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

DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 252 posts

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#241

Post by vilmosi »

inimino wrote: post #240
vilmosi wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking me if the 50% figure is accurate? Because it is.

No. I'll try again. If you order a salad and eat the greens, but not the dressing served on the side, you just wasted 90% of the calories. See the point?

It's not trying again if you keep changing the point.

Is your problem that I used calories as a way to measure the value of the food?

Should I have used price? That's not valid in my opinion. Wasting a spoonful of expensive caviar is not as bad as wasting 10 kg of rice. And I have no problem people wasting their money.

I just don't get your point. Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?

PS: If your salad's calories is 90% from oil, you're using too much oil.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#242

Post by inimino »

vilmosi wrote: post #241
inimino wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'll try again. If you order a salad and eat the greens, but not the dressing served on the side, you just wasted 90% of the calories. See the point?

It's not trying again if you keep changing the point. Is your problem that I used calories as a way to measure the value of the food? Should I have used price? That's not valid in my opinion. Wasting a spoonful of expensive caviar is not as bad as wasting 10 kg of rice. And I have no problem people wasting their money. I just don't get your point. Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering someth…

> Should I have used price?

Yes.

> Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?

Obviously, the OP who explained that they do it that way doesn't see it as wasteful. Neither do I.

The cost of a hamburger is about 1/3 cost of ingredients and 2/3 everything else, including labor to serve it to you. Of the ingredients, it's the beef, then the tomato, lettuce, etc, and the bun is basically free.

Most restaurants that serve hamburgers have an ordering system that is streamlined for the kind of burgers people order. By the way, a burger is a kind of sandwich and by definition includes the bun. Try ordering a burger with no bun at a McDonald's and see how much extra time it takes, and what kind of looks you get from the people serving you and the people in line behind you.

If you think that throwing away 100 calories and $0.05 worth of bread is wasteful, it's only because you're ignoring the time and energy of the people that are being saved.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#243

Post by vilmosi »

inimino wrote: post #242
vilmosi wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not trying again if you keep changing the point. Is your problem that I used calories as a way to measure the value of the food? Should I have used price? That's not valid in my opinion. Wasting a spoonful of expensive caviar is not as bad as wasting 10 kg of rice. And I have no problem people wasting their money. I just don't get your point. Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering someth…

> Should I have used price? Yes. > Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful? Obviously, the OP who explained that they do it that way doesn't see it as wasteful. Neither do I. The cost of a hamburger is about 1/3 cost of ingredients and 2/3 everything else, including labor to serve it to you. Of…

Well I'm glad I understood where we disagree.

I think nutritional waste is worse than wasting money, you obviously think the opposite. I also think it's worse to order something to throw it away deliberately.

I guess the old saying "agree to disagree" applies.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#244

Post by inimino »

vilmosi wrote: post #243
inimino wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should I have used price? Yes. > Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful? Obviously, the OP who explained that they do it that way doesn't see it as wasteful. Neither do I. The cost of a hamburger is about 1/3 cost of ingredients and 2/3 everything else, including labor to serve it to you. Of…

Well I'm glad I understood where we disagree. I think nutritional waste is worse than wasting money, you obviously think the opposite. I also think it's worse to order something to throw it away deliberately. I guess the old saying "agree to disagree" applies.

> you obviously think the opposite

If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.

If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.

However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice, so yes, wasting the money is worse, but that's not really what I am getting at here.

What we're talking about is whether you will inconvenience others to save some trivial amount of food. My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop. The money is just one way of measuring it.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#245

Post by kwhitefoot »

karthikb wrote: post #48
angry_octet wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You win the NASA award for mixing metric and imperial in the most nonsensical way.

Most food labeling in the US is done this way. Gross measures (total volume, weight, etc) are in imperial while the nutrition facts are in metric. So milk will say, serving size 12 Oz, protein XX g.

It's not Imperial, it is US Customary. Fluid measures in particular have different definitions.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#246

Post by vilmosi »

inimino wrote: post #244
vilmosi wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I'm glad I understood where we disagree. I think nutritional waste is worse than wasting money, you obviously think the opposite. I also think it's worse to order something to throw it away deliberately. I guess the old saying "agree to disagree" applies.

> you obviously think the opposite If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money. If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same. However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice, so yes, wasting the money is worse, but that's not really what I am getting at here. What we're talking about is whether you will inconvenience…

>>> If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.

As I said, I don't care about wasting money. Do so as you wish.

>>> If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.

Yeah, economically speaking. But you are literally wasting more food in this case, and for no good reason other than people literally having to do their job.

>>> However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice

You are not donating anything in this conversation! It's not like he's donating the bun to anyone. You are comparing wasting a bun vs wasting rice. It's still a waste, and one is worse than the other, for the same price. You don't feel that wasting 100g of kobe beef is less worse than wasting 100 kg of generic beef?

>>> My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop.

They literally have to do less work.

Finally, what is your point?!?! That is ok to waste food intentionally? Seriously?! Even if it's a trivial amount in money, you realise it adds up, right? It's a real problem, and it's not a financial problem. Are you just being a contrarian for no good reason? Is "agree to disagree" not good enough for you?

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#247

Post by inimino »

vilmosi wrote: post #246
inimino wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you obviously think the opposite If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money. If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same. However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice, so yes, wasting the money is worse, but that's not really what I am getting at here. What we're talking about is whether you will inconvenience…

>>> If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money. As I said, I don't care about wasting money. Do so as you wish. >>> If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same. Yeah, economically speaking. But you are literally wasting more food in this case, and for no good reason other than people literally having to do their job. >>> However, there are plenty of ways to donate the d…

You seemed a bit morally outraged that someone would waste a hamburger bun rather than the alternative which is to waste people's time.

My point? Instead of just applying a rule (wasting food is bad) you should holistically consider the results before judging someone else's choice.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#248

Post by andai »

maxerickson wrote: post #85
andai wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you have a point in there somewhere. Would you like to share it?

Zing! I personally don't care about chickens, they are basically a moving vegetable to me. But we don't pull chickens out of a magic chicken tube, we grow them in huge barns, with a great deal of intention.

I guess my comment came across as rude, I didn't mean it that way.

I originally wrote a reply something along the lines of "I hear that argument a lot: if we didn't raise animals for food they wouldn't even be born!"

But I thought it would be better to ask you to clarify rather than respond based on an assumption.

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#249

Post by andai »

lotharbot wrote: post #104
andai wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ITT: triggered carnivores

you should scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the "rules" link, and familiarize yourself with our community expectations.

My apologies. Which guideline do you feel that I have strayed from?

Re: DNA tests show Subway sandwiches could contain just 50% chicken

#250

Post by lotharbot »

andai wrote: post #249
lotharbot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you should scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the "rules" link, and familiarize yourself with our community expectations.

My apologies. Which guideline do you feel that I have strayed from?

Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Post reply on HN