this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025

512 points (99.4% liked)

Funny

funny@sh.itjust.works

16,773 readers

3,896 active

542 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

There goes dinner (crazypeople.online)

submitted 1 year ago by radiouser@crazypeople.online to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] entwine@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago (12 children)

As someone trying to gain weight, I'd love me some 2500 calorie potato chips

hideshow 12 child comments

[+] gibmiser@lemmy.world -7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Kcal... 2,500,000 calories

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] usrtrv@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago

So 2500 Calories. 1 Calorie = 1kcal = 1000 calories. Follows the rule of anything but metric.

parent

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Why is this downvoted? 1kcal = 1000 cal. So 2500kcal = 2500 * 1000 cal.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 31 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It is, which is only 2,500 Calories (like, the ones on food)

It's a crappy system where kcal and Calories are the same thing even though they sound like they are off by a factor of 1000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie?wprov=sfla1

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Yes, 2500 Calories with a capital C. 2500 Calories = 2 500 000 calories. So the correction is valid, but for some reason being downvoted.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

It's actually Frankenstein's monster

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago

Actually, Frankenstein was the monster.

parent

[–] Zorcron@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Probably because it’s unnecessary and pedantic. No one is confused when someone is technically incorrect and types “calories” when talking about food.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From the Wikipedia link above

In the United States and Canada, in a nutritional context, the "large" unit is used almost exclusively.

In the European Union, on nutrition facts labels, energy is expressed in both kilojoules and kilocalories, abbreviated as "kJ" and "kcal" respectively.

So yeah, it's confusing if you're not American.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Zorcron@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Fair point, I suppose non-Americans could be confused. But given the context, I still think this instance was very clear, and therefore the correction needlessly pedantic.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

I knew I'd find this discussion in here. 🍿

parent

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

This is why I strong dislike it when anyone from Australia, or another metric country, ever mentions calories.

My brother in weight tracking, kJ is right there on the packet.

It hurts.

parent