this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
1280 points (99.8% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2540 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (15 children)

I don't think this is the right way to go. Mandatory "compare prices" to be displayed with the same, or better, viability as the price is much better. That way the consumer immediately sees that the price went up since last week. What it also brings is the opportunity to compare which one of two sizes of the same product is a better deal.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

In the US grocery stores are required to list the cost per weight. It mostly works, unless one of the manufacturers decides to show the price in grams or kilograms, as opposed to oz or pounds.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

That needs to be regulated then. It doesn't really matter if the unit you buy is measured in pounds and the compare price is in kilograms per dollar, you'll still see the change in price of the compare price unit is standardized.

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Amazon fresh always gets those prices completely wrong.

[–] Belastend@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thats also displayed in almost every store.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Where I live (Sweden) it's not mandatory by law and it just happens to be that most often compare prices are printed in a much smaller text size as compared to the price.

Crazy, huh?

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Price per kg is still mandatory in France. The full history of it for every product is not. So we don't necessarily notice the price increase if it's done in small increments

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It really needs to be weight/price or size/price then. The way this sounds in the article the producers just also need to change price a little to avoid getting that sign. Per weight or size that might still end up more expensive for the consumer.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

That was what I meant with compare price. Sorry for being unclear. Compare price should be weight per price. That way you would see the price increase since the product (that looks the same but isn't because of less amount in the package) suddenly got a higher compare price since last week while the purchase price is the same.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] mcqtom@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

SAME GREAT TASTE!!!

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Care for a modest proposal?

[–] Blaubarschmann@feddit.de 1 points 6 months ago

This is amazing

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›