top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 11 months ago (12 children)

The one that lists sheets is at least using a verifiable metric. It's better than the "right rolls of unspecified size are more than 39 different rolls of unspecified size".

Still silly because no one knows how many sheets they use before changing the roll, but at least it's reasonable silly.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    Isn't it the same problem tho, since they can make the sheets smaller and say there's more without actually offering a longer roll?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    We need legally defined toilet paper roll standards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    Which matters more total kg or mm^2^ ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    The label usually says total surface area in the package. The stores near me break the price down to cost per unit of area, as well. This really untangles the 'how much should I pay for a quadrahedroll vs a dodecca butt sphere" worth of paper?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 36 points 11 months ago

    This is such bullshit. Pointless manipulation of product offerings to hide the true cost, and thereby manipulate prices. I’ve been doing paper towel math like this for years and it drives me nuts. Grocery stores’ profit model is now almost entirely based on price manipulation and nothing else.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Toilet paper making is an ART! No other industry manages to create a half-ply so transparent that you can read your newspaper through it, while still delivering the tactile experience of an 80 grid industrial sandpaper.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Brother, just spend the few extra bucks and buy name brand, the extra money ain't gonna kill ya. Meanwhile, the TP you seem to buy now might have you bleeding to death from your ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    That's not my toilet paper, but one I recently had to endure on a non-private toilet. I was just amazed that they can actually produce such a paper. I'm quite attached to my ass and it's wellbeing, so sure I buy the better stuff for me and my family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 21 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago

    I just look at the area of paper on the bottom. That's what it boils down to, right? Using standard rolls as some benchmark is meaningless.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    yknow what’s great? unit pricing laws

    tldr: in australia businesses must display “unit price” on labels: price per 100g, per 100ml, per sheet, etc for every product so that packages are comparable

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    We have this in the US for most things too, at least in Ohio where I'm from, not sure about other states or if it's a federal thing. I'm not an expert on the law of it, but I can't think off the top of my head anything that doesn't have it.

    I believe paper towels and TP are $ per square foot or smth like that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Square foot isn't a great estimate for toilet paper, because within certain limits no one cares about the width of their TP. This means manufacturers will enshittify their products by making the rolls slightly wider (but fewer sheets). The packaging makes it seem like they're selling the same amount, but you suddenly find yourself needing to buy more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It's better than having no measurement at all. I agree it'd be better to rate it with a measurement actually relevant to its use, but the main thing is at least we have it and thusly can improve it if we pressure whoever regulates it enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    There’s some brands that cheat this in Australia.

    They have “select a size” or something, where they have smaller length sheets. So you get a bigger number of them and it shows a lower price/100 sheets.

    Only ever seen the small length ones on the shelves, but I haven’t looked that hard though tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Given the information here, I believe that:

    1 Giant Roll = 2.25+ Rolls = 2250+ Sheets

    1 Double Roll = 2 Rolls = 2000 Sheets

    1 Super Mega Roll = 6 Rolls = 6000 Sheets

    1000 Sheets = 1 Roll = 0.5 Double Roll = 0.444 Giant Roll = 0.166 Super Mega Roll

    1 Super Mega Roll = 2.666 Giant Roll = 3 Double Roll = 6 Roll = 6000 Sheets

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    I can take 6000 shits with one super mega roll?! WOW!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Yes , if you use exactly 1 square each time.

    But someone so enterprising and smart like you probably uses both sides, so 12,000 shits per roll is on the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Ok? You still need to dry yourself, don't you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Get a load of this guy, never used a bidet! /s

    But seriously, there's many ways to go about it. Some people don't use anything, some use tp, some bidets blow air, some use a dedicated towel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    I've used a basic add-on version for a toilet, and I actually wiped first, but it evened out, because I didn't want to get every last particle, just remove the bulk, because I was paranoid about sending bits flying. Of course it also depends on the, uh, consistency.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I used to run a bidet system, but then I found out about xylospongium:

    It's got slightly different architecture than bidet, and you have to manually compile some of the features that bidetinstall handles automatically, but you gain so much more control over your system. Never going back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I wish they sold them by shits instead of by sheets. "This package is good for 100 regular shits or 50 creamy shits."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Go by weight. If you have two bundles that have the same number of rolls, the heavier one either has more or thicker squares.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I just get my TP for free from the office

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Every toilet paper related thread ever:

    • Jokes about paper quality

    • Americans describing their upgrade to a bidet like its the second enlightenment

    • Europeans feeling superior that they've been using bidets for a couple hundred years

    • The one random Asian trying to figure out where did humanity regress and perma downgrade from water to ass scratch material in the western world

    • No explanation as to how water users seems to magically dry themselves without tp, heat or air, yet watching a new user come out looking like it rained in the bathroom

    And on rare occasions:

    • Westerners describing low pressure water cleaning with your hand like it will give you ebola, despite it being objectively more sanitary than toilet paper, and despite the fact that's how bidets used to work
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I wondering how a "super mega" roll will fit on a standard roll holder.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago* (11 children)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

    One of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald's Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W's burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it.

    Only when the company held customer focus groups did it become clear why. The Third Pounder presented the American public with a test in fractions. And we failed. Misunderstanding the value of one-third, customers believed they were being overcharged. Why, they asked the researchers, should they pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as they did for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's. The "4" in "¼," larger than the "3" in "⅓," led them astray.

    America: Failing 2nd grade math since the 1980s.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    In fairness, the people they surveyed grew up breathing lead. I wonder if a modern audience would handle that test better

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Nope. Failure rate would be the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    I would think worse actually, fairly sure our literacy and numeracy scores are worse now than in the 80s.

    Ah, ok, they peaked in 2012, been declining since, almost back down to 70s/80s levels.

    This graoh only goes to 2022... and other sources have those scores continuing to fall.

    And we also have TikTok destroying everyone's attention spans and capacity to self regulate today.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The modern consumer would understand the a&w restaurant is probably run much more city than the McDonald's restaurant unfortunately. It's always interesting to me when I go to the McDonald's near my house that shares a parking lot with KFC / a&w and unfortunately that a&w and KFC restaurant is literally one of the worst run restaurants in my area. Only rivaled by the Wendy's three blocks away. Where is that McDonald's the worst they've done is late night they're shake machine and ice cream machine always seems to be broken and they get my order wrong probably one out of every five times. But not blatantly wrong every single order.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    The modern consumer would understand the a&w restaurant is probably run much more city than the McDonald's restaurant unfortunately.

    ... What does 'run much more city' mean?

    Were you trying to type 'shittily'?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    No one goes to A&W for their burgers, especially in the 80’s. Hot dogs and root beer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    All this effort to communicate the idea of bigger or smaller rolls instead of just giving us the total surface area. But then, this isn't about informing the consumer it's about making it seem bigger. If they just gave us a total measurement in sq ft that would make it too easy to compare prices.

    It's like guys measuring their dick, they aren't terribly concerned with the validity of the measurement as long as the result sounds good.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Centimeters squared and mass (g).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Honestly, this is so stupid I just assumed it was a US-only thing. You're telling me they pull this nonsense in the land of metric?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Does the blow dryer actually work?

    Because I imagine it would work about as well as the blow dryer for your hands. You just give up and wipe your damp hands on your pants/shirt.

    Also you're already down to like 2 wipes at most with a bidet. How much are you really saving to get your ass stank blown everywhere. No idea how it works. Just imagining a Dyson but in your toilet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    I wish toilet paper math worked on my bank account.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    I switched to Bamboo toilet paper. Renewable, saves old growth trees, and when bought in bulk online is as cheap as Walmart.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Almost all paper comes from byproducts if the lumber industry or recycled. Its the processes of papermaking that have huge impacts to the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, TP is renewable by design, since it comes from trees. Being from a grass like bamboo doesn't change that, and bamboo isn't absorbent, so I'm very concerned about the process they're using to produce something that's supposed to be somewhat absorbent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Bamboo is great for TP, and since the first NRDC report (mentioned in my other response which shows my comment has data behind it) shows the shift to using bamboo fibers in many major brands, too.

    Personally, I find bamboo way better than recycled (and bamboo use vs tree use is perfectly sustainable, bamboo grows faster than it can be farmed). We find the brand we use comparable to Charmin "normal" paper (not the overly plush stuff). Happy to recommend a brand to try if asked, but don't want to sound like a shill/advert. Plenty out there on a search 😉

    Also, don't negate a bidet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    Data? The NRDC says otherwise. They do a report every year on virgin forest use in Canada. https://www.nrdc.org/resources/issue-tissue

    For the record, it tracks recycling use, renewable fiber use, and bleaching. I think you're minimizing the impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Paper Production and U.S. Forests Approximately 79 million tons of paper was produced in the U.S. in 2013. Recovered fiber accounts for 37% of the wood fiber used. Some of this fiber is lost in processing, with the result that about a third of the volume of paper and paperboard produced is made up of recovered fiber. The remaining two-­‐thirds comes from trees harvested as pulpwood, wood chips, and other residues obtained from sawmill trimmings. On a mass basis, over 65 million tons of roundwood (dry basis), or 36% of the annual U.S. timber harvest, is used each year in manufacturing paper and paperboard. When chips and other residues are considered, the percent of harvest going to paper and paperboard production rises to about 47%. Typically, more than 65% of the nation’s pulpwood harvest is derived from the Southeastern region. In recent years, this percentage has risen to over 81%. Virtually all of that harvest is obtained from privately owned forestland. Individuals and families, private investment groups, and the forest industry own 57% of forestland in the United States. These lands provide 89% of the annual wood harvest (Oswalt et al. 2014). Annual removals of wood in the U.S. are less than half the annual increment. In other words, each year forests in the U.S. grow more than twice as much wood as is harvested. The annual harvest amounts to about 1.3% of total growing stock volume. Despite, and largely because of, ongoing removals that are only a portion of the forest’s annual growth, forests in the United States are increasing in extent. Also, the volume of trees contained within U.S forests is rising steadily. Today the U.S. has more forested land than in the early 1900s. Moreover, net growth has exceeded removals for at least 6 (and likely 7-­‐8) consecutive decades.7 The result is the volume of wood stored in the nation’s forests has increased substantially over that period. Source

    Noone is going to virgin forests to send logs straight to a paper mill unless they are too small for the saw mills (byproducts of clear cut logging). The logs are far more valuable as lumber. But the byproducts are chiped and sent to paper mills so nothing is wasted. Your source is completely missing that point and not directing the enegry to the real culprit. Logging in virgin forests is no doubt a problem, but noone is logging them exclusively for paper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    First, your just assuming that the only use for pulpwood is toilet paper. "Wasted" is figurative with the context above.

    But more importantly, from your quote:

    On a mass basis, over 65 million tons of roundwood (dry basis), or 36% of the annual U.S. timber harvest, is used each year in manufacturing paper and paperboard

    36% is small trees that could still be in the ground. Sometimes this is from those surrounding old growth, but it is commonly from out-skirting areas or the way in, and could be avoided.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    First, your just assuming that the only use for pulpwood is toilet paper. "Wasted" is figurative with the context above.

    No... i assume its all paper produced by wood pulp.

    36% is small trees that could still be in the ground. Sometimes this is from those surrounding old growth, but it is commonly from out-skirting areas or the way in, and could be avoided.

    In managed tree plantation, one stratgey is to plant trees very densely so the planted trees smothers out any competition. Once they get about 15-20 years, the forest is thinned, producing tons of pulpwood. Leaving the rest to mature for lumber. Some managed forests are exclusively grown for pulpwood and clear cut every 20 years, but those are less common.

    Environment wise, young trees consume more CO2 than old growth forests. The downside it creates large vast monoculture forests devoid of a diverse ecosystems.

    So again, its not the problem of paper production... its the lumber industry and their unsustainable practices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›