this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
409 points (97.4% liked)
memes
22177 readers
1857 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This actually isn't too hard to solve. Double the value of each option by removing the folding requirement from the 2-ply and halving the price of the 3-ply to get an even comparison of 2-ply (330 sheets for $0.70) and 3-ply (300 sheets for $0.60), then recognize that it's not worth adding 1/6 the price for 1/10th the sheets, to see that the 3-ply option is better.
By the first sentence, you’ve already done more problem solving than an LLM-brained person.
But we need to take into account that the folded 2 ply becomes an effective 4 ply, so you're getting more ply per penny
That's needlessly complicated.
If you're folding the 2-ply, you only get 165 wipes. So divide 70 by 165 to get 0.42 cents a wipe
Now the 3-ply is 300 wipes, so divide 120 by 300 to get 40 cents a wipe
The cheap stuff is more expensive.
I can't easily divide 70 by 165 in my head tho
I carry a calculator at all times. My math teachers were wrong.
Not folding 3-ply is asking for added expenses in the form of water and soap though... Push right through em
The ply count doesn't reflect thickness or softness at all. Of the 3-ply toilet papers I've used at home, some need three layers to not fall apart on the first wipe, others are fine with a single sheet.
Feel like bidet's must be accounted for if we gonna start the math justifications
It hurts my brain to do it that way.
300 sheets for 1.2 is a nice division by .6: 500 sheets for $2. So now all we gotta do is multiply by .7 to get 350 sheets for 1.40.
Considering the fold, we are at 330 effective sheets for 1.40. 350 > 330, get the 3 ply (lol).
This is a little bit funky obviously and just works because of seeing a divisor. If not for that I would have tried once each way to get cost per full effective sheet or cost per half effective sheet to see which one has nicer numbers.
... Or just open the calculator app.
I've had the calculator open for 15 minutes but nothing is happening, is it broken? Help?
Funny how brains can work so differently lol