this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
446 points (95.5% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

47229 readers
175 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/ExplicitContent


-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:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


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
[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 83 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Its a weird american thing I believe, since a serving size is so small that it counts as <1 calory.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 68 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yup, the "serving size" nonsense is a US corporate lobbied loophole which basically allows them to put whatever they want on their nutrition information.

I wouldn't have expected anything else from the US "Corporations are people too" of A.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

EU has absurd serving size measurements too, but also 100g measurements

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The 100g measurement is so good. Makes it extremely easy to compare foods and decide which one is healthier. Like if you see protein powder which is 31g sugar per 100g, and realise it's literally 31% sugar, maybe don't buy that one lol

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

US still has percentage of sugar/carbs/etc. So it'll just say it's 31% sugar.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago

OP's picture shows % daily value though, not % total contents. Isn't that based on a recommended adult daily intake or whatever? Never been to the US myself, so I don't actually know though

In Canada we also have nutrition facts per serving bullshit

[–] toynbee@piefed.social 25 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Supposedly this is why tic tacs, which are almost 100% sugar, can claim to be sugar free.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They don't claim to be sugar-free, at least not the ones made of sugar. Instead, they claim to have 0g of sugar per serving. That is a critical difference.

[–] toynbee@piefed.social 3 points 4 days ago
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world -4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

In that case, they are using synthetic sweetener instead of sugar.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If a tictac has >200 pieces in a pack, and you claim serving size is 1, then whatever it is made of has >0,5% per serving. It could be made of radioactive waste and they could put 'a tictac cointains no radioactive waste' on the pack. The game is rigged.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For "calories per serving", absolutely, but nowhere on the packaging does it say Sugar Free because that's a completely different claim that would be completely false.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you claim a tictac is one serving you can say a tictac contains no sugar. But you're right, it would be in a format like this image.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can claim it contains 0g of sugar, you cannot claim it contains no sugar. A subtle, but critical difference

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Legally, yes.

But ask random people and I guarantee most welcome would think it's the same

[–] toynbee@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago
[–] hhg@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Avocado oil should have 884 kcal per 100g, therefore one serving of 0.25g would be 2.21 kcal. Why is that allowed to be rounded to zero?

[–] Daedskin@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's rounded to the nearest multiple of 10; it could be up to 5 (exclusively), and could still be listed as 0. It's why so many lower-calorie products are listed with a zero-calorie serving size in the US. I'm not sure about the specifics of regulations β€” if any exist β€” on selecting serving sizes; this particular example feels a little fishy to me.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

That's an arbitrary rounding I've yet to see in packagings here. A lot of calorie numbers end in other values. Yeah the comma is usually rounded but that's it.

[–] Squirrelsdrivemenuts@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think you can round down and be off by a certain percentage.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

What's 20 or 50% between friends?

Because they are allowed to do their own testing to determine caloric quantity and there is often some flubbing in the recipe during the testing. Kinda like how VWs used to have a different engine mode for emissions tests than normal driving.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Because it is 0g fat

Edit: /s

[–] logi@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

They're multiplying by the 0.25g serving size, then rounding the 0.25g of fat down to 0g and calculating the calories from that? I can barely imagine the apoplectic rage this would have triggered in my experimental physics professor.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago

It's still oil tho, 0.25g of product of oil has 0.25g of fat, regardless of how healthy that fat is.