this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
143 points (99.3% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
47448 readers
1165 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, but attribution is not required in any way. No links to Reddit in post body
-If you would like to provide a source link, do so in the comments but not in the post body.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even if you round up to 17 cents per ounce that's still only $5.44 for 32 ounces. Doing the math backwards they're charging a bit over 21 cents an ounce.
Edit: doing a bit more math they've inflated the cost a bit under 25%. At first I was thinking maybe they're including taxes in the price or something (not that anywhere in the US regularly does that and certainly not Walmart), but I'm not aware of anywhere that has a 25% sales tax so it can't be that. This is just straight up fraud/false advertising.
My guess is they're incorrectly basing it on the 40oz size (which does exist). Buyer beware!
The math on that does seem to line up rather perfectly but that raises the question of if the ounces on the label are wrong or someone copied the wrong line item when filling in the per ounce price (not that they should be doing that manually, it should be derived automatically from the price and weight). I suppose they also could have copied the wrong weight as well so the label says 32 oz, but the item is listed in their DB as a 40 oz product.
Why isn’t it automatically calculated. It’s 2026. Surely we have metadata for products on lock by now. If the tag has the volume and the price, it has all the information it needs.
Having worked on POS software, I can guarantee you we do not have "metadata for products on lock".
Manufacturers will sometimes reuse the same UPC even though the packaging is fairly different. The UPC doesn't contain the price, size, or any size -- it is just a convenient look up for whatever POS the retailer uses, and for systems targeting independent retailers, that might be maintained mostly manually, though some warehousing associations might provide an importable list.
In large retailers sometimes the smart tags are controlled using a system that doesn't even deal with UPCs, just images / webpages, shelf locations, and schedules.
Buyer beware, indeed.
Yeah, and I realize that. It’s absurd that our capitalist society boasts about big data and technology and Roll Backs and Saving and all sorts of other things that might make you believe they care about such a fundamental part of it all.
I name drop the current year because as they years go on, it’s ever more absurd that something like this isn’t perfect yet.
But profit motive is why it isn’t perfect yet.
Not just profit but lack of a central authority to enforce it. Standards are great when everyone follows them, but establishing standards is an absolute nightmare. Even the humble UPC is surprisingly sketchy when you dig into it and it's amazing every manufacturer managed to mostly follows the standard. Now for extra fun, UPCs are deprecated and everyone is supposed to be swapping to QR codes instead. I can't wait to see what a complete and utter clusterfuck that's going to turn into.
It's probably 32oz with 8oz free!
I know pop has the sugar tax on it now? Does cereal?
I got curious and looked it up. I couldn't find anywhere in the US that taxes sugary cereal only drinks, and even if they did the highest rate I found was 2 cents per ounce (tangent, it's completely idiotic that they tax by weight instead of taxing by sugar content) which is significantly less than the markup in this case. It was a good theory, but unfortunately it doesn't check out.