Mildly Interesting

20203 readers

577 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

535

Bought a new pack of a hair product which now uses 6% less natural ingredients and is no longer vegan (lemmy.zip)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

108 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] [email protected] -13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Have we just forgotten about the word "fewer" entirely at this point?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Mine fewer?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

It's not 6 fewer ingredients, it's 6% less of the total being naturally derived.

It's hilarious that you made an even dumber error in a try at correcting.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that applies here. Generally, when measuring something, you use less. Like I wouldn't say , I just drank from my glass and it now has fewer waters in it. In this case, "natural ingredients" is a set of things that are being measured as a single "ingredient". Like let's say the natural ingredients are soot and berry juice. Would you say the paint has fewer or less soot and berry juice?

But then again language is all made up, the rules don't matter, and you're only truly wrong if the meaning is lost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can see that, but the plural "ingredients" still makes my gut say it should be fewer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It depends on context. If you are dealing with a percentage of overall types of ingredients by volume without changing the variety of ingredients you would probably use "less". Like if you reduced the mix of milk related ingredients. You would use "fewer" to indicate that the number of individual ingredients had changed. Like if they got rid of two of the ingredients of an original ten.

This could be a category error?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I guess it depends on if it is a case of there having had been 97 of 100 ingredients having been naturally derived and now only 91 of those ingredients are such. Which admittedly seems unlikely.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I mean it could be using the percentages of another number. Like if there's 20 ingredients and you drop one it's a 5% reduction or if you added other non natural ingredients that would cause the percentage to drop... But whether it's less or fewer would depend on information we don't readily have because we don't know if it's ingredients by volume or of it's a reformulation of ingredients... and may be at the crux of this grammatical problem depending on what you assume is going on?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

You are showing them backwards - the NEW formulation is the one that says vegan. Did you buy the second one at Big Lots or something?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No more shiny cap either.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Matt paste, matte cap

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago

Who's Matt and how come you've got his paste?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It should not really matter I think. Maybe its just a marketing strategy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For someone that doesn't appreciate the formerly creamy yet cruelty free texture, maybe.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

I don't get this brand in my place if not I'll try it. Look promising.

load more comments