this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
44 points (95.8% liked)

Hacker News

1770 readers
1 users here now

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules0. Keep it legal

  1. Keep it civil and SFW
  2. Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

They've been doing this from the start despite "rising costs." They're cheap. That's why.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


"You could bite into a Twix and feel your teeth travel through a heavy layer of caramel," another Redditor lamented, adding, "Now they snap in half and taste like a sugar cookie with some chocolate on it."

And journalists at The Guardian recently compiled a list of companies reducing the amounts of key ingredients in their products — avocado in guacamole, egg in mayonnaise, and olive oil in various spreads.

Edgar Dworsky, a lawyer and consumer advocate, has compiled examples of changed recipes like a cough syrup that contained half as much of its active ingredient as it did six years ago.

Many grocery stores and retailers worried about customers moving to discount chains will put pressure on manufacturers to keep prices low by threatening to delist their products and not display them on shelves.

This year the World Health Organization classified aspartame, a popular artificial sweetener used in things like ice cream, breakfast cereal, and soda, as a possible carcinogen, meaning it could cause cancer.

But when influential measures ostensibly meant to gauge Americans' standard of living don't capture how our favorite foods are changing, we end up buying goods that are not only more expensive but less enjoyable.


The original article contains 1,749 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] grayman 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Funny of them to use a silver dollar that doesn't change in actual value over time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't its value fluctuate over time? What's actual value, anyway?

[–] grayman -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Gold and silver hasn't changed in value long term. What you could get with it 100 years ago is what you can get with it today. The price has tracked inflation well since the day we went off the standard. What has changed is its price. Fiat currency is just that... Fiat. The value of fiat is only the confidence that people have in it having that value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

This is simply wrong:

https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart

That's not to say that depending on strategy there's no place for gold - simply that your statement is absolutely wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The value of fiat is only the confidence that people have in it having that value.

The same could be said about precious metals. While they have some usefulness in technology, most of their value comes from what we attribute to them.

[–] grayman 1 points 10 months ago

It's scarcity and usefulness.