they are so much pro system…
Srry your comment was too funny for me.
It’s clearly a conspiracy by Big Scale to sell more scales.
All that speech doesn’t change the fact that your standards don’t matter, ours do, and if our scales don’t match what that package says, you have to put more product in to make it do so or you are defrauding us. Period.
Now come back when you’re ready to meet our standards.
your standards don’t matter, ours do, and if our scales don’t match what that package says, you have to put more product in to make it do so or you are defrauding us. Period.
I’m not sure if I’m missing a joke here, but are you asking for some alternative-metrology here?!
Weight is a well-defined standard, and a properly calibrated scale > your kitchen scale.
Yeah this guy is pure comedy at this point tbh. Are you of the “our standards” team or “their standards” team (very evil, probably eat childs too)
You aren’t shit. They scales do meet standards that are tested periodically to ensure they aren’t false advertising. Do you really think these corporations don’t have audits?
Calm down, touch grass, try to get in touch with reality and stay off the tankie portions of the internet that feed these delusions.
You sound like an angry oldman not wanting to accept reality.
So you want companies to put excess product because you don’t know how to measure correctly (or don’t have good equipment). Well ask them. For the price of 410g, too? No? And maybe a paycheck supplement too.
I want a lot of things too.
The point is that it isn’t false advertising if you don’t know how to measure well. Is not a standar or whatever you think it is. It’s reality.
Outside the kindergarten where everything seems so simple and easy to understand. In real life you don’t have ideal things. You don’t have an ideal measuring place.
Sources of error when measuring:
- The material cut tolerance.
- Your house not being perfectly smooth leveled.
- (for electronic scales) RF noise.
- (for electronic scales) Tolerance on electronic components.
- The scale subjection points not perfectly pressed.
- (for electronic scales) discretization error.
- Components degradation.
- Humidity.
- Gas denisty near the scale.
- Gravity fluctuations in the region of measurement.
- Surface of the sample not resting completly in the scale plate. Etc.
And you are ranting about evil and “our” standards or whatever for a 2% error in the measurement? I would expect a 5% error given all that. That scale must be an exceptional good one.
It’s not standards it’s reality. Why do you think measuring labs are so expensive? Evil companies?
Try measuring your height more than once and see if results change. Hey if they change, you work for the evil companies, and you probably live in our “standards zone”.
Our/Yours standards was pure comedy. It’s getting better and better.
the tolerance exploit
Sup, I’m your local friendly USDA contractor who very much uses scales everyday. Consumer grade kitchen scales are terrible and will lie to you. The fact that it does not go out to the tenths or hundredths is a big flag for accuracy.
We check test our scales twice a year to make sure they are accurate. I once tried check testing my kitchen scale I use for canning for giggles and it failed miserably. It would only register weight on 2 out of 4 quadrants until I got to 10g or so. I’m sure my ohaus is going to show a different and more accurate result if I where to try it.
Eight grams off? That seems rather significant. I mean we use to buy 20 grams of weed we’d know if it was almost half shy.
8g sure but this is only within 2% error. most scales would probably be within 3% so this isn’t surprising
You would presumably use a higher precision scale for that purpose. I know my kitchen has a large scale that’s only 1 g precision but can go up to 8 kg, and one that’s .01g precision but only goes up to 500g.
Unless you were using a certified scale and checking it with certified check weights every time you used it, you were just guessing and hoping your dealer wasn’t randomly or purposely off. And density of the material weighed matters also. Weed is far less dense than pasta so a discrepancy can be more noticeable since it takes a larger volume of weed to reach a particular weight than pasta does.
Understand that a digital kitchen scale is made with the cheapest load sensors a manufacturer is willing to pay for. Nor do they come with any kind of traceable certification as to accuracy class. In fact you get no guarantee that your shiny new kitchen scale is fit for even that purpose - just that it turns on, lights up, and displays something when you place a load upon it.
Accuracy is a cruel and VERY expensive mistress to chase. And most people don’t understand it anyway.
that’s why you don’t use a scale that’s only accurate to the full gram (and barely that) when dealing with something where the cost is such that a missing half gram actually makes a difference.
Well you were high so we can’t be sure about those numbers
I wasnt at the time but twenty minutes later, sure
Dealers digital scales have 2 decimal places.
please actually do it. Not for any real Reason but just because it’s funny to use professional equipment to weigh Pasta
Well, it can’t be packaged to scientific standards, it has to be packaged to ours.
Scale accuracy was never a problem or scrutinized until ow, and successfully helped people lose weight, so it’s not the accuracy of the scales that is an issue.
This is blatant consumer fraud and nothing in your field can change that fact, clearly.
This just doesn’t make sense.
You wouldn’t say the same when talking about other products. If you buy ibuprofen for example you wouldn’t say “it can’t be packaged to scientific standards, it has to be packaged to ours” if you try to weigh a single pill with your kitchen scale.
Stuff HAS to be packaged to scientific standards. Period.
If your tools at home aren’t accurate enough or simply aren’t properly calibrated for a specific job, it can’t be the fault of the producer.
If you use a 2€ kitchen scale that is 10 years old you can’t blame the producer if your measurement is off by 10%.
The producer cannot make sure YOUR equipment is proper for the task, and they can’t make sure EVERYONES scales see the exact same. So of course they have to weigh with their own scales and surprise surprise they use extremely precise scales that are properly calibrated and tested regularly.
If you read his comments to my comments he states that following “their” (?) standards, the producers have to put much more product in order to “”““adjust””“” for the tolerance error of random consumers. Clueless.
I think you’re a bit off track. scale accuracy has been a subject of careful scrutiny for millenia. You absolutely have to use the right tool for the job. A kitchen scale is not the right tool for the job. It would be like complaining that you can’t take your car’s lug nuts off with a pipe wrench.
Your comment doesn’t make sense, since home tools are not precise enough and that is not the manufacter fault. I suggest you read about Metrology
That is scientific standards for him, not “their” standards or whatever. Yeah clueless.
I remember being in school 20 years ago and being taught about scale inaccuracies and the importance of frequent calibration. The thing about weight loss is that you will lose weight if you’re in a deficit. Your daily calorie needs are going to fluctuate a little bit, regardless. Most people don’t keep activity the exact same, sleep the exact same, take exactly the same steps everyday, plus hormones fluctuate, etc. Your measurements don’t have to be precise, just close enough. People have also lost weight with sloppy volumetric measurements, counting out chips, or even eyeballing the amount of space taken up on their plate. MyPlate.gov was rolled out after consumer research found that it works.
What!?
Now, I agree with you that if you believe a home kitchen scale is telling the truth, you are a fool. But as an old toolmaker who dabbled in accuracy for a living, displayed digits does not equal accuracy nor even repeatability. And there can be a fair amount of interpretation involved in analog beam scales.
I think it’s just another PPS, (piss poor scale), scale that is neither accurate nor repeatable. And the packaging material weights are rarely included in listed weights. Since packaging can change at any time due to costs.
wouldnt weight slightly fluctuate with moisture content?
yeah. 8g is a tiny weight difference here and could easily be accounted-for due to humidity with pasta. it’s about the weight of 3-4 strands of that pasta
Could also just be losing a strand or two in packaging. It happens. That’s why they’re allowed some wiggle room on the packaging weight, and 8 grams is a pretty reasonable margin of error for a product like this.
Shrinkflation is definitely a thing, but this isn’t a good example.
The same package in Germany is 500g, so maybe there is an element of shrinkflation as well.
It’s also why the target is 410 was of 400 I’d imagine .
Idk about that. When I worked in a factory we always measured 510 g into our 500 g packages in order to avoid this happening. You’re getting ripped off and making excuses for it.
So they package it wet? If the weight went down it means the pasta was wetter at time of boxing.
Removed by mod
It’s far more likely that this is just weight variation which is allowable per the Food Safety and Inspection Service
However, I would sooner blame the scale itself as it doesn’t look like a scientific scale. So it’s likely not calibrated and will drift over time. Plenty of things could explain an 8g difference as measured by the average joe.
If it weren’t obscenely expensive to do so, it would make sense for all scales to be calibrated to a NIST traceable standard, with periodic recalibrations at preset intervals.
Most kitchen scales could be easily calibrated with a measuring cup and water if they really wanted to do this. Just have a few included cups for 25,50,100ml of water and then fill them on the scale and tell it what the volume is.
That will easily get you within a gram of error for most common food weights.
If I’m reading table 2-9 right this package would be allowed to be under by 28.3g
Yeah that seems to be how it reads.
Weird that heavier packages are allowed a smaller tolerance ? Like a 198g package can be 28g under, but in the last row anything over 4.5kg needs to vary by less than 1%
yeah, but that doesnt mean much. the hoover damn is still drying.
The Hoover Dam concrete would cure in 125 years by conventional or natural methods. Crews, however, used some innovative engineering methods to hasten the process.
Nearly 600 miles of steel pipes woven through the concrete blocks significantly reduced the chemical heat from the setting for the concrete. Crews relied on 1,000-pound blocks of ice produced daily at the site’s ammonia-refrigeration plant.
Would have doesn’t mean is. Source
Fun fact, concrete actually never stops curing, so I don’t know why they claim they could speed it up. Concrete has to set, dry and cure. You can speed up the first two, but not the last. You can make it reach design spec in say 7 days instead of 28, but it never stops curing.
Opinion: If it never stops curing, then maybe we should stop using that term.
What other term would we use? Lost of items never fully “cure” I’m struggling to think of something that does. Paint doesn’t, nail polish doesn’t.
It’s why it has to dry and set first. Concrete is completely usable after it’s set, it just gets stronger as it cures.
Why do you think paint says not to wash the wall for a month after, the paint still has to cure after drying and setting.
I’m saying, come up with another term.
So is all the water it’s holding back 😱
RH during packing 55%, RH in OPs house 25%
Just different conditions, even
histheir (sorry) neighbors house could have a different RH and different results.
I think its a fair question from a certain perspective.
However, the law requires that the package contents contain at least as much as stated. If humidity is an issue, it’s up to the manufacturer to factor that in. Besides, this is dry pasta my friend.
I also bought salami. It was 13 g short. It’s produced in the plant 4km from me.
There are no excuses to short the customer and it is illegal.
It is not illegal to sell a single container under the listed net weight.
The net weight must not be under the average weight of a sample of packages. There’s a whole set of rules for maximum allowable variance and for packages under a pound, it’s a little more than 7 grams.
Your scale is almost certainly not accurate enough to tell the difference a few tenths of a gram would make.
ha, define dry (youll need to be precise). how long in the atmosphere is a packaged product warrantied to hold its weight? just curious
No you’re not curious lol You’re doing textbook sea lioning
Go find someone else to mildly anmoy
ha, ok. i thought we were having a conversation. have fun with your mild anger! byeE!
And that’s literally how we got the bakers dozen.
If your dozen of baked goods wasn’t above a threshold you would be harshly punished. So bakers would give an extra so there’s no way they would get in trouble.
So interesting. I always thought the bakers dozen came from the fact that tue baker would make 13 so they had one for themselves
Why are you getting downvoted? Why is Lemmy defending rich corporations and not consumers??
You opened dry pasta in a dry room and got less than the advertised amount. If there’s residual moisture in the factory that evaporates, that is their problem, not ours. Yes it’s a small variation, but that reasoning works both ways: they should include a few extra strands to make sure the consumer gets the right amount.
If you want to get technical, aren’t grams a measure of mass, not weight, so a kitchen scale needs to assume a value for gravity’s acceleration to tell you grams, which could be slightly off depending where you are on earth?
I thought that you were on to something and did a quick google search: the variation is apparently only 0.5%. And a variation that big is only found when comparing a measurement on the poles (heavier) vs the equator (lighter) and I think it unlikely that this pasta was made on Antarctica. So nope, it’s not the reason, they really do owe the op 2 grams of pasta.
tldr; why not both
Volume is not mass, and neither of them is weight. A gram is strictly speaking a measure of mass, and we just consider it to be a unit of weight in casual terms because the only frame of reference the vast majority of us have has reasonably constant gravity so we conflate mass and weight. That you can sort of use grams to measure volume is literally only because the density of common stuff (especially water) is close enough for most purposes. It’s kinda like measuring a distance in units of time so long as the method of travel is known. I can say “an hour’s walk” and I’m not really measuring distance there but you know roughly how far I mean
exactly, youre technically correct, but functionally irrelevant in this context
Also, could it be the weight with the box?
When you see “Net weight” or a symbol that looks like a big minuscule “e”, it means that the package weight doesn’t count.
I don’t see anything like that in OP’s picture.
Removed by mod
You’re correct
can I see a pic out the box with it above weight stated?
Removed by mod
Yeah what about the other one, like drops on a cold beer?
-2% is probably allowed and this is -1.95%. It’s okay I guess. I’d probably trust my cheap, regularly used and never calibrated kitchen scale less than I would trust these companies to comply with such rules.
Actually it’s usually closer to 5%, but to avoid consumers getting mad most companies have internal variance limits of less. Still, 2% is pretty tight for manufacturing equipment. Despite the mass prevalence of corporate greed, it does end up being better for most companies overall to be on the slightly heavy end of net weight rather than lower end and most manufacturing guardrails and in line weight checks are calibrated with that in mind.
This is entirely due to the risk of images like this going viral and causing blowback for the company. So, to keep products on average a little heavier, posting things like this is great
Hopefully it’s got to average. If they’re cutting 2% off all the time that’s no good
That’s probably what they’re trying to do. The better their quality management is the closer to consistently packing -1.95% they’ll be.
There should be random spot checks. Just grab a bag, weigh the contents, eat it. Like 50/year, or whatever N is required for certainty. Is the mean at 0 deviation, or is it low, or high? Then fines collected for the deviations, but only if they don’t average to zero. Only if they’re tilted.
The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.
While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.
NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.
The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz.
oddly, that’s just over 8g, the difference noted in OP’s example. so, OP’s package is within he allowable tolerance, just.
And it would probably be more expensive to get precision-calibrated equipment to get you at the bottom end of the tolerance to save product cost than what it would cost to just aim for the correct value with less precise equipment.
This one is a conspiracy theory I struggle to get behind. It seems like the conspiracy would be less profitable than the “proper” behavior here.
You know full well that they did some statistical analysis and determined the minimum possible amount of pasta that they could try to put in that box, taking into account variations in their machinery and moisture content.
Big “How much can a banana cost, $10?” energy here.
We’re talking about one of the cheapest brands of commodity pasta here. Think about how much effort you are implying the company put into this versus what 8g of major wholesale flour costs – the only cost they’d really be saving in this conspiracy.
Even at consumer retail prices that’s, what, $0.012 per box? And I bet wholesale prices are at least an order of magnitude less than that. Is the maybe tenth of a percent of cost savings worth a potential class action lawsuit and the horrific pain of Discovery that comes with it? And does that maybe tenth a percent of cost savings even come close to covering all the additional production costs involved in having that machinery calibrated so much more precisely? The juice is not worth the squeeze, my friend.
You think you’re arguing that they would do evil for profit’s sake, but you’re actually arguing they would do evil for evil’s sake even at the expense of profit.
Just so that I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying a company that sells tens of billions of dollars of pasta per year is not interested in saving a penny ot a fraction of a penny per box?
Do you think anyone is going to win a class action lawsuit against a pasta company that 1-5% of the time puts just barely too little pasta in the box. You think we’re going to have that kind of righteous justice? Haha. Do you think people would even be that surprised given that, as you say, “we’re talking about one of the cheapest brands of commodity pasta here.” No, if this was found to be true, whatever regulatory agency would just give them a warning.
It’s not about being evil, is about the way capitalism works. If they’re putting more product in the box than they have to, they’re fools.
And you don’t “precisely calibrate the machinery.” You just figure out what the variations are and you set it to the minimum. If you’re supposed to have something like 9-11 oz of pasta in your box and you know that your machine will give you whatever you set it to, +/- 0.2 oz of pasta, 99% of the time, you set your machine to 9.2 or 9.3 oz. You don’t set it to 10 oz.
4.7 billion is Barillas global revenue, that’s a lot for one person but for a multi-continent good distributor it’s not.
I know you’re angry at the worlds injustices and all but I don’t think the bargain brand dry pasta company is the source of a part of your global conspiracy
I’m not angry and I don’t think this is a global conspiracy. I just believe that large companies are motivated to cut costs wherever they can.
Have you heard of pink slime? Its a product of the beef industry. They heat and centrifuge “waste trimmings” to get a little bit of additional gooey fatty animal product and then add it to ground beef. It’s pretty gross and it adds only a miniscule amount to the profit margin.
Large companies do everything they can to make as much money as possible.
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.
5/16 oz out of 5 oz is just over 6%.
Thank you! I don’t get why they use such weird measurements. Why not use %?
Probably because, as evidenced by most others’ attempts to do simple arithmetic in this thread, percentages are even more difficult to calculate.
5/16 oz
How many football fields to the gallon is that? On a serious note this is something far better expressed as a fraction than an amount of difference for one specific container size…
You can’t divide 5/16 by 5?
It’s not really clear whether the variance scales linearly with weight. We only know 1 data point. It could be bracketed for different weight groups.
exactly
5/80
Easy 😎
6.25%
Congratulations
deleted by creator
1/16th
In the nineties, 4oz ground pepper cans made on a line I worked on.
The tolerances were horrible.
McCormick was 3.9 I think
Black and white can 3.5. !!! (25%)
Yes both were made on the same exact line
.5 is not 25% of 4
Why is the basic arithmetic in this thread so terrible?
Because it’s full of delusional angry people that think there’s a global conspiracy to short consumers tiny percentages of our food to keep us subjugated and poor
It’s not necessarily a conspiracy. They’re all just doing it because it’s easy and there’s plausible deniability.
TBH, I was hungover a piss, and was like fuck it.
I don’t see anything on the scale indicating it was not tared. Nor do I know whether or not you took a noodle or two out of the pile before weighing
For all we know, you tared this +20g and this is feel-good anti-corporate propaganda. Which is fine, we all hate the corporations…but propaganda is propaganda.
Op, please post a video showing a calibration weight on the scale followed immediately by your pasta taken directly out of a sealed box. For science.
Your sound logic side, 8g of pasta is hardly shrinkflation and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s an accepted rounding error in plant packaging.
Also net weight vs gross weight. I think there’s a law that regulates this where I live (France) because it’s always specified but I don’t see it here.
I assume OP is from Canada because I see English and French on the packaging. I lived there for a few years and was losing my mind over this kind of stuff the entire time. Prices never include taxes even though you basically always have to pay them, price per pound/gallon/unit is never displayed either and they really try to swindle you with this, I constantly saw “family sized” or whatever packages that actually cost more per pound than the regular version when I did the math. So I’m not surprised.
shrinkflation is 410 instead of 500 grams, then there is this weight skew
It’s a 2% difference. The cutting and packaging is done (most probably) by machines. I have clinically diagnosed OCD, and I wouldn’t care about 8g of missing pasta… How much do you leave on the plate/in the pot/throw away? :)
Otoh, hitting exactly 410g (assuming the scale is calibrated, and you have the same temperature, air moisture and altitude as the factory), is very difficult. They could adjust their machines so the variation hangs a bit more towards the customer, but for them, 2% x millions of boxes = profit.
Most of our packaging machines require < 1%, target <0.5% variance (both ways). Honestly in practice, over a whole batch the total variance is extremely tiny.
Add to this story the accuracy of a household, not-calibrated scale? Yeah I’d say this seems OK.
What do you make?
Tolerances for food items depend a lot on item size, shape, and irregularity.
I mean… that’s a good point. I only make bulk materials, like 1 ton supersaks, and we tend to OVERfill so customers don’t complain, with the target still being close to zero for a whole batch.
That seems around what I’d expect the measurement error to be anyway
This really isn’t a big deal, the customer paid 2% less off this specific box. Oh.
This isn’t a big deal, the customer paid 2% less than the calculated total for their entire order at checkout and only had to say “me shorting this transaction is just a statistical probability and you should view it as the cost of doing business with me.” Oh.
This isn’t a big deal, the customer gets massive subsidies from the government while the poor manufacturers have to pay stupid worker safety fees and unfair payroll during times of extreme economic ‘fortune’. Oh.
On our packaging (Germany) we have a little “e” meaning it will be ± the weight with a deviation of 1.5-9% depending on the volume.
https://www.payback.de/ratgeber/besser-leben/kleines-e-auf-verpackungYeah pretty sure these are European rules as we have the same thing in the UK. Basically the current batch needs to remain above the average weight if it drops under the target weight packs will start getting rejected until the average increases.
Idk about batch weight.
Might be true. Sounds at least reasonable.Yeah I’ve worked IT in a food production environment and am familiar with setting up the products. When we went from catch weight (price per kg) to fixed weight products like ops we got loads of calls about packs being rejected and initially didn’t understand why until reading more into how e weighing rules work. I can’t remember the specifics as it was sometime ago but only a certain percentage can be below the target weight and above T1 and a smaller percentage can be between T1 and T2 which are the fall back weights.
https://www.gov.uk/weights-measures-and-packaging-the-law/packaged-goods
Fortunately these rules are preprogrammed into checker weighers and weight price labellers so they setup is easy it’s just getting the weights right going into those machines with minimum giveaway (if the batch weighs more than the the pack count x target weight that is called giveaway).
🤔Hmm doubt it’s humidity issue the issue. But more importantly why is it not in 500g packets like all the pasta in the world?
Because of shrinkflation
uh probably lines up with freedom units or cause funny number
More likely shrinkflation. Same as how a pint of hagen-daz is 14oz now, instead of a full pint.
americans really just have to remember a long list of random numbers like how many ounces a full pint is supposed to be, huh.
i’m imagining a whole day of school like, “when people say nickel, they mean 5 cents, a dime is 10 cents, 12 inches is a foot, 3 feet is a yard, water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F…” and the children just crying into their notebooks by the time they get to miles and tons and acres.
When I first read your comment I wanted to say that managing with these units isn’t really all that difficult. But, then I remembered that I have a magnet on my fridge that converts teaspoons to cups to quarts etc. I don’t know anyone who keeps that info in memory. Doubling or halving an American recipe can be an exciting math project
It’s fun to see what metric conversions an American has memorized. If a person can quickly convert miles to Kilometers, they are probably a runner. If you ask a group of colleagues how many grams are in an ounce, the dude who quickly say “28.3 give or take” is a pothead.
A cup is 32 teaspoons, 3 teaspoons per tablespoon, ergo 1 cup is 16 tablespoons. I know this offhand because:
- I cook
- I can count
It’s a base 2 measurement system for the most part. Also highly inefficient and imperfect, but so is metric for cooking.
Well… a tablespoon is 3 teaspoons and a cup is 48 teaspoons. You did get the 16Tbsp per cup right though.
This was a good try!
🤔 Huh. I didn’t believe you until I measured it out on my own measuring spoons. You’re right. My bad fam
Think about us poor Brits, who have an offhand knowledge of the imperial system the American system’s based on, plus the metric system, and usually the formula to convert between them at least for speed, length, and weight.
water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F
I agree that most of the US units aren’t ideal, but I’m not so sure that Fahrenheit is bad. 0F and 100F are both temperatures that humans experience in nature - 0F being a cold winter and 100F being a hot summer. Cities that don’t experience extreme cold or heat usually remain within that range. The scale is granular enough that you usually don’t need to use decimal places.
Freezing temperatures being obvious with a minus number is an advantage, not a problem, IMO. Easy to see from the bigger negative number when water will freeze more quickly, when snow is more likely to lie on the ground, etc.
Hmm, grocery store near me (USA) sells this in 16oz packages, or ~454g
1 lb is 453.6 gr so likely sinkflation unless there is another weight measurement I am not aware of (likely). https://duckduckgo.com/?q=1+lb+in+grams
Get a better scale first
How do we know your scale is right?
While it’s hard to prove that it’s been done correctly a lot of scales do come with calibration weights.
A lot of cheap kitchen scales are also just crap. Talk to your local drug dealer about what brand of scale might be right for you.
Removed by mod
Why I like my mechanical one. I can recalibrate it myself. Heck I taught my 10 year old to do it, it isn’t rocket surgery.
You can also weigh water, 100ml weighs 100 grams
But how do you know that your measurement of 100mL of water is accurate?
Just use a scale and measure 100g of water
Just weigh it, duh.
There are no moving parts so there should be very little drift.
DONT FORGET TO SUBTRACT THE WEIGHT OF THE BEAKER
Also just as plausible that there’s still some broken noodle crumbs and fragments stuck in the bottom flaps of the box.
Huh? Well how do we know that any scale at all is right?
Pretty sure that every modern scale has a “tare” button that resets the weight and zeroes everything out.
Yeah, but if it measures every 1 gram at 0.98 gram, it will display less in the end
That is only single point calibration. You want more than that in case the transfer function is non-linear. Ideally at least two for the extremes of range.
Basically imagine if y does not equal x, say y = x -0.01*x + b. Your tare is going to adjust b such that at x = 0 you get y equals 0. That doesn’t fix x is equal to 900. At 900 you would get 891.
Generally speaking for weight you have differential or integral non-linearity. You fix both by multiple calibration points. Which leads to the range transition problem but whatever. No excuse anymore with FPGAs.
Taring isn’t the same as calibration. Every scale should have instructions on its tolerance (± x grams) and a calibration weight. You’ll have to buy the calibration weight separately.
Well how do we know that any scale at all is right?
My lab has weights that get calibrated against a NIST standard annually. We use those weights to perform daily quality control that our scale is accurate (to +/- 0.01g). If the quality control fails then we recalibrate the scale.
I was kinda confused why everyone’s sucking the D of the corps here, and comments reiterating stuff already said.
But then I reminded myself at least 150 up voted this and all is right again.
Some of us work for corps and see people trying to do their best to help people every day. It’s tempting to think there’s this hidden layer of control somewhere, where the evil people are. Maybe it’s there, I dunno. To me the evil people seem to be spread throughout.
It’s inherent in profit maximisation for management to pursue shrinkflation and other anti-consumer practices. Same for taking advantage of the nice people that work for them.
Yeah there’s a pull to, but that doesn’t mean the utility function maximizes at using people. Because there are other factors, like one’s reputation, and competition from other employers and suppliers, that shift the maximum back toward being good.
There’s no reason to think that our concept of “good” didn’t evolve, and isn’t actually the optimal strategy for accumulating success.
I do, however, also know the evil humanity is capable of when dehumanization can be achieved. I think that people can get caught up in less important things when they don’t see the people they effect. And the bigger an organization gets, the more layers there are between the top and the bottom, and the more tempting it is at the top to do something anti-human, to sacrifice the people for some lesser goal like money or “fighting the good fight” or “breaking this record or whatever abstract thing the dehumanizer decides to sacrifice their people to pursuing.
I agree with you there’s all sorts of evil inside corporations. I just don’t think that necessarily comes from profit motive. I think it comes from their size and a culture within them that separates management enough that they can dehumanize people under their own authority.
People can be used up and manipulated and put through unhealthy scenarios that degrade them, in all sorts of organizations: corporations, armies, mobs, communes, churches, sports teams, everything. All those organizational structures can make machines that chew people up and spit them out, and they get more likely to as they get larger.
It’s more like people here are engineers and understand the concept of standard variance.
Me no understand, me say bad. No value me want, they bad. If they don’t like things that they can’t understand probably stoo using internet and technology in general for the good. Go back to the good old rock and stone.
I don’t think it is counts as D sucking of big corp if someone corrects invalid information. There are plenty of bad things corps do, we don’t have to fabricate false claims, it’s dangerous.
So if moisture is a factor, what do you propose otherwise?
Keep stroking yourself, my akshually crowd
I really hope you read and considered the top reply to your post. Science is a good thing
Holy shit dude. Did you ever see me contradict their statements? No. I’m purely talking about the pathetic amount of effort people are taking to take the side of corporations. Like someone already posted a comment about water. But no someone else has to make a paragraph long post about it. Whole fucking cares. Go do something useful with your time. Go to a conservative sub and convince people their wrong about racism and welfare. Don’t waste your time debating fucking noodle weight.
I think it’s important to see that people might enjoy nerding out for a bit on an obscure bit of science. Not everything has to be a fight to take down the establishment. What you see as a useless waste of time some people find joy in. Not everything has to be about an evil corporate ploy. It doesn’t make everyone else stupid wrong shills for thinking differently than you. Fuck the racists, but also enjoy some fun, meaningless contemplations
You’ve bought spaghetti Kelly, not cocaine.
Depending on where you live this is actually illegal. In Germany, as example, if you say that something contains 200g it means that there have to be at least 200g inside. If its less, that can cost the producer a lot if he gets fined for it.
Except no. First issue it’s messured wrong. You messure a full package and then an empty one in the factory. Losses during shipping and so on is the problem of the customer. Especially meat looses a lot of water. People don’t weigh the water in the cloth.
Also the little e (estimated sign, 76/211/EEC) besides the package does specially allow variations. Only the entire batch must be correct on average. But there is a limit on how much variations is allowed. And big companies are closely watched.
Ah kk. Didn’t knew that.
*loses
Right. And they actually do it. Another thing: there’s a list here von “Verbraucherschutz” (consumer protection) that lists all products that have less than before in it to the same price, of course it’s on the package, but most people don’t pay attention to it. The “Mogelpackung Liste” (cheat packaging list): https://www.vzhh.de/mogelpackungsliste
If it was actually the case that they were sold a mislabeled box by mass, it’s a crime everywhere and has been for like five thousand years. Standards for scales in marketplaces was one of the first sets of laws of human civilization.
Not really: The average has to be equal or higher as on the label, and the per-package negative error can’t be, for things 300-500g, greater than 3%. 3% of 410g are 12.3g so 402g are actually within EU spec.
Also your kitchen scales aren’t calibrated that’s another ±1% error even if it’s a half-decent one.
Yes, it seems that way because your kitchen scale is faulty and measuring everything a bit on the light side.
Or it was measured differently. They could have stacked ten of them on a scale at once while you are stacking one at a time.
Or it was measured differently and they used the legally allowed error bars.
Or the kitchen scale was off.
Or there is some missing mass from say dust.
Or they were assholes and knew they could get away with it.
Lots going on and it would be hard to debug.
deleted by creator
Nah, it’s probably correct. I work in food industry and it’s pretty much never EXACTLY right. It’s always a few grams over or under, and if the bosses get to choose they choose to have it be under.
