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

Mildly Infuriating

47214 readers
228 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] betelplouf@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago (4 children)

In Europe (or at least in France), it's mandatory to put the nutritionnal informations per 100g. It avoids that kind of stupid things

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The downside there is that if it's, like, Marmite, you'll never ever eat 100g in one sitting. So, you have to do a bunch of math to figure out how much salt is in the actual smear you're using.

[–] jnod4@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

We do have both on packages, per 100g and per serving, but we don't have anything wich is a nanogram per serving containing a couple billion servings in a bottle unless it's anti matter

[–] J92@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Its at least more accurate than the maths of trying to multiply by the purported zero on a can of avocado oil.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 days ago

You, too, are 0 calories if we eat you in small enough bites.

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 301 points 3 days ago (35 children)

In civilized countries the nutrition facts need to be stated in both serving size and 100 grams. This makes it easier to compare products with different serving sizes and also prevents bullshit like this.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 37 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Serving size is generally speaking complete bullshit regardless. Per 100g is sufficient

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Serving size has a lot of use cases, especially when looking at things individually packaged or in separate units (cookies for example).

Per 100g has fewer use cases in my mind as I'm not a scale and have no idea how to break down most products into 100g.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You do the other way around, you see the total weight of the thing, you guesstimate how much you are gonna eat and you do the math. Half of 500g is 250, so x2.5 whatever is on the 100g nutritional panel.

It's not about when you would use the per 100g it's about 100g being easy to be transformed into other units so you get an easy multiplier you can apply to the values.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

The other day I bought a cookie that was 200 calories per serving, with a serving size being half a cookie lmfao

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 44 points 3 days ago (3 children)

So according to this it has 884 calories per 100g. So 1g has 8.84 calories, and 1/4 of that has 2.2 calories.

So they can't even pretend to have rounded down to 0 from a fraction of a calorie. Apparently it's also loaded with saturated fats. Which tracks since it's, ya'know, oil.

[–] Briguy@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The FDA lets anything under 5 calories to be rounded down to 0. It's a scam

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

WTF. Like, sure, if you say "no decimal calories needed" it would make sense at the time, and could lead to this by accident. But that's just silly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] femmylemmy@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I could be wrong but I believe they can round to the nearest 5 calories.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 76 points 3 days ago (8 children)

And legally, they are right. One serving is very, very small, and therefore, one serving is considered to have no [whatever].

Just like TicTacs. They are 100% sugar to a rounding error, but as the "serving size" is one TicTac, which weighs less than half a gram, it is legally considered "sugar free".

Which tells a lot about the real value of "legally".

[–] notastatist@feddit.org 21 points 3 days ago (9 children)

And who the fuck cares about calories in serving size?

What about a better standard like calories per 100g?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Like Europe uses?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] foxfell@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

The more interesting why is this in Metric, not in stones, oz, cups or other funny system they're using.

[–] cdf12345@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So it would take like 6.3 minutes of just holding down the button to fully empty the can ?

I don’t believe it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You must consider, the info here isn't random, it's legally required by the FDA or state regulator. They have to follow the guidelines for packaging labelling requirements precisely. When the serving size is very small, the numbers are misleading. But some manufacturers also use ridiculous serving sizes to fudge the numbers.

Thats why in Australia, they are required to publish two or three columns of data. Per Serving (which can be skipped if the item is clearly just one serving), per 100g (even if the whole thing is less than 100g net, it makes figureing out percentages easier) and sometimes per whole package.

I'm not going to eat 12 seperate portions over several days from this bag of chips just because it says that many on the bag. I know this. The manufacturer knows this. The regulator knows this. We all know I'm hoovering that bag clean in 20 minutes. So the manufacturer is forced to give me a number that is easily mathable so I can't hide the damage, even from myself.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You're correct, but the information they presented isn't misleading - it's straight up bullshit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 83 points 3 days ago (11 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 3 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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 19 points 3 days ago (2 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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] toynbee@piefed.social 25 points 3 days ago (8 children)

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

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 27 points 3 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 41 points 3 days ago (5 children)

It's zero calories per serving, of which there are over 1500 in that can. It's a rounding error. If each serving has say 0.2 calories, the whole can might contain 300.

Also, "1/4 second spray"

Are you using a fucking aerosol can of avocado oil? 🀨

[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (20 children)

Sprays have their use cases for griddles and molds that need to be lubed.

Not my daily driver for fats but I don’t see the problem.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 49 points 3 days ago (5 children)

One thousand five hundred and thirty-two servings

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (6 children)

lmao, that's so shameless. Avocado oil is one of the most calorie-dense food in existence.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Phoenix3875@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

So $0 per serving, I can just get it for free, right?

[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 18 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Yeah, it's rounding. Under a certain amount, it just rounds to zero. No one is actually using the recommended serving size. There should be legal requirements to always provide the information for the full amount in the package/container/bottle/whatever as well next to the other values (some countries at least sometimes do this).

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

In Australia, we have per serving and per 100g/ml/etc both on the packaging to make it clear

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 18 points 3 days ago

EU as well. (the 100gr. is mandatory).

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί