icxa

Then I am happy to say I am happy for their recent changes, this certainly wasn’t the case a few years ago when I wrote them off, and even more not the case 10 years ago when I was still in the industry. I think it should be promoted as an example that consumer pressure and expectations can cause companies to change for the better.

I will say I remain skeptical on exactly how they can go from the ammonia wash + chemical food flavoring process to using fresh beef and not have any discernible difference in taste or food safety, but kudos to them.

Full disclaimer: Info coming from a variety of sources: some documentaries which I know have their own inaccuracies, some my own personal experience in food service, and specifically working at McDonalds, and some having an ex-girlfriend of 3 years who was the district manager of another international large fast food burger chain, so by chance that gleaned me a lot of insight into the inner workings of fast food burger chains (he was previously a DM of several Golden Arches)

I haven't read this page recently (it certainly has changed much), but on skimming through, none of the terminology McDonalds uses on their website are meaningful in the sense that the standards there is no official definition and could not be distinguished between similar competitors that make similar claims besides simply what they say, and, more importantly, there is no regulated term between what constitutes beef being “pure” or “not pure” or otherwise put. It’s just some “thing” they say about their beef and we have to take them up on their word. Now if they said “we use USDA organic ground beef” that might have some teeth. It’s the same thing between a bag of candy telling you they no longer use artificial flavors and now use “natural” flavors.

Now the question of do I believe they have changed? Possibly. Do the burgers taste different? No, so common sense tells me you don’t drastically change your process like this and still get the same tasting burger from 20 years ago.

But I will actually do something uncommon here and admit I could be wrong, and have an outdated understanding of their process.

Because the meat you buy in the grocery store goes bad after a few days, and (here is where I think parent is being slightly intellectually dishonest) while it is true that the fast food companies certainly source their meats from authentic, standard-holding institutions, that's only the beginning. That isn't to say the rounds of processing and preservation that occurs afterwards. You can't just buy a McDonalds chicken nugget off the shelf. Sure the inputs are the same, but the outputs are vastly different, and that's where the perceived difference in quality comes from. Fast food optimizes for longentivity, ease of cooking so they can reduce the labor costs associated in preparing that meat, and eliminating sanitation issues so they reduce their total liability and loss around food borne illnesses so they can reduce the labor costs associated in preparing that meat for you. That is why McDonalds undergoes the painstaking process of sanitizing their meat with an ammonia wash (prompted by the 90's nationwide beef e-coli outbreaks that resulted in serious litigation against popular burger joints), then adding in artificial flavorings back in to make it taste like a burger again (furthermore this is how McDonalds achieves that "miraculous" feat often described here when this topic comes up of having their burgers taste the same and have the same consistent product everywhere for over 20 years).

Tl:dr; yes it is true, inputs are the same as what you get in the store, but the outputs are vastly different. You have to factor in additives and preservation process. There really is a simple "sniff" test/heuristic I have developed after my decades in food service, and it's not really a secret, but seems like some aren't in on it, and it goes like this: If it goes bad, it's good, if it doesn't go bad, it isn't good. (Good is obviously subjective here, so my criteria is obviously "real" food in the sense that it is minimally processed and preserved and minimal chemical additives)

> "it becomes incumbent on the researcher to explain why no-one has noticed this before"

Farmer: huh, we'll I'll be damned. Who in the hell woulda thought to feed them seaweed."

Careful having extreme stances on things. Packaged water keeps many people alive during times of natural disasters or crises. Volunteers flock in and one of the first items brought in is bottled water. It was a lifeline for many people during the Flint water crisis. Finally it serves an overall utility of giving people another choice at the vending machine. It sounds silly to you and me as well, but it has a real impact on public health.

So why rust then? Rust does not have a specification and it is currently still under heavy development, with many changes to the language expected to come out in the years to come. As many have put it before me, all of rust is technically undefined behavior. Change my mind -- I like the language, but I prefer those that have specifications and have multiple implementations so that the behavior is verified.

I'm pretty up to date on the science myself, and I still consider myself anti-GMO for a host of reasons, little to do with the science. My objections are more philosophical.

two primary reasons: hubris and greed.

The hubris to think we know which varietals are the best and will continue to be the best. We may go all in on one species or variant and then turns out an unknown bacteria we have previously no clue about wipes out all of them. You never know, you need variety. Bacteria outnumber us all.

number two: greed. You worried about tech being consolidated into the big 5? how about this scientific research? you want our food, something we actually depend on, to be consolidated into 2-3 chemical companies? I don't.

Smaller reasons include: the power of being able to still survive on pure nature's means, and the freedom to do so. We don't realize it, but these things we do out here in the more advanced nations greatly impact the developing world, where a large portion of the world's population exists.

The counter-example to this is github, and obviously basecamp, however.

My spitball opinion on that: we had diversity in America during the beginning of the industrial age that we heavily relied on for it's host of benefits, innovation primarily as well, but it didn't create the conflict (conflict theory terms) we see today because you were expected to integrate (conform) to be "American", which was a shared set of values and beliefs. America is still today one of the few geopolitical distinctions today that is solely demarcated as such by subscribing to a fundamental set of beliefs, rather than by blood as you have in most other countries in the world, especially in Europe. America is chiefly an idea, and by believing in that ideal, you gain the entire inheritance.

This is something that is continually being eroded unfortunately, especially as we continually descend into more and more hyphenated subgroups of Americans, rather than just focusing on what makes us simply Americans, but something we should still strive for.

(And I know you will get downvoted for posting about Robert Putnam research here because it appears to come off as a knock against diversity, even though Putnam himself said his research actually affirms the benefits of diversity)

"A utility-first CSS framework for rapidly building custom designs."

It's an excellent description in of it's own, but if I were to attempt to put it in other terms, it allows you to compose css components and classes out of other smaller, essentially one liner css classes, while maintaining a consistent styling and spacing across the different utilities, which you define up front using the config but also comes with good defaults out of the box.

It is excellent and now my preferred method for hacking up a new site. It also helps you think about your design system overall so now I find myself paying attention to things up front I would normally wouldn't and it ends up saving me time in the long run. It also pairs really well with the excellent Refactoring UI book.

Hi Liam, I think the comment captures the essence of what feedback I would have and I am not interested in providing anymore feedback, no offense I am busy, but appreciate your willingness to learn and grow, sounds like the company could have used a few more people like you at the time I interviewed (was 2 years ago now).