this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
579 points (99.7% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

47114 readers
1076 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, but attribution is not required in any way. No links to Reddit in post body


-If you would like to provide a source link, do so in the comments but not in the post body.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FreshLight@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] ScriptSage@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago

Damn those are some grippers

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 198 points 3 days ago (19 children)

... posted a photo on social media of the 62.5g bar alongside one of today's Mars Bars, which is 40g.

"Over the last 35 years, we have made a number of updates to our bar sizes and pack formats to reflect consumer demand, alongside considering wider external factors such as manufacturing costs and the price of cocoa."

I'm sure your customers have been demanding smaller bars that cost more.

[–] Airfried@piefed.social 78 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"We didn't only shrink the size, we also lowered the quality of ingredients to maximize profits!"

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago

The only people who enjoy Mars bars are shareholders

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] TedZanzibar@feddit.uk 36 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Back in the dialup days when brands were first coming online I used to have quite a thing for a Toffee Crisp. When I got a bar that was noticeably smaller than the last, I emailed them expecting a reply about market forces or cost of ingredients, but maybe they'd also send a voucher for a free bar or something.

Instead they tried to gaslight me, telling me they'd always been that size and that I must be imagining it. I was so put out by it that, other than a very occasional multi-pack for picnics, I haven't bought a single-serve Toffee Crisp, Mars Bar, Snickers etc since.

When shrinkflation became a recognised term I felt so vindicated! I wish I still had that email so that I could shove it in their faces.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

I saw a Curly Wurly in a shop the other day, and they're now a pale imitation of what they were.

[–] ulkesh@piefed.social 120 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Factoring in 35 years of inflation. A $0.50 mars bar in 1991 is $1.21 today. The cost of a Mars bar today is at least $1.50 USD (after converting from UK pounds) and that's being generous.

Companies are greedier than ever and there seems to be no stopping it (meaning because of the oligarchy in the US, Congress will never do a damn thing about it, and certainly the spoiled man-baby's executive branch will do nothing about it), and no end in sight of it.

Fuck them all.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 67 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I would also be surprised if the cost of production, now using cheaper ingredients and far more automation, hadn't also decreased.

[–] Airfried@piefed.social 40 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh absolutely. Productivity has increased drastically since the 90s but wages never kept up.

[–] PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Don't say it in cop voice. Say:

workers engineers and scientists made everything drastically more productive and the pedophiles stole all the gains. We keep letting them.

[–] Airfried@piefed.social 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We're saying the same thing. The productivity surplus is getting stolen by the Epstein class. I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I visited a chocolate confection assembly plant. The only things humans do now is random tasks like flip the random bar that for some reason fell odd onto conveyor or shift the skewed box on the pallet, or open the door for a shipment.

The rest was automatic, from the pipes running chocolate throughout the plant to the final gluing and boxing.

The costs are materials, and the factory operation cost, labour is almost nothing. So to increase profit they really can only cheapen or lesson the materials

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does infinite growth mean eternal shrinkflation? Will it ever plateau? Or collapse?

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago

Shrinkflation implies a customer base that would either go elsewhere or without. I'm sure you've seen the efforts to eliminate all competition (establishing trusts, i.e. mega mergers) and weaseling into contracts like government that can't be avoided.

When your audience has no choice, you have no limits.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 5 points 2 days ago

That's the official inflation numbers, which are lies. It's an open secret that in the 90s there was a political movement among the owners to artificially lower reported inflation (see: Boskin Commission for example) because it would boost the economy (on paper) while letting them absorb the gains.

Underreporting by 1-2% a year doesn't seem like much until you do it for several decades. Looking at actual inflation instead of the reported lie, that mars bar is closer to $2 today. Shrinkflation had to happen to keep the bigger con going. Most businesses will, of course, cheat the margins at every instance.

TLDR; shrinkflation is a symptom, not the disease

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I bet the ingredients are worse now too

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a weird thing to think about, but in a ship-of-Theseus sort of way a lot of the products we grew up with don't really exist anymore. By that I mean, if it's half the size and made of different ingredients then the Mars Bar as it was introduced has effectively been discontinued. There's just some other, crappier knock-off being sold under the same name now.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yep, really stretching the bounds of how far name recognition will get them. All of Christie, Mondelez and Nestle products are barely even edible anymore. Forget the shrinkage, it'd be slop if they doubled the size.

Mondelez used to be a champion of quality but quarterly earrings erode all scruples.

[–] filcuk@feddit.uk 7 points 2 days ago

That's almost the worst part. Not only is the food ultra-processed now, but it's all engineered to extract every fraction of a penny in margins.
If this goes on, I might as well just inject palm oil straight to my veins.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 76 points 3 days ago

Even the font weight shrank

[–] TomMasz@piefed.social 10 points 2 days ago

When I was a kid, a pound of coffee was 16 ounces (US). Now it's down to 12. They do it in small steps, so no one realizes it's happening until you see something like this.

[–] DonkeyStar@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago

Also, recipe blogs are a great source of information on shrinkflation. Going to the store to look for a package size that no longer exists is fun.

[–] ironpangolin29@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

It had been at least 5 years since I bought myself a Snickers bar, I bought one about 2 months ago and I laughed my ass off at the shrinkflation size than that I remember, on the one hand you got Mars Inc. upping the price $.75c and shrinking it to whatever. On the OTHER hand, you actually got a reasonable portion to prevent over consuming empty calories/sugar.

Lose lose win win. Balance in the force.

[–] TIEPilot@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Remember BJ Novak calling out Cadburys blatant advertising lie about the new eggs were not getting smaller. That you were getting bigger.

Start of CadburyGate segment:

https://youtu.be/TlXLCrzpToo?t=172

Fulls interview

https://youtu.be/TlXLCrzpToo

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

IMO the size is irrelevant after how they ruined the filling. And I bet the chocolate shell is also not as good as it used to be. They used to be an automatic buy when i saw them in stores because they are so good. In their current form, I don't understand why people bother getting them at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I buy things in lbs or kgs so not much has changed beyond the price per weight of course.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I always had the feeling that they were 56% bigger when I was a kid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I clearly remember they were 68 grams when I was a kid, which always weighed on my mind when I had to choose between a Mars bar and the 78 gram Oh Henry

[–] OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This explains why I only needed to eat 1 Mars bar to feels satisfied back in the days while I now have to eat 3-4 bars.

[–] excral@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not really. That bar was 62.5g while modern ones are 40g. So to offset shrinkflation you'd have to eat about 1.5 modern bars, not 3-4.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I took that as part of the joke.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evil_Incarnate@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago

I can eat many, but they never completely fill the void inside.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago

I'm curious to see how different the ingredient lists are between the two.

They had a better font back then too.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

This thing is plastic-wrapped, but the thing we can't easily compare is produce. I think it's likely that fruits and vegetables just don't have as much nutritional content as before thanks to aggressive agriculture and worsening environments.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Enshittification is the word of the decade. Century?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 3 days ago

The chocolate was thicker too. Easier to peel off and eat separately.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Even the font got skinnier!

[–] kalapala@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

so Shrinkflation is normal in most products then?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Food products, probably. In clothes or cars, for example, you can't just make things smaller. With clothes, it seems more like skimpflation - some items definitely had thinner-feeling fabric right after COVID, although it got better again. With cars, they just raise the price, so that's inflation.

If costs go up you have to do one of the three. You're probably not getting angry phone calls because your Mars bar went down in size by 1g, but might if it's more expensive or tastes like shit, so that's the advantage there.

I wish shrinkflation worked on cars and trucks, they just keep getting bigger and bigger.

load more comments
view more: next ›