How much is "about 2" really?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2018
- Can of soup or can of worms? Either way, it's opened.
This video is supported by viewers like you on Patreon: / vihart
Thank you especially to Caleb Wright, Albert Wenger, Pat Devlin, Jack Heidrick, David Perryman, Jade Bilkey, Chris Pierik, Donald "Chronos" King, Andew Romaner, Jodi Vezzetti, Carol Ghiorsi Hart, Andrea Di Biagio, Charley Sheets, Yana Chernobilsky, David A Smith, and Michael Tiemann! - Zábava
why am I watching this? I do not even own a soup.
Life of Boris me neither. But blyat, you would make one rather than buy, anyways. Just put potatoes, onion and some flavorings in water
Does borscht not count as an soup? It cannot be canned but you can soup it
Because soup is CHEAP and GOOD for yu.
I don't know. Bylat shit is good.
The video that is
It's a small world after all
Love how they say “Chicken has been inspected”
Doesn’t mean they passed. Just meant someone looked at it and said “yea that’s chickens”
exactly, very very true, mebe more than you know
Kinda like those health products that advertise they're "clinically tested". They eagerly claim they took the test, but they don't say they passed the test. If they had, they would say something more concrete like "clinically proven" or "drug facts".
That's like me inspecting all my chicken nuggets and running out of chicken nuggets
They didn't even have to say that! They just had to look at it :P
Ray
What a the labels that say “Mechanically separated chicken”?
Makes me think of a giant robot ripping them into pieces.
This is the type of investigative journalism America needs right now.
Vi, it's been months, were you kidnapped by Big Soup?
She died of sodium O.D.
@zoe maxwell she was in rehab because of her math addiction...
They gave her about 2 options.
Where is she
I love this comment 😂
Policemen1: so... How many people did they kill anyway?
Policemen2: about 2.
Policemen1: what.
so roughly they killed 2.5 and a little more of a person
that is actually possible, if he shot 3 and knows that 2 are for sure dead but 1 is sjot in the chest and has a chance of surviving wich can be said as about two
Whyet Perry policeman about2*
“A very 2ey number officer”
I don’t get it!
This is the point of CZcams
hbihu you ruin things.
Yes that may be the case but on the good side of thoughts the real use of CZcams could be for entertainment but it might be far fetched the creators know deep down they just want the money to live the life they want but they gain so much they start to realize the sadness of the people that don’t have the money so they donate realizing they don’t have enough so they raise the ads... repeat and all the games and apps just turn into ad invested money makers, some games are just copy’s of others just drowned in ads. But talking again about entertainment, there must have been a reason to making CZcams when starting it in the first place there must have been a purpose, which is most likely to be for entertainment or a way of sharing life like social media
no it's not a point it's a space with two spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension
@hbihu r/wooosh
+
Wow, this comment got about 2,000 likes
She is the type of person to accidentally discover the meaning of life and the universe ...
*And not care*
Yup
Accurate
About 42.
@@jannisopel exactly 42
The meaning of life is soup
I figured this out when I was anorexic (though used maximum values allowed by FDA guidelines to be safe) and had even more unease at the thought of eating. Then I realized that the Calorie counts are really just estimations because they can't control for how nutritious the ingredients they're using are over time or how well you digest it. I think this was a final blow to my extreme self-auditing and Calorie counting, as I could no longer justify writing an exact number down (at one point I would calculate multiple estimates to multiple decimal places based on ingredients and macronutrient composition and use the larger one for my records), and I started to grossly overestimate my Calorie consumption just to be "safe." After a series of hospitalizations that were a direct result of this, and after ~2 years of time for the implications of this to set in, I am no longer anorexic and no longer have any faith in nutrition labels. This was corroborated in the graduate-level food science classes I have taken since.
Thank you. I'm recoving right now... could you, like, reassure me that if I get what I want and don't count the calories, I'll, y'know, be ok?
@@screamingweevil3410 Absolutely! The short of it is that Calories are a useful but flawed measure of how much energy we can get from eating foods. However, the flaws are numerous. For one, food energy is stored in different molecules that are treated differently by the body, and whose metabolism differs from hour to hour based on activity. Additionally, nutrition labels are intentionally fudged depending on the market the product is selling in. In experiments where foods were independently re-tested, their nutrition label Calorie contents didn't even correlate with the actual number. Food is made up of organisms whose nutrient content is just too unpredictable to reliably count.
For instance, broccoli may have 0.31 Cal/g on average, but any given sample may vary drastically.
Knowing this, it's hard to justify the obsessive counting. So yes-- get what you want and don't count Calories! You'll be okay. The first steps are scary, but after a while you may find that your fears are unjustified and that you have actually been completely in control the whole time!
FDA: Breaking bad nutrition, consumer trust, and negative thinking alike since 1906
@@screamingweevil3410 hope ur doing good!
Glad you're doing better. Also seeing this comment about 2 years later. Lol
wouldn't it be a Soup Can-spiracy?
stop.
*stop.*
Long live the pun king
There is a door to your right.
Use it.
Majoofi
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
How could I have been so blind? Please enlighten me, senpai!
"division should be called unmultiplication" was my 12th grade math teacher's motto, what a blast from the past
Chad Mojito 🇫🇷🍔🐀
Nah nah nah, we have to stay classy and axiomatically accurate.
Let’s call it “multiplying by the multiplicative inverse.”
Draevon May if you want to be really pedantic in abstract algebra nothing in an algebra exists outside of addition without additional structure (literally).
LordVysh
That’s simply not true. Multiplication is it’s own axiom separate from addition. There is no possible way to go from an axiom of addition to multiplication.
multiplication is just adding a number to itself the number of times its multiplied by, 5x5 is the same as 5+5+5+5+5
spawnof200
Technically, multiplication is *not* repeated addition. This is a falsehood that is taught in primary school that doesn’t get corrected until you take intermediate math classes in university.
A really easy way to see this is to multiply two irrational numbers together. Let’s multiply pi and e. This has a value, obviously. But let’s try repeated addition.
So, let’s start with pi. How many times are you going to add it? 2.7 something time? How? Well, clearly that isn’t going to work. But hey! Infinite sums can converge! Let’s try that! We can add 2 times pi, plus .7 times pi, plus .01 times pi.... all the to the infinite term and it should converge! Problem solved!
But wait! What the hell is .008 times pi?....
The longer you continue with this game, you realize that multiplication can be *hinted* at through repeated addition, but you can never fully express what it does through it.
So, if you look set theory, you have two different sets that are multiplication and addition. Technically there are multiple sets of them, but only one each with the real numbers as their elements.
They each have their own axioms.
They both have separate identity axioms (a+0=a, a*1=a) and the fact that 0=/=1 is actually it’s own axiom. You cannot prove it.
Reminds me of the joke with Tic Tacs. A serving is 0 calories, 1 serving is 1 Tic Tac which is below the mass for the FDA where "fuzzy math" comes into play. Said Tic Tac is pretty much pure sugar though.
IIRC anything below 5 calories can be rounded down to 0. That’s how you can get “0 calories per serving; 20 calories per container”
@@Onychoprion27 You're right. You're allowed to say 0 if it is
This isn’t just an “allowed” thing. It’s false labeling to overstate the nutritional content of food. So TicTacs have a purposefully small serving size so they are required to say it has 0 calories.
Usually this comes up with new brands of nut containing food when they don’t hire the right person for their labels. Nuts contain proteins that work differently from vegetable or animal protein, and they end up being ordered to decrease the declared protein and thus calorie content.
Top 10 youtubers who left without warning
What happened?
Old no This was the warning
I hope she comes back man, YT recommendations are really helping her
:(
I think she might have, according to another comment? Subbed because of this video though
You've heard of panic at the disco now get ready for... Arithmetic in the grocery store!
So panic at the grocery store
This needs to be a thing.
I feel mean for causing this comment to surpass 314 likes…
Arithmetic! at the disco
YOU PUT THE ! IN THE WRONG PLACE IMMA DIE
I work in the food industry (developing new products) and this also annoys me whenever we are designing nutrition labels for new products (it takes a lot of work to make sure all your nutrition labels across all your products are consistent). When you see multiple products from the same company with seemingly different rounding rules, it is usually because they were being lazy and not rounding consistently or (in the case of "calorie-counting" foods) they try to manipulate the serving size (just as you suspect). We're not all out to confuse or mislead you, but there are some rotten eggs that seem to give us all a bad name... 😊
Cody Platta Do you know anything about the less than two servings thing that isn't included in the FDA regulations?
I worked for a pharmaceutical company. This guy I worked with rounded 8.49 to 8.5 to 9. He didn't do it because he was trying to cut a corner, but because he really thought that was how to actually do it. My point is, marketing is probably the biggest reason for sneaky rounding, but poor math skills is also a factor.
I ignore serving sizes on food because I have no patience to follow them and sometimes they are riddiculously low or they make no sense (the product does not have a whole number of servings). Per 100g information is usually more useful. Anyway I do not count kJs all that much anyway I am more interested to see what the product contains and how much artificial it is. Even then it does not say the whole story and we are often lied to so there are helpful tests.
Also much bigger issue is that like second grade citizens of "eastern" Europe we are getting low quality food unlike peoplein UK or Germany who are getting at least mediocre products.
Cody Platta I am now happy to live in the EU
RE: a few rotten eggs: There always are, my friend, there always are.
*can you tell this video isn't a paid sponsorship*
"egg, whose parent is chicken" thank you.
Not really 'about 2' but due to the rounding down and serving sizes below a defined limit, TicTacs which are flavoured sugar pellets can be marketed as zero calorie snacks.
They even admit it on their website
"The Nutrition Facts for Tic Tac® mints state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving. Does this mean that they are sugar free?
Tic Tac® mints do contain sugar as listed in the ingredient statement. However, since the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving."
WTF USA? How can any of this possibly be legal?
"How can any of this possibly be legal?" Politics and general bureaucracy. It's funny that this is one of the few times where rounding a number actually makes things more complicated.
"How can any of this possibly be legal?"
American laws often go by the rule of "if this is sort of close to the actual number, then it's sort of not quite a lie, right?"
The simple answer is that bribery is effectively legal in the US. The general public have no influence on government policy, despite apparently being in a democracy, because all of the options they're given are already bought and paid for long before they ever hear of them.
Same thing with Splenda. It has the exact same amount of calories as sugar, but it’s 4 calories per serving. Because it is below 5 calories it can market itself as zero calorie!
My favorite serving note was on a chocolate Easter bunny. Serving size: half a bunny. Servings per container: about 2.
Why would they do this, knowing that most people eat the whole chocolate bunny in one sitting because it's the humane thing to do
@@sharpestcookieinthetoolbox9742 if you decapitate it first it's already dead
My teacher started talking about you and I discovered that my entire math class is a fan of yours. love your content and I can’t wait to see more!
So did you actually *weigh* the soup? They're being dodgy with the calorie counts, wonder if they're being dodgy about the weight too...
Are they really being dodgy about it, or is it just obscenely unrealistic to provide exact answers for the amount of calories and servings in every single container? Like, every can of soup has a tolerance for how full it is, give or take several %, not to mention the precise ingredients of the soups, i.e. exactly how many beans, exactly how many kernels of corn, are they all of perfectly uniform size and mass, and therefore chemical energy? Of course not, it's ridiculous, of course the label is going to have blatant inaccuracies because it legitametly could not be made perfectly accurate without thousands of dollars wasted checking every single can of soup
@@brucefromfindingnemo7842 On top of that, you can't know what the caloric/(macro)nutrient content of something is without basically destroying it. We all know that there's tolerances for the content, and that the nutrition information is an estimation (usually not even done using the product itself, but by using myfitnesspal on its ingredients). What's unacceptable is them being lazy and inaccurate with the servings *on top of that*.
@@brucefromfindingnemo7842 it's very much in their best interest to do just that. They are producing hundreds of thousands, im sure, units a day, know what is going into each can and mixing the soup separately will save them money.
They definitely know how much it is and give a false number on purpose for marketing advantage. This isn't rocket science, soup weight can easily be better estimated. Especially consider the standard of 6σ, then it's clearly ridiculous to have > 25% error on consistency of labeling on the same can. It's one thing to say π=3, it's another to say it's "about 2" in a context where smaller makes you money.
Did you...
Did you just mark up a soup can with highlighter
no vihart always uses sharpies
Yes
Jordan Mielbrecht
No
She used a sharpie
An ramen packaging
You must be new here. Welcome! Also prepare yourself for continued inappropriate use of the markup technique.
Good thing I live in a country where the law is that every food product must have their nutrition table show values for both per 100g, the amount in the product, and maybe (if the product is used for multiple servings) per prepared single serving. This makes it much easier to compare in the supermarket.
Oh, it sounds like you live in a country called the EU.
Not exactly a country but whatever :D
Shaeress - Nope! :D
Damn ^^
Öğrenci Sarp Eren Hangişi no need to cyber bully
I never understand what she is talking about but I still watch her videos.
She talks so fast. But I love it anyway.
This is the person you read about in those math problems.
"Can you tell this video isn't a paid sponsorship" made me break out laughing. Caught me off guard
In before Big Soup censor this video
Justin Y.
Fu-
Justin Y.
I did not hit her. It’s bullshi- oh hi Justin Y. wassup
no.
How do you comment EVERYWHERE
Wheres our new hexaflexavideo? Hexaflexagon day has passed!
Soup: *Rounds down the calories.*
Vihart: "I'm about 2 end this soups whole career."
Wait no, the video is just old ad
😂
Or alternatively, "about 2 end this soup's whole serving".
underrated video callback pun
I once saw a chocolate bar with 12 blocks but the serving per pack is 11. Am I supposed to drop the last block? Give it to someone else? Divide it by 11? Who knows. I ate the whole thing in one go, anyway.
Franz Anthony 😂, if you ever wanna be healthy, I accept donations in the form of 1 block of chocolate.
Yeah you're definitely supposed to cut the last block into elevenths and eat one of those along with 1 full block. Simple
Are you CRAZY?! The last piece has as many calories as the rest put together!
That last PEICE will make it so you can’t walk it has millions of calories... let the dog eat it animals don’t get fat
wow what a rebel
did you read a 132 page document on soup servings just for this?
Now that's dedication.
this video is the physical embodiment of my eating disorder at 3AM
was just about to comment this
Oooof I shouldn't even be watching because ed fuel
same
Probably have to start making a conspiracy theory on why vi said 427 when she actually writes 472...
I have a package of Top Ramen in the cupboard that is so old it simply says "Servings per container: 2".
Apparently there was some mass migration to "About 2" by Big Soup.
daemn42 about 2 servings seems like big enough soup already
Big soup
daemn42: what, you don’t eat only have a package of top ramen?
I've always wondered what "About two" meant on my soup can. I pondered for days and I still didn't have any clue,. Of course by that time my soup was cold so I needed to heat up another one, but seeing the nutrition got me thinking about it again. This video is exactly what I needed. Now all of my soup-related problems are resolved. Thanks Vihart.
Watching this video again for the umpteenth time and I just realized how careful you are not to judge anyone's preferences on whether they want higher or lower calorie soups, and I appreciate how conscientious and kind you are in doing that :)
I found it interesting that you actually thought about how marketers put “about 2” and out the number of calories per cup instead of just saying the number of calories in the can. I am confused though on how the cans basically had the same measurements for everything but one was supposed to be low calorie. This video has inspired me to start looking more into my low calorie foods!
how....how did you make a math video out of soup can servings and why do I love it
Now it’s a conspiracy about a conspiracy
why not just eat ramen out of the pot instead of pouring it all into a bowl? you would have to clean the pot but that's one less bowl if your goal is minimal cleaning.
r77xxl Either way, in the end you still have about two dishes to clean... :-°
The pot is harder to clean than a bowl though. It's the MSG seasoning that really makes it stick to the container, so personally I'd prefer that happened in a bowl or not at all.
The pot is too hot to be an effective dish from which to eat from.
natslovebug this is false. See: me when I’d forgotten to run the wash.
Self-respect？
This video was a pleasure to watch. Thanks for making it.
It's been years since I've regularly watched your content. Glad to see it's still well thought out, informed, and still entertaining.
Your conclusion reminds me of a study I read years ago. It concluded that money doesn't corrupt politicians because a change in the amount of rules regarding campaign finance didn't alter the amount of corruption. It used prosecutions as a stand-in for corruption. Which means it actually showed that campaign finance laws are followed at about the same rate whether they are loose or restrictive. In other words, campaign finance laws are effective. When you losen them so much that corruption is legal, there will be more legal corruption and still about the same number of people who cross even that very loose line.
There was another study about the same time that concluded that small and mid-sized controbutions dominate politics, not large contributions. They reached this conclusion by raising the number on what they called a "large" contribution so much it made it a smaller portion of the total. They ended up calling a contribution on par with the median income in America "mid-size". That struck me as the kind of study that found their conclusion first, then worked backwards to make the data fit.
sources?
Sam I’m to drunk to understand this
Money doesn't corrupt politicians, power does.
The two cans I had were marked per 100ml on one and 100g on the other, for minimum comparability. Bonus: the 100g one was for a diluted result, so indeterminate per can contents.
Suckers. They should have counted the contributions in each bracket instead of summing them up. That way they could say that medium and large contributions constitute a negligible portion of all contributions.
Now i want soup. Im going to go check now if we have soup.
Edit: we had soup. :)
Amir LEVY Chicken
How much soup?
Chlorophyll The Rainwing about 1
well, congratulations!
Me the awesome guy
What kind?
This is great stuff, now I want to check out more of your channel.
When her room mates are wondering why there’s numbers drawn on the soup cans
Okay, so who else kept waiting for Vihart to pull out an actual calorimeter at the end and put that soup on fire and actually measure in actual calories how much heat she gets out of it? :-D
Thunderf00t would probably do that in a 40 minute badly edited video and blame it on elon musk's hyperloop and somehow he would make sense.
Wtf theres suck thing as a calorimeter
do you have the formulas?
Mohamed Diab, you hit the nail on the head with that one.
Rob Spagrenetti I’m disappointed in your school. If you didn’t light Doritos on fire in a cup under a cup of water to test how much the water temperature increased you have been failed by your education system! 1 gram of water increases 1 degree for every calorie so if you have 100 grams of water that increased by 2.5 degrees it was a 250 calorie food
At least you didn't microwave the soup for 9:99 or you might have found truly how many Calories it contained.
Is the calorie count literally as much as stuff could burn for? I reckon that'd b pretty useless: I doubt we can process all raw actual calories equally well...
At least I don't see many people filling their diets with crude oil or other such delicious high calorie sources.
9:59?
Kram1032 it's important in chemistry because it doesn't just apply to food, it's a measure of how much energy can be released from something when it is burned, except calories are just a unit of measurement normalised to water. E.g. 4.18 joules heats 1 gram of water by 1 Kelvin - which is exactly the same as what 1 calorie is capable of, but by calling it a calorie we get rid of the nasty 4.18 number and replace it with a nice, round, 1
Kram1032 IIRC, yeah, that’s more or less how calorie counts are done. Also IIRC, “burning the calories” is exactly what our bodies do, just not quickly enough that we burst into flames.
yaseen reza No. 9:99
I've seen three videos, and I already love this channel. TRIANGLES ARE SO FUN!
At about 2 mins in (2:22)
Writes down 472
Says 427
Are you sure about dat Vi
Omg do you look at the calorie per dollar ratio on your food as well? I thought it was just me
The Gibbie I also do this because I need the calories to survive. #soupgate
i too am poor
I 100% do this lmao I have too high of a metabolism to not
Store brand canned ravioli or spaghetti and meatballs (generic Chef Boyardee stuff). Cheap, calorie dense, tastes great, lots of fiber too!
When they started putting calorie counts on fast food menus, I gravitate to the best calorie / dollar which leads me to the higher calorie items on the menu.
Isn't that why they started posting that info?
6:01 Did you just use "84.999..." to represent "an arbitrarily small amount less than 85"?
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Vihart?!
The thing is, the FDA doesn’t understand that 0.9999... actually equals 1.
just imagine that there are an arbitrarily large but finite number of nines.
84-1/inf
It’s probably a countably infinite number of nines.
That would still be equal to 85. In fact, if there are infinite nines, I think there necessarily has to be a countably infinite number of them, since there exists a bijection between the natural numbers and the number of nines.
Found your video by accident. I'm glad I did it was incredibly interesting. and your quirky humor got me to giggle a few times I must admit. 😁
A random video of a channel I never heard of on my recommendation list....but this video speaks to me so spiritually
WHY ARE YOU AT THE SOUP STORE
Amanda Lim FUCK YOU!
Amanda Lim (Also... I hope I'm referencing what you are, but if I'm not, then you know that I'm just joking now...)
S0NIC Swag hahaha it’s cool dude I tots get you :)
I'M BUYING CLOTHES!!!!!!!
Amanda Lim FUCK YOU
So here in the EU, everything is required to be labeled with calories etc. per 100g or 100ml as well as per serving, which makes comparing two products much easier. Servings per container on stuff like soup tends to be "1/2 a can" which removes the missing fractional portion for rounding terms, and calorie counts aren't rounded to the nearest 10 because apparently EU consumers can handle more than one significant figure. I'm sure there are still ways of fudging these numbers but with every loophole that gets closed, the margin of fudgability shrinks.
It's far better, but it has its share of loopholes. For instance, Bong canned soup is condensed, so they get to label it per diluted soup; and suddenly you can't figure out the weight that the can results in, because they don't tell you the volume of the can. At least they have to indicate that they're fudging using a footnote for the comparison table.
LoneTech
Concentrated or rehydratable foods need to list values for the food both before and after dilution/rehydration.
That would obviously be better, but this can doesn't.
While rounding in the US is ripe for manipulation it's "dangerous" to think that EU labelling precision is useful. Pure substances like salt being robotically added to five decimal points might test out very consistent. However, I'm sure that if you check 10 cans, that aren't from a single homogenous batch, you'll find that none of them agree and none of them match their label perfectly either. Honest labelling would give a distribution for each ingredient. Sometimes the pork is much fattier, other times the machine completely misses adding pork to the can, and occasionally it adds shards of metal from itself. Mmmmm sharp! That level of analysis would overwhelm even the most math savvy of consumers. Ultimately, things like how much you chew your food and your genetic propensity for producing certain digestive enzymes complicate the picture considerably. It's better that we recognize that all of the numbers are approximations and as long as it's only 10% "off" or whatever it won't matter since we're already consuming 200% of the recommended amount. That's the point I believe Vi was getting at; the magnitude of the error is small compared to how much harm we do by overeating in the first place.
It's understood that values have variance. Rounding them off just adds bias to that uncertainty, which in this example is clearly exploited to the detriment of the customer (and since we're talking food, actually consumer). Incidentally we don't use five decimal points, we typically have two significant digits.
Excellent, Vi!
Such awesome observation skill...
I totally love this...
In Sweden they just write "per 100 g" which is so much simpler. Makes it so much easier to figure out the percentage of fat/protein/sugar etc.
As someone who eats and has ate canned chicken noodle soup every day at school for as long as I can remember, I have definitely always wondered about the "about 2" label. However I'm most excited to eat more ramen with less guilt. Love you V
I watched this video when it came out and I'm somehow watching this again. I love this so much you have no idea
Where I have been this whole time. What a wholesome channel 😂😂
A fair amount of this comes from the US using "A cup", which is a measure of volume, not weight.
Also, in the UK (at least, probably most of Europe too) while they can (and generally do) put nutrition information "per serving", they are also required to put information "per 100g" (for dry goods) or "per 100ml" (for wet goods). So all products can be compared on an equal level. So you can really see if that "Low sodium" soup has less sodium than it's regular counterpart.
This is probably my favorite video of yours, Vi. I've always struggled seeing the connection between the math we learn in the classroom and Real Life, but this does an excellent job of showing us how to use math to a) structure our diets (for those people who are interested in doing that), and b) figure out how companies are bamboozling us. Thanks for the video, as always.
This video is appreciated. Thank you for this information 👌
Well this makes me feel slightly better because I always eat more than the suggested serving. I mean, who opens a bag of chips and only has 10 of them?
"Souper Market"
In EU the nutrition values are given both per serving and per package i.e. in total
This was highly entertaining and educational. Thanks!
Now this is what I like to see in my recommended late at night before I go to sleep
Why have I never thought to add eggs... Dammit, I came here for math but instead I just found our how to finish my semester on ramen.
One of the best tips I ever learned for instant ramen is to add fresh ginger to it. You can get huge chunks of ginger root for a dollar at the supermarket that will last you for two weeks of ramen, and it adds much needed flavor beyond salt.
I buy a bundle of spring onions for about a dollar, then slice them finely to sprinkle on top. good for about 6 bowls of ramen. I also like the Kroger brand seaweed snacks, also about a dollar, sliced up on top. 2 extra bucks makes your next ~6 bowls of ramen taste more traditional and adds some plant fiber and vitamins to an otherwise 100% noodle meal.
Man yes. Ikr. Will do it this for dinner tonight.
aka “why ramen is better than soup”
Ramen is soup.
mrtannzr oohhhhhh
*sips tea*
This video was my brain when I had an eating disorder lmao
I discovered your channel only yesterday, and you have already leapfrogged over all my other subscriptions to become my favourite CZcamsr. 🥇
Well she stopped making videos
Why did she stop though?
None of this "about 2" bollocks on UK cans of soup, at least not those in my kitchen about now.
So... we mathed soup. Is this a milestone? I think it is.
Proud Hufflepuff
You mean minestrone?
Nobody:
Literally Nobody:
Vihart: SOUP CONSPIRACY!
I love you vihart, this video was awesome
Soup time
Unknown Queer eat soup like a boss
can i have money to buy B U R G ER
Epic...
Are you a Russian hacker
to buy burger??
The FDA does seem to do a pretty good job. They'd do an even better job if they were more accountable. For example, imagine if taxes were used to fund healthcare. Then the FDA would have a greater vested interest in reducing the amount of healthcare people need. Wouldn't that be interesting?
I knew from the start I was "about 2" get political up in here.
A fine job of drafting incomprehensible regulations that give food manufacturers remarkable leeway with the numbers on their labels. Just like the leeway the President gives Congress with the numbers in their budgets. The US currently has an $802 billion (I'm rounding. Forgive me.) deficit. It would be really hard to pay for all healthcare with taxes.
Well, the taxpayers already pay for healthcare. They just do it out of their own pockets. It's a fun little game called "I better try and save up $150,000 as soon as possible in case someday I miss one concrete step and ruin my life forever."
There are other countries with a much lower per-capita GDP that have sorted this out.
Also, your counterargument seems to be the issue of leeway. That was already my point. That they _could_ be better. But why would they? Where's the incentive for the FDA to tell food manufacturers, "Hey, stop it with the sugar and salt, you knuckleheads"?
Lol, If you take the gdp of Sweden, then add it to Norway's, then add that to Denmark's, that is about how much the US government spends on health care every year for seniors, military, disabled, and children.
We could _buy_ your little communist nation with our healthcare budget.
"We could buy your little communist nation"
Who is the "you" in this sentence?
You answered the question no one was asking 😂
I adore that you did it! Inspiring :)
It’s 3: 35 am but
sOUP
Lars would you like some?
Schrö Schrö yes pls gimme soup
about 2 am
Takinsur thank you for telling me “2 am” I am now enlightened ~
I’m confused you’re half an hour ahead of British Summer a time and I’m trying to work out which country youre in but I cant figure it out
how tf did she manage to make math interesting 🙄 TEACHERS TAKE NOTES
GreeK omg yesssss 😭😭😭😭😭
Watch more vihart videos
That's all of her videos, it's greeaatt
If you think this one is entertaining just check out the rest of her videos
by soup
2:39 “don’t get distracted by the suggestion of 2-ness”
This was *very* well presented.
Two words: Marketing strategy
About two words
iOSMinecraft120 lol
They charge 1$ for can not really that deep just don't buy it if it bothers you
*you continue to buy it just to complain about the marketing tactics*
Chaitanya Singh One word: Marketing.
Obviously marketing but just seems deceitful/ a way around whatever the labeling laws are.
SOUP CONSPIRACY
i love this person's voice. it makes me calm for some reason.
Vi found one of the worlds mysteries, soup.
When you’re a math genius but worry about aliens and conspiracies....you might be wearing an aluminum hat or something like an aluminum hexaflexagon.....
I also put eggs in my ramen
or live in a country that doesn't have an allergy towards regulations and the labels are more accurate.
I will, as soon as Elon Musk starts selling tickets to there.
This is the closest you’ll get to using algebra in real life
If by "closest you'll get" you mean a fun and interesting example of why learning algebra while you're young is *incredibly* important because if you don't companies will do their absolute best to scam you, then I agree!
If you get good at applying the algebra you learned in school to real life, you become a soldier in the war against misinformation. Big Soup is our first enemy, but there are countless others in all kinds of places, not just food.
thomas underfoot yes and when companies are trying make millions off scamming people for 20-50 cents a can, per person.
I don’t care, take my 50 cents and get rich, I usually give all my change to the homeless guy on the corner of the freeway that prolly makes more money than I do in a day.
I only care when the product is hundreds of dollars and every product is different, like the Black Friday tv deals and which ones are really deals or which ones are just shitty TVs with big screens or if it’s just a shitty tv together with trash left over parts and sold as limited quantity 50% off.
1:04 my matrix methods professor calls it the "Multiplicative inverse" He also calls subtraction the "Additive Inverse".
I'm stating the obvious here, but that makes sense, especially when talking about "division" in the context of matrices.
At 8:32 you pulled a complete logical 180 by using the fact the labels aren't accurate to try to tell the audience they are?
Certainly, sketchy tricks like those shown on those cans are outlawed here europe and certainly the UK.
That's why almost all American food that get's imported here needs to be relabelled to actually have accurate numbers to replace the old ones
Electromag[e] the point is that companies are trying every trick in the book and the labels are still mostly accurate. It wasn't that long ago when there were no nutritional guidelines at all. Imagine what sold then.
The point's definitely not "it's perfect and can't be better" though.
Saying that the labels are good labels because you didn't used to have labels is absolutely batshit.
It's like putting plastic bags on your feet because you didn't have shoes and exclaiming they're the most comfortable shoes money can buy!
By saying "mostly" you've pointed out exactly why your labels aren't good. Because they're not accurate, at all. They're full of work-arounds, strange rounding quirks, and have the ability to almost tell you nothing accurately about your food given the right shenanigans.
There shouldn't BE any "trick in the book", there shouldn't be room to pull these kind of stunts, and in europe, you literally cannot because of the strict standards put in place so that consumers actually know what they're getting without having to pull mental gymnastics.
Electromag[e]
Exactly
Electromag[e] Well the problem here is most people don't care about this. The normal consumer doesn't care if the labels are the most accurate things. Unless you're on a diet, the nutrition facts are good enough for the average person. If you know anything about the US, you know it's capitalist country. One of the joys of capitalism is the power of the consumer. Whenever there's a product you don't like, don't buy it. If enough people do the same thing, the company who made the product sales will go down. This gets the message across the company, since your hurting what it values, money.
Of course it might seem simpler for the government to just 'fix' the issue, but many of my fellow Americans (Myself included) don't trust the government to fix it.
@@billyswift1745 I understand why you dont trust your government as the same companies theyre meant to be regulating are the ones basically pulling the strings over there, but thats truly not an excuse for basically putting rubbish on your labels.
And if you didnt know, every country in Europe is a capitalist country too and we don't have that problem (though we certainly have problems like any country, don't get me wrong) but your capatlism point has literally nothing to do with people not knowing what theyre buying
This is my first time watching a video by vihart, it was great, but the only time I have had of vihart before was in a veritasium video..
Triangle triangle triangle triangle
This is still one of my favourite videos on CZcams and is definitely the video that has affected my life in the biggest way.
*looks in pantry*
"Who highlighted all the soup cans?"
Finally, maths I can digest.
genius
YES.
Non-stick sprays are worse. They are marketed as being fat free, yet they are 100% oil, which is fat. The way they do this is specifying a 1/3 second spray that contains less than .5 grams of fat which they legally round to 0 grams.
forrest225
That would be solved by requiring the nutrition label to list values per 100 g, with “per serving” values as an optional second column.
Nillie yeah, I wish we did that in the US. It would be so much easier to compare products.
Wow! im really mind blown by this concept. This video shows how food companies trick us in a way to believing calories are so low , but also they aren’t lying with their numbers as long as they use “about 2”. I really liked how you showed us the break down of each different type of soup and how each serving size of “2” is different. Which also makes me wonder why do companies get to round their numbers instead of just putting the actual number on the label. it really makes me wonder if there is more reason to this “about 2” then we may think.
I love your sense of humor 😁