Page 2 of 4

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:53 pm UTC
by keithl
A 20 ounce "classic Coke" is 240 food calories, and a food calorie is 4184J, which is also the energy in a gram of TNT. So, three years of one soda per day is the energy equivalent of 263 kilograms of TNT. A soda per day for 170 thousand years is the energy equivalent of the 15KT Hiroshima bomb, which killed 66,000 people. Therefore, 2.6 years worth of soda drunk in one instant can kill a person, with blast and radiation. If you instantaneously drink twice that much, I am not sitting next to you.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:53 pm UTC
by Mutex
Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Here in the UK...pop.... 'alcopops' ... "council pop"... 'pop'... 'pop'... 'pop'.... "pops"...
That reminds me, is that show "Top of the pops" still on?

No. We... we don't talk about that show anymore.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:12 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
(But to take pity on any ex-pats who have missed the more recent fuss... Non-deliberately.)

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Here in the UK...pop.... 'alcopops' ... "council pop"... 'pop'... 'pop'... 'pop'.... "pops"...
That reminds me, is that show "Top of the pops" still on?

Last 'real' episode was back in 2006 (I had to look it up), with reruns of historic episodes (minus Saville/other-Yewtree episodes that are skipped) being added to irregular "Specials"/compilarions of various kinds mostly under the umbrella of "TOTP2"...

I wasn't really a TOTP viewer, though. I may have seen bits of it if it preceded something like (say) Tomorrow's World. I recall that in the mid '90s several weeks went by, when visiting a friend's flat, that I arrived to discover that The Progidy's song "Firestarter" was closing yet another week's programme, and other similar "I appear to be too much of an old fart for this modern hippety-hoppity music" examples. And that was probably the last time I took any notice. :roll:

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:29 pm UTC
by Tirear
Justin Lardinois wrote:That's way off from the amount of sugar in the soda, so Randall must've calculated the amount of sugar in a gallon of whole Skittles. Or he messed up a calculation. Or I did.

Some searching turned up that even a random packing of M&Ms manages a 68% packing efficiency. Even after assuming Skittles are less efficient and that we lose some space to the weird shape of the jug (especially the handle), 40% (The rate needed for your answer to match up) still seems implausible.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:36 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Soupspoon wrote:... something like (say) Tomorrow's World.
I used to watch that. The one about the machine that could spot a counterfeit signature on a cheque was obviously hammy, so didn't bother me so much, but there were two that really did. One was the locked-in syndrome / permanent vegetative state / some such condition (bear in mind this is decades ago and terms change) episode and the other was the one-way bullet-proof glass one. For the poor souls tuck in a wheelchair with no means of communication, they had his carer who was convinced he was aware of his surroundings and trying to communicate holding a pressure-sensitive pad against his fingertips so he could push on it to sound a buzzer (one for yes, two for no), then asked questions along the lines of "Can you hear me?" "Are you generally aware of the world around you?" "Do you find it very frustrating that people assume you're not aware?" All the answers they wanted to confirm the carer's belief were single buzzes and they got single buzzes at regular intervals. Who's to say he wasn't rhythmically twitching? Who's to say it wasn't his carer pushing the pad harder against his fingers? For the bullets one, they said they'd fire "several shots" into it from the "outside" face, then they did that, then they fired one through it from the "inside" face. They didn't specify in advance how many shots, though, and they didn't try the same thing the other way round. They should have had forty samples of their laminated plastic glazing material, shot ten from the "inside" face only, ten from the "outside" face once, ten one bullet at a time from alternating sides and ten three bullets at a time from alternating sides, and they should have done that for a range of calibres because what'll stop a 9x19mm won't necessarily stop a 5.56x45mm ...

... and people still don't get why I draw a distinction between Mythbusters and science.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:45 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Tomorrow's World got itself somewhat of a reputation, in its "new sci and tech Magazine Show" format.

Live studio demonstrations that went wrong/didn't demonstrably work at all were the more obvious ones (given the bleeding-edge prototypes being pressed into service under the glare of studio lights and cameras), and then there was the hugely obvious 'zeerust' failure when reviewed a year or two later in the cold light of future nostalgia. And of course many new things never (notably) appeared upon the programme.

But I still look back at it fondly... The 'flowing balls' titles and the one featuring the magnetic fluid 'spiking up' probably indicate my heyday of viewship.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:16 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
various wrote:Tomorrow's World
I enjoyed that show. A solid dose of Science! is good for a young mind.

That floating baby must be grown by now; is he/she still floating?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:02 pm UTC
by jonbly
Turned down the Coke aisle in the supermarket the other day to find that it was now ordered Diet - Zero - FullFat, rather than FullFat - Whatever - Didn't care.

They're making me walk 5 metres further.

This is the Beginning of the End.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:01 am UTC
by RAGBRAIvet
We're all going to die from something; might as well enjoy ourselves on the way out.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:14 am UTC
by Flumble
RAGBRAIvet wrote:We're all going to die from something; might as well enjoy ourselves on the way out.

Like I said before: death has only occured to about 95% of humans. You're free to believe in dying one day if it makes you feel any better, but don't push it like it's a fact.

That said, you're far more likely to die (sooner) if you indulge in drinking jugs of skittle-coke. :P

jonbly wrote:Turned down the Coke aisle in the supermarket the other day to find that it was now ordered Diet - Zero - FullFat, rather than FullFat - Whatever - Didn't care.

It sounds weird to replace the sugar with fat.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:15 am UTC
by HES
It's the milk analogy

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:58 am UTC
by Showsni
In terms of salt, eating a single 500g jar of marmite is the equivalent of eating twenty four and a half kilos of skittles.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:41 am UTC
by Mikeski
Keyman wrote:
Zinho wrote:Since I'm getting out in the weeds on this anyhow, can any of the "pop" drinkers in the audience comment on whether their idea of "pop" also includes harder carbonated beverages such as beer? I've heard my friends from Milwaukee call beer "barley pop", and I'm not sure if they're joking or if that's really the same category in their minds...
They are joking. If 'Sconnies know anything, they know alcohol.

+1. Even such abominations as Zima are not "pop" to people in "pop country". Calling beer "barley pop" is 100% humor.

Flumble wrote:That said, you're far more likely to die (sooner) if you indulge in drinking jugs of skittle-coke. :P

But not nearly as soon(er) as mentos-coke! :mrgreen:

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:34 am UTC
by PriorKnowledge
Where can I get those one gallon jugs of Skittles?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:48 am UTC
by ps.02
Now do one for the fat content in daily peanut butter sandwiches, measured in funnel cakes. Or in Cadbury eggs.

Also, what size scale model of a limestone courthouse building could you build with the calcium from 1000 glasses of milk?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:11 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
Around 300 mg of calcium in a typical glass of milk, so 300 g overall. Limestone is 40% calcium by weight (Google is getting amazing, by the way - predicted "calcium" based on my previous searches as I typed "atomic weight" and gave it to me within the omnibar. The others required hitting enter.) So 750 g of limestone, although that's only about 300 ml thanks to its density (oddly back to roughly the volume of the original glass.)

Things can only get sketchier from here, but a random construction estimate calculator site tells me a 50 x 50 ft (15 m) building takes 60 tons of stone. Double that for the typical two storey layout of the historic courthouses from which I got the 15 m by using a ruler on a photograph on my tablet and assuming the little brass man out front was human-sized, and I get 110 metric tons.

This seems sketchy; it assumes 1 short ton per meter of wall, which is, like, .12 m thick if it's a 3m high wall. Real stone walls seem to be more like .3 - .5 m thick, broadest at low floors. There will be windows, but also interior walls and decorations, which we can assume at least cancel them out. Courthouses are built to look sturdy and have lots of decorations. So I'll take my own estimate here with .5 m thick walls.

A 15 x 15 x 6 m box with .5 m walls takes 180 * 2.5ish = 450 tons of stone rather than 110. That's 600,000 times the stone we have, or (taking the cube root) 1/84 scale, or approximately HO.

ETA:

Image

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:22 pm UTC
by Epod
keithl wrote:A 20 ounce "classic Coke" is 240 food calories, and a food calorie is 4184J, which is also the energy in a gram of TNT. So, three years of one soda per day is the energy equivalent of 263 kilograms of TNT. A soda per day for 170 thousand years is the energy equivalent of the 15KT Hiroshima bomb, which killed 66,000 people. Therefore, 2.6 years worth of soda drunk in one instant can kill a person, with blast and radiation. If you instantaneously drink twice that much, I am not sitting next to you.


The real killer would be the belch blast wave.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:12 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Keyman wrote:
Zinho wrote:Since I'm getting out in the weeds on this anyhow, can any of the "pop" drinkers in the audience comment on whether their idea of "pop" also includes harder carbonated beverages such as beer? I've heard my friends from Milwaukee call beer "barley pop", and I'm not sure if they're joking or if that's really the same category in their minds...
They are joking. If 'Sconnies know anything, they know alcohol.

I was raised a "pop" guy (in the "Duck, duck, grey duck" state next door), but spent several years out east, and "soda" does still/again occasionally creep back into conversation.

I've been aware of duck duck grey duck for 15 years now, and it still sounds completely fake, like the sort of thing someone who jokingly said "barley pop" would make up.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:35 pm UTC
by orthogon
gmalivuk wrote:
Keyman wrote:I was raised a "pop" guy (in the "Duck, duck, grey duck" state next door), but spent several years out east, and "soda" does still/again occasionally creep back into conversation.

I've been aware of duck duck grey duck for 15 years now, and it still sounds completely fake, like the sort of thing someone who jokingly said "barley pop" would make up.


Ah, so I guess that's where the name DuckDuckGo, which has always bemused me, came from.

The animation on that Wikipedia page is hilarious. Somehow the two players in the bottom right position never learn, whilst the other four just sit there getting bored. Possibly a case for a game AI?

Spoiler:
Image

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:16 pm UTC
by Sableagle
I was, briefly, a member of a club that played a version of that involving a slipper. The instructor would start it by walking around a ring of students, then let them play without him. The students would stand facing inwards, hands behind their backs. The walker would put the slipper in the hands on a student then rejoin the circle (except for the instructor, who'd walk away). Upon receiving the slipper, the chosen student would begin striking the buttocks of the next student around the circle and continue doing so until both had run all the way round and back to their positions. The one with the slipper would then become the walker.

In hindsight, maybe Operation Yewtree would have been interested in that game. :?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:26 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Khrushy wrote:Dear Randall,

Please also include measurements in Metric. Ducking off to another tab to google "20 fluid oz in mls" kind of ruins the flow of the strip.
(even in the mouseover text would be fine - I checked that first)

Love,
Every country that's not America.

(I mean, I know you know that we all use metric, it's just really awkward to look at the strip and not know if "bottle" means 600mls, 1.25L or 2L)

Dear Khrushy (and other people whining about USCS in comics),
Please remember that you are reading a comic by a USian, drawn in the US, which is about things the USian artist thinks about and finds interesting.

It's one thing to complain about US-centrism in international news and discussions, but complaining about US-centrism in US-produced entertainment media is rather silly.

Does it also bother you when American TV shows are set in (and refer to locations in and around) US cities?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:42 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
Where's the line, though? A typical comic has no expectation of using both, a typical science blog or an infographic has a strong expectation. When the comic leans heavily into blog or infographic territory, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect it.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:46 pm UTC
by morriswalters
I suppose it is pointless to say, based on the first panel that he is comparing sugar by weight, more or less. Or am I missing something?
Cadbury Eggs 60g
20 Coke 65g
A regular snickers is about 4 or so inches long and 27 grams of sugar, so around 2 and change for 60g

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:11 pm UTC
by orthogon
This has been in my drafts folder for a while, but here goes...
ucim wrote:
orthogon wrote:The other rows are just an application of the principle that multiplying a number by an integer greater than one gives you a number that's several times bigger than the original number. It's a shoddy journalistic/political technique...
No, it has its uses. People don't think much of a $99/month cable bill, but when confronted with the fact that they spend over a thousand dollars a year for television, it puts things in perspective. Ditto when buying a cheap (film - remember that?) camera, it's useful to remember the total cost of the film and processing that's going to run through it a little bit at a time. Makes it easier to stomach the higher cost of a higher quality camera.

I do agree that the rest of the strip is just the same joke repeated though.

Jose


It's appropriate to express a rate relative to a relevant period of time. For money, one month and one year are both fairly appropriate reference times, since most people are generally quite familiar with both their annual salary and their monthly income. Of course people who are paid daily or weekly might find it more natural or helpful to express the cost of their cable subscription in the same terms. With food, you probably have a fair idea what you eat per day, or per meal, and most people can tell you approximately the guideline calorie consumption per day. But nobody knows their annual calorie intake or quarterly income without calculating it.

Actually, even a modest annual salary sounds like a lot of money when you force yourself to think of it as a sum of money, rather than just a number to compare to other corresponding numbers. It's not a very good indicator even of annual disposable income, since you have essentials at the bottom end and increasing marginal tax rates at the top end. Reckoning everything in terms of monthly net income and expenditure seems perfectly rational to me.

Annual figures for spending etc are so common that the "per year" is often not stated explicitly, which is what allows politicians to make it look like they're spending more than they are by announcing the total over five years or whatever.

Your other point about upfront vs recurring costs is fair, but it brings in a whole load of other things: future values, attitude to credit, interest rates, inflation and so on.

ETA: it's also best if the reference time is a multiple of the periodicity, so if most of your bills go out monthly, your weekly outgoings are going to be lumpy. Despite this, my stupid bank thinks it's a good idea to issue statements every N transactions instead of every month. WTAF is that about?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:44 pm UTC
by ManaUser
Justin Lardinois wrote:the density of a single Skittle is 0.794g/ml. 1 gallon is about 3785.41ml.

That can't be right... That would mean Skittles float in water wouldn't it? Because they definitely don't.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:43 pm UTC
by mathmannix
The names for volumes used mostly for recipes (or to give a sense of scale to those familiar with following recipes) aren't that bad once you get to know them.
For reference:
Spoiler:
3 teaspoons = 1 tablespoon,
2 tablespoons = 1 ounce,
8 ounces = 1 cup,
2 cups = 1 pint,
2 pints = 1 quart,
4 quarts = 1 gallon = 128 ounces = 768 teaspoons.

They're kind of similar to the values of our coins, and even more similar to the coins Brits used to use. (TV Tropes!)
There was nothing wrong with having that system, but you gave it up for a metric system. You gave up your heritage, guys! Well, we're not giving ours up.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:53 pm UTC
by speising
The problem, in this case, aren't the units, but the use of volume at all.
"3 cups apples" WTF?
Even measuring things like flour is hopelessly inexact.
And i don't want to press butter in a measuring cup, and scrape it out again, ffs.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:09 pm UTC
by mathmannix
speising wrote:The problem, in this case, aren't the units, but the use of volume at all.
"3 cups apples" WTF?
Even measuring things like flour is hopelessly inexact.
And i don't want to press butter in a measuring cup, and scrape it out again, ffs.

Yeah, it is weird with things of different densities. I've see recipes that call for, instead of the obvious "6 eggs", a "cup of eggs" (which just means I have to keep cracking eggs until it fills up the cup) or worse, something like "half a pound of eggs." And I have to google how many eggs in a pound?
Of course, I was flabergasted when my mom, normally quite smart, tried to explain to me the truism "a pint's a pound the world around." I mean, yes, it's true for butter (according to the box anyway) or apparently water (approximately), but obviously not true for sugar or pretty much anything else.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:15 pm UTC
by speising
mathmannix wrote:And I have to google how many eggs in a pound?

Why not just weigh them? I mean, that's the big advantage, reproducability. Also, you can just put everything in the same bowl and measue, zeroing the scales in between.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:01 pm UTC
by morriswalters
I must be having a different discussion. On all the products he listed, the sugar content is measured in grams, everywhere in the US. Per the labels on the packaging. Is a UK gram different? The only thing measured in ounces was water. Even icing is listed at 8 g per tablespoon in Betty Crocker icing.
ggh wrote:I remember when I was a little girl, the lady next door used to invite me over to look at her parakeet, and would give me a mug of white sugar with a spoon. It was awesome.

Gee, I wonder what's the best way to illustrate how much sugar is in a mug of sugar....
About 256 calories for a standard US cup. Or based on the sugar content of Cadbury Eggs about 4.2 eggs. Of course 4.2 Cadbury Eggs have 640 calories since they have more than sugar in them.
speising wrote:The problem, in this case, aren't the units, but the use of volume at all.
Your great Granny didn't have cheap scales.
mathmannix wrote:but obviously not true for sugar or pretty much anything else.
Sugars close. But you miss the point. That truism is close enough.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:32 pm UTC
by Flumble
morriswalters wrote:
speising wrote:The problem, in this case, aren't the units, but the use of volume at all.
Your great Granny didn't have cheap scales.

Did you read at all? Or do you expect everyone to know the density of apples by heart?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:41 pm UTC
by da Doctah
Flumble wrote:do you expect everyone to know the density of apples by heart?


Roughly 1 gram per milliliter; you don't have to memorize that since you can derive it from the iconic fact that they float just on the surface of water, where they can be bobbed for.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:52 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
morriswalters wrote:I must be having a different discussion. On all the products he listed, the sugar content is measured in grams, everywhere in the US. Per the labels on the packaging. Is a UK gram different? The only thing measured in ounces was water.

Soda. I mean, rather crucially, the thing measured in (fluid) ounces is soda, not water. Crucial to the strip, I mean, not the discussion; there are 20oz bottles of water, too, and the ambiguity would be similar.

That is, they exist the US, where 20oz is a thing. Since that is in fact the place where it is a thing. As opposed to its (slightly smaller) equivalent, the 500 ml, a correspondence that was not immediately recognizable, as folks have been saying.

So it's not about units, per se, but the name for a recognizable kind of bottled beverage bottle, which is named after its capacity, but regionally, and based on the locally relevant units.

Grams (and weights in general) aren't mentioned in the comic, so I'm not sure where that's coming into anything.

Note also gallons, feet. (At least the last one is depicted to scale.)

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:52 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Flumble wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
speising wrote:The problem, in this case, aren't the units, but the use of volume at all.
Your great Granny didn't have cheap scales.

Did you read at all? Or do you expect everyone to know the density of apples by heart?
No I never read. Check that. That's snark. What is the limiting factor in an apple pie? Volume. Pie pans are standardized. However I put in as many apples as I need, it's a matter of taste. And recipes are merely guides. As an example if you only had dried apples what would you do. Now I have a very nice scale but I could cook without it as long as I had a cup. Uniformity is a function of automation, not cooking per se.
Copper Bezel wrote:Soda. I mean, rather crucially, the thing measured in (fluid) ounces is soda, not water.
Funny Randall called out sugar in the title not soda. Which makes sense. It's the only source of calories in Cocoa Cola. The rest is coloring, maybe some flavoring. The only way the comparisons are true is if you look at the weight of sugar. Coke has 240 calories, 3 Cadbury Eggs have 450 calories. But they have near identical amounts of sugar. And sugar is called out in the labeling. And it's easier to print 10g than .35oz.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:35 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
Yeah, that's a good point. This strip is really surprisingly broken all around. = /

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:15 am UTC
by morriswalters
Does this help?Image

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:46 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
I'm lost. There are several possible conversations I'm now consider as possible ones we've all been having. I will attempt to respond to the most likely ones.

Yes, that strip was better than 1793, and genuinely funny.

Yes, that strip was better at being accessible to non-US residents, since a can is a can (or nearly) and 500 ml bottles look like 20 oz ones, the bottle depicted being contoured in a way that makes it unambiguously one of the two rather than a 1 or 2 l. Whether this degree of accessibility is a reasonable expectation or not, it is met.

I do not have a strong opinion on whether the previously mentioned expectation of accessibility is reasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable as a consideration.

Yes, this strip, unlike 1793, does in fact depict water. Or one assumes. Some kind of colorless solvent intended for human consumption is depicted.

No, US and UK grams do not differ. US and UK Cadbury eggs differ, since as Keyman noted, they're manufactured by different people.

Keyman also noted that the first ingredient listed outside the US is milk rather than sugar. I don't believe this datum by itself is a meaningful indication of nutritional value, nor do I think it was very seriously intended as one.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:08 pm UTC
by cellocgw
Showsni wrote:In terms of salt, eating a single 500g jar of marmite is the equivalent of eating twenty four and a half kilos of skittles.


Yeah, well, eating a jar of marmite is also the equivalent of eating... I"m not even going to go there.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:57 pm UTC
by morriswalters
@ Copper Bezel
I added the second strip because the first calls it out, just under the title. I saw it after my other posts. Had I seen it first, I would have posted it and not posted anything else and not gone down this rabbit hole. I have no idea what was on Randall's mind. As a guess, he thinks sugary drinks are bad for you. The first strip was meant to be funny and to point out that most normal people would never eat three Cadbury Eggs in one sitting yet do the equivalent when they drink soft drinks. The second probably wasn't meant to be funny. Just different ways of indicating how much sugar you consume when you drink them over time. Being somewhat slow it took me around 40 years to figure that out. I personally drink beer now, since I like the buzz. I'm sorry if I made it less clear by my posts.

Just for fun here is the nutritional label from Coke's site. All metric.

Image

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:28 pm UTC
by speising
I don't know those eggs, but i doubt one of them would make me feel "kinda gross". I get that feeling somewhere nearing the end of a 300g bar of chocolate.
Regardless, the grossiness is a function of the fat content, not the sugar, methinks.