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

Fries of the Future

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Fries of the Future

#41

Post by a_c »

khrbrt wrote: post #21
a_c wrote: post #10

Can someone be kind enough to provide a TL;DR

People are downvoting but I appreciate this request because the transcript is very disorienting to read. Planet Money used to be a great source for learning about the economy but has recently become unlistenable. For example, I tried listening to their Halloween episode about recessions but gave up after ten minutes of bad jokes and audio "fluff".

I appreciate very much for the summary, thank you! For one, I haven't heard about Planet Money before. You summary gave me context what the post is about and I subscribed to the podcast because of your reply. I bet many others would find it useful too. Thanks again!

Re: Fries of the Future

#42

Post by paranoidrobot »

I've experienced lots of limp-chip scenario in delivered food.

I find it's worst with American McDonalds-style french fries - they're very thin, and steam themselves into a soggy mess very quickly, pretty much no-matter what happens.

Australian/English style chips seem to have a better longevity if they're cooked properly (double-fried, and a more developed golden colour than pale/white). The best chips for delivery are battered (light tempura style), although it's rare to find them. They remain crisp and crunchy even long after they've gotten cold.

Packaging is also a serious concern, too - plastics are right out, as steam will be trapped and condense on them much more rapidly - even if the packaging isn't closed tightly. Paper or cardboard are best. Foil can be okay as a backup option for a short period, if it's kept hot.

Re: Fries of the Future

#43

Post by [deleted] »

nradov wrote: post #38
etagobla wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fat scare is far from over. Not everyone spends time on Hacker News or controversial diet channels on youtube. Moreover, nutrition is a lot more complex than "fad in, fad out". The subcutaneous fat of an animal can hold some pretty toxic stuff -- that's kind of its purpose. It wasn't a scare, people were just missing nuance and still more research needs to be done.

Which toxins does subcutaneous beef fat contain in signification concentrations?

[deleted]

Re: Fries of the Future

#44

Post by Richard_East »

You can make french fries incredibly easily at home, using just a microwave. They taste a lot better than anything bought commercially.

Just buy a big potatoe, cut it into thin strips. Place it on a regular dinner plate. Add seasoning. Microwave for 5 minutes.

Take out, shuffle the strips around, add oil (regular olive oil works fine) and normal, non-processed cheese. Microwave for another 3 minutes. Its done when you can poke a fork through the fry without any resistance.

Total prep time: about 10 minutes.

Re: Fries of the Future

#45

Post by Cougher »

etagobla wrote: post #36
khrbrt wrote: post #22

Malcom Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast did an episode[0] awhile back on how much better McDonalds fries tasted when they were cooked in beef tallow. Now that the "fat scare" of the 90s is over, would this be a good time to switch back? I don't know if frying in tallow improves their longevity, but it may be worth trying instead of yet another chemical additive. [0] http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/19-mcd…

The fat scare is far from over. Not everyone spends time on Hacker News or controversial diet channels on youtube. Moreover, nutrition is a lot more complex than "fad in, fad out". The subcutaneous fat of an animal can hold some pretty toxic stuff -- that's kind of its purpose. It wasn't a scare, people were just missing nuance and still more research needs to be done.

"It wasn't a scare, people were just missing nuance"

This reads like post-hoc rationalization about the claim (scare) that saturated fat causes heart disease, because that's what the scare was about. As far as toxins in fat goes, the primary toxin that I've seen discussed is dioxin and that scare tactic is sorely missing nuance.

Re: Fries of the Future

#46

Post by krallja »

khrbrt wrote: post #21
a_c wrote: post #10

Can someone be kind enough to provide a TL;DR

People are downvoting but I appreciate this request because the transcript is very disorienting to read. Planet Money used to be a great source for learning about the economy but has recently become unlistenable. For example, I tried listening to their Halloween episode about recessions but gave up after ten minutes of bad jokes and audio "fluff".

Their Halloween episodes have always been campy and difficult to listen to. This year’s was especially bad...bad...bad.... rewind noises

Re: Fries of the Future

#47

Post by etagobla »

Cougher wrote: post #45
etagobla wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fat scare is far from over. Not everyone spends time on Hacker News or controversial diet channels on youtube. Moreover, nutrition is a lot more complex than "fad in, fad out". The subcutaneous fat of an animal can hold some pretty toxic stuff -- that's kind of its purpose. It wasn't a scare, people were just missing nuance and still more research needs to be done.

"It wasn't a scare, people were just missing nuance" This reads like post-hoc rationalization about the claim (scare) that saturated fat causes heart disease, because that's what the scare was about. As far as toxins in fat goes, the primary toxin that I've seen discussed is dioxin and that scare tactic is sorely missing nuance.

I'm willing to wager that we thought saturated fat was bad for a very good reason, and it's not one of the reasons touted by people who want to eat deep fried bacon wrapped hot dogs for every meal. My first thought when someone calls a scientific consensus a scare is that they have an agenda. You'll see similar language in climate change denial. Yes, new data comes out and some theories are shown to not be perfect, but if you're getting your education from internet memes and hacker forums and scattered papers you're going to draw conclusions that miss things. It's also a matter of whether whichever studies are being touted right now are representative of the larger scientific landscape.

Re: Fries of the Future

#48

Post by trianglem »

Richard_East wrote: post #44

You can make french fries incredibly easily at home, using just a microwave. They taste a lot better than anything bought commercially. Just buy a big potatoe, cut it into thin strips. Place it on a regular dinner plate. Add seasoning. Microwave for 5 minutes. Take out, shuffle the strips around, add oil (regular olive oil works fine) and normal, non-processed cheese. Microwave for another 3 minutes. Its done when yo…

Why are you adding the cheese?

Re: Fries of the Future

#49

Post by ecf »

Richard_East wrote: post #44

You can make french fries incredibly easily at home, using just a microwave. They taste a lot better than anything bought commercially. Just buy a big potatoe, cut it into thin strips. Place it on a regular dinner plate. Add seasoning. Microwave for 5 minutes. Take out, shuffle the strips around, add oil (regular olive oil works fine) and normal, non-processed cheese. Microwave for another 3 minutes. Its done when yo…

Those sound like baked potato strips.

Re: Fries of the Future

#50

Post by Cougher »

etagobla wrote: post #47
Cougher wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It wasn't a scare, people were just missing nuance" This reads like post-hoc rationalization about the claim (scare) that saturated fat causes heart disease, because that's what the scare was about. As far as toxins in fat goes, the primary toxin that I've seen discussed is dioxin and that scare tactic is sorely missing nuance.

I'm willing to wager that we thought saturated fat was bad for a very good reason, and it's not one of the reasons touted by people who want to eat deep fried bacon wrapped hot dogs for every meal. My first thought when someone calls a scientific consensus a scare is that they have an agenda. You'll see similar language in climate change denial. Yes, new data comes out and some theories are shown to not be perfect, b…

That's an interesting mix of red herrings and what I'm going to call Cougher's Law: as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving climate change approaches 1. The good news is that your red herrings are low in saturated fat, so you can use them to your heart's content rather than to its detriment.
Post reply on HN