Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wasted in San Francisco

ediblesanfrancisco.ediblefeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#51

Post by khedoros »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #46
khedoros wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an overly broad definition: Someone who is not only counterculture, but who wants you to know exactly how counterculture they are. It's a fuzzy word with a fuzzy definition, and it doesn't mean quite the same thing to everyone. I think you know that, though.

Your definition sounds like it could be inspired more by pop culture or caricatures rather than by actual human beings.

Exaggeration is a valid rhetorical device. Why, what does "hipster" mean to you? What are the characteristics you think of when you hear it?

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#52

Post by [deleted] »

Fricken wrote: post #48

Boy, we're pretty bent out of shape about our food. Before we can legitimately ask ourselves 'how can we waste less food', we first need to ask 'What is food for?' The simple answer is that food provides us with the energy and nutrition we need to survive; but of course, if you take a look around it's pretty obvious we dedicate a tremendous amount of time and energy to eating that extends well beyond basic sustenance…

[deleted]

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#53

Post by pjlegato »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #28
scaddison wrote: post #9

Paying more for scraps than for fresh food? Absolutely ridiculous. Leave it to SF hipsters to be into this kind of thing, especially while talking about how "green" and "eco-friendly" they are.

What's the definition of a hipster? Someone you disagree with?

A rather thorough and objective characterization is available at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-...

A personality affectation characterized by the adoption of outmoded fashions, faux nostalgia for things and eras the hipster never themselves experienced, ostentatious self-awareness and histrionic introspection designed to showcase the hipster's own moral superiority relative to mainstream society, and above all irony as the sole mode of existence, the denial of the possibility of authentic non-referential experience, and the pervasive implicit and explicit ridicule of those who think that authentic, non-ironic, non-referential experience is possible.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#54

Post by brian-armstrong »

khedoros wrote: post #51
brian-armstrong wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition sounds like it could be inspired more by pop culture or caricatures rather than by actual human beings.

Exaggeration is a valid rhetorical device. Why, what does "hipster" mean to you? What are the characteristics you think of when you hear it?

It doesn't mean anything to me. The word has been abused and stretched so far beyond whatever context it originally came from that it seems completely meaningless.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#55

Post by lifeformed »

prawn wrote: post #39
eloisant wrote: post #12

Just start by giving smaller servings. Really, the size of servings in US is ridiculous, who is supposed to finish that?

One problem is that restaurants have no incentive to serve modestly sized, affordable meals. No one raves about a restaurant because it served "just enough to fill me up". No restaurant would ever advertise "reasonably sized plates". Restaurants with small servings are focusing on quality and charging accordingly, or pushing 5+ courses. Even if a restaurant charged two-thirds the price for appropriately sized meals,…

There's a restaurant in Portland called Little Big Burger. It has $4 burgers that are fairly small, but are made of high quality ingredients you'd find in a fancier restaurant's big $10 burgers. And it's still enough food for a serving if you get fries with it.

It's be cool to see more places like that: small portions but using the extra cost savings for higher quality food.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#56

Post by b6 »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #54
khedoros wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exaggeration is a valid rhetorical device. Why, what does "hipster" mean to you? What are the characteristics you think of when you hear it?

It doesn't mean anything to me. The word has been abused and stretched so far beyond whatever context it originally came from that it seems completely meaningless.

Let's please try to use language more precisely. Are you really suggesting "hipster" is "completely meaningless"? I mean, it's not completely meaningless when a baby gurgles. Do a Google Images search and let your mind do its magic.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#57

Post by frgewut »

jbmorgado wrote: post #23
Nadya wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size of serving vs actual serving sizes In many countries they have smaller servings - but it's typical to eat 2-3 servings. In the US we often have larger servings (equivalent to 2-3 servings) but only eat the one. Having traveled quite a bit, the largest discrepancy in serving sizes I've noticed is that the US really likes drinks. Especially sodas and especially 60oz sodas. Everywhere I go gives me a "kids sized" c…

What? That's simply not true, I've traveled through almost all of Europe and even lived in some of those places and nowhere it was "normal" to get 2-3 servings.

In Eastern Europe you often would get an entree (soup or salad), main dish and dessert.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#58

Post by vertex-four »

batiudrami wrote: post #50
vertex-four wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to do with serving sizes as listed on boxes, but I believe the amount of food that regularly winds up on a plate in the US is more than what we get elsewhere - especially at home. Or so I've been told.

Definitely true - it took me a while to realise that nobody expects you to eat an entire meal in the US - it's there to ensure you go hungry. In Australia, going out to dinner usually means two or three of an entreee (starter), main and dessert. Fast food portions are huge though - in the US my girlfriend and I would get a burger each and share a small chips and drink.

In the UK, when I go out to eat food, I'll occasionally have a starter before my main, and nearly always end up stuffed. It's a lot more food than what we eat at home.

Re: Wasted in San Francisco

#60

Post by gbin »

agentgt wrote: post #33
cgh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience of French food is exactly the opposite. Meat is central, with some vegetables on the side. There is a lot of fat in the form of oil and cheese. Carbs, such as bread, are side dishes at best. In fact, I struggle to think of a French meal that isn't animal product-centred (I'm including fish, eggs, snails etc.) The biggest difference is they have smaller portions and way fewer carbs. You won't go out for…

Well I'm not French and I was just vacationing but this is what I saw: * French eating/dining is extremely bakery heavy. * Every meal bread is served and lots of it (most Americans think white bread is the worse thing you can eat) * In the morning I witnessed both in Paris and Nice consumption of pastries and not meat for breakfast * At lunch I saw most eating sandwiches. Sandwiches with tomato and cheeses. If there…

I am French living in SF and oh damned I miss eating a fresh, still hot out of the oven Parisian baguette.
Post reply on HN