As you know, the Apollo Moon program, among other benefits, resulted in the creation of devices that were capable of measuring fun more accurately than the previous device, the Barrel of Monkeys. Thus, the “Fun Size” candy bar demonstrated that the size of fun is about 1" x 2.5" x .75" (2.54cm x 6.35cm x 1.91cm). An alarming trend has been the shrinking size of fun, which some say stem from refinement of the accuracy of fun-measuring devices (and introduction of new devices such as the Electron Funometer), some say are based on social aspects (indicating that “fun” and the size thereof may be an artifact of social conventions - studies being done in vastly dissimilar cultural environments are testing this theory), and some, more ‘fringe’ theorists say that this indicates a basic fault at the core of modern physics.
As interesting as this is, that’s not the point of this message. Having measured the size of fun, why have we not turned our attention towards other entities? Why no “Despair-Sized Snickers Bar”? What would the dimensions of such an object be? How many “Ennui-Sized Milky Ways” would it take to equal one “Pandemonium-Sized 3 Musketeers”?
And why are products other than candy bars not dispensed in Fun units? Perhaps we enter into the metaphysical realm here, but would a fun-sized, say, automobile have the same dimensions as a fun-sized Snickers? Or would its measurements merely be in the same proportion?
Also, if “bigger” is indeed “better”, what are the implications of “Fun-Sized” candy being smaller than its normal-sized brethren? Is this a case of “less is more”, a Philip Glass-style-minimalism designed to reduce the object to the absolute essence of fun? (Ironic, since many people don’t regard minilamlism as fun.) If so, what does that say about normal-sized candy bars? If they’re not fun, what are they? Why are they dispensed instead of their more fun counterparts? Or is it that case that a normal Snickers bar, at a size approximately 2.5 times that of a fun-sized one, is, ipso facto, 2.5 times as fun?
(Please note this is all genuine speculation on my part and NOT a “help me do my homework” thread!)
Pshaw. If they really made a “fun-size” candy, it’d be a HELLUVA lot bigger than what they’re putting out.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Rethinking it, though, if it was any bigger, I might have to refer to it as “orgasmic-sized” or something on a grander scale than just “fun”.
At any rate, those little fun-sized dealies really translate into “let’s whet scout’s appetite so she then shovels about 20 of us down her gullet” size.
The “fun sizing” of candy bars is, in all actuality, an attempt by the candy makers to increase their profits. For example, downstairs in the cafeteria the small “fun size” Peppermint Patties (aka Manna From Heaven) cost .15. I would need to buy 5 of these “fun size” bars (.75) to get the equivalent amount of “the sensation” that I get from buying one regular size PP (cost .66). That’s .09 of my hard earned money for an equivalent amount of blindingly white peppermint covered in dark chocolate. This, sir, is an outrage of the first order and you rest assured that I have already voiced my displeasure with the proper authorities.
If the President REALLY wanted to create an economic stimulus package worth the name, he’d see to it that I got to keep my .09.
Although, if you think about it, plnnr, you are getting more delightful dark chocolate per unit consumed. Perhaps the higher cost is justified… IME, the chocolate is the most expensive part of any candymaking enterprise (I have tried making peppermint patties, they were ok.)
plnnr, according to your remarks on size/cost, the “fun size” may in fact be referred to as “exploitation size” in the industry.
I might theorize somewhere, someone did research on the topic and discovered that it is indeed “fun” to open candy wrappers. If this is the case, then opening more candy wrappers for approximately the same amount of candy as is held in a single wrapper would be more fun.
Well, Lego, this is just another instance of the “Joy Compression Algorithm” at work.
Just as electronic images can be converted from Bitmap to JPEG form to utilize less memory space, so to can happiness be converted to the more compact and convenient “Fun Size” through the use of the JCA.
Let us take a moment and envision happiness as a long series of ones and zeros – err… On second thought, don’t bother. It’s a pointless thing to do.
Anyway, using the Joy Compression Algorithm a long, untidy string of bliss can be compacted down to a much more managable “Fun Size” with only an acceptable loss of resolution. In this way, shipping costs are reduced to a minimum, and it saves on landfill space after the joy dissolves into it’s base components: Desire and Ennui.
Granted, a great many people haven’t upgraded to the latest version of decompiler software, leading to so much unhappiness these days. Still, I think it’s available from ZD Net.
Also, you might be interested to know that Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have managed to compress an individuals sense of self-worth onto a microchip the size of a grain of rice!
That’s so that those of us with LardAsses can eat them without feeling as guilty. With full-size candy bars, after you eat one there is a minimum time before you can eat a second one without experiencing LardAss Guilt. This LAG time varies with each person and is usually related to the size of your LardAss, the presence of others, and the length of time since you have been reminded, either by a health care professional, your SO, the difficulty you have fitting clothes over your LardAss, or recent attempts to get your LardAss out of your chair.
With the LardAss size bag of Fun-size candies, this LAG time is decreased by the smaller size of each individual candy and the amount of time spent unwrapping each individual candy. These factors permit the possessor of a LardAss to justify the consumption of a larger quantity of candy; such phrases as “extra energy consumed in unwrapping each piece” and “look how small they are” are often heard. The “potato chip” syndrome (colloquially referred to as “betcha can’t eat just one”) should also be considered.
The above information is based on extensive annual studies conducted during the pre- and post-Halloween periods, when LardAss size bags of Fun-sized candies are available at substantially reduced rates. Federal funding for continual year-round studies has been requested, and private contributions are gratefully accepted.
Proportion has to enter into it, although the proliferation and popularity of Hot Wheels[sup]TM[/sup] and Matchbox[sup]TM[/sup]-sized cars shows that toys the size of fun-sized Snickers contain their quotient of fun.
That being said, it should be obvious that, where practical motorized vehicles are concerned, a smaller-proportioned vehicle has a higher Fun Utilization (FU) Ratio than larger cars. SUVs notwithstanding, it has long been proven that the sight of clowns clambering out of a pocket-sized car is fun.
Were they to pile out of a mini-van or a Greyhound bus, the FU would be drastically minimized.
NASA has it all wrong as demonstrated by P. J. Witherspoon of UCLA (www.ucla.edu/physics/~pjwither/docs/pub/funkey.shtml).
The basic unit of fun measurement is, and always has been, the barrel. The more units within the barrel is proportional to the amount of fun (following a pseudo-logarithmic sigmoid curve). Hence, a barrel full of snickers bars is more fun than a barrel full of basketballs, which is more fun than a barrel full of large monkeys.
When the object is larger than a barrel, then the rule follows an hyperbolic tangent across the z axis. This explains why driving an SUV is fun, but only for the driver. It is annoying to everyone else (the fun value crosses zero and becomes negative). A space shuttle launch is fun to a lot of people, but only for a short time and it really pisses off the nearby birds. Don’t hold me responsible for these ideas, I’m just explaining the Witherspoon Equivalency.
In the case of Fun, metaphysically speaking, smallness is paramount.
Think of it this way.
I do something that is worth roughly .5" x 2" x .75" enjoyment. While this is amusing, it cannot be truly considered “Fun,” as such. But, if I have enjoyment the size of a breadbox, I will have had Fun. Unfortunately, the tricky thing about Fun is that, no matter how much enjoyment one gets out of an activity, one can never have more than one Fun.
Ever hear of someone having “Funs?” Of course not.
We see now that the limit in quantity of Fun is strictly one.
Now that there is no way to achieve multiple Funs, the only deliniation acceptable is the dichotomy between Fun and No Fun.
It is in humanity’s nature to have as much collective fun as possible. That is why we have socially constructed the size of Fun to be as small as possible without compromising the integrity of Fun. It is, therefore, a good thing that Fun would be so small. Otherwise, less activities would achieve this bar, and we would be unhappier.
Try this experiment. Eat a “Fun Size” candy bar one small bite at a time. After each bite, analyze whether or not you are having Fun eating it. I guarantee you that, when you get to the last bite, then and only then will you have had Fun.
Because of trademarks and such, only Mars candies can be called Fun Size. Maybe that has something to do with it. And the opposite of Fun Size is King Size.
I have to disagree with the premise of this question. It is impossible to make comparisons across incommensurable units such as these. No number of Musketeers could be said to equal a single Milky Way, nor vice versa. However, I believe that the correct Ennui-Pandemonium conversion rate is 7:1 (7 Ennui-Sized Milky Ways for 1 Pandemonium-Sized Milky Way).
I have great respect for the makers of MicroMachines[sup]TM[/sup], who attempted to push the levels of fun to their limits. During their quest, they discovered that fun is not static, but rather dynamic. That is why rapid speech is able to increase the fun level of their product. This principle holds most strongly for vehicles, for which the fun dynamic is essential. This fun-enhancing technique has caught on among other sellers of automobiles, however, it is more effective when the vehicle is more diminutive.
