all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 118 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Here are the worst offenders.

Paper towels and toilet paper, Breakfast cereals, Candy, snack foods like chips and cheetos

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You know what HASN'T been affected by shrinkflation? That wall of text explaining the concept of things we already know.

    I'd like to make a sarcastic joke about what the rest of that bullshit was, but I couldn't be bothered to read 8 full scrolls of nonsense before I got to "the worst offenders". Literally the whole point of the article, and I have to scroll past an essay, and a nag about my adblock. You make me click "I'll disable it next time". YOU make me lie. I would happily click a text that said "I'll never disable my ad blocker. Go choke on a buffet of dicks until you die, you absolute leech on society!"

    Sadly, that wasn't an option. It's truthful though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That chart in there is not necessarily accurate, because it's "per 100 count," and doesn't consider that the individual sheets may be differently sized.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "...affected..."

    Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.

    adjective

    1

    a

    **: **having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt **: **given to or marked by affectation

    b

    **: **assumed artificially or falsely **: **pretended

    Neither definition applies. The items are not being affected. Shrinkflation is an outright deceitful practice, not an affectation.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments