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

The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

govexec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#181

Post by tjoff »

emodendroket wrote: post #180
tjoff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What article? Seems quite unlikely given that it apparently is too hot to do the opposite anyway.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... > McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[12] However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research findin…

The [22] source doesn't say anything about that research. But a commuter is a very specific customer and hardly represents all customers.

Further, I'm guessing but doubt that commuters wouldn't go to mcd just for coffee, whatever breakfast(?) maybe didn't last long enough for it to cool down. Sure, but that all depends.

And apparently, commuters didn't mind enough to find something else.

Part from safety issues I haven't really seen any convincing argument against "too hot" coffee.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#182

Post by emodendroket »

tjoff wrote: post #181
emodendroket wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... > McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[12] However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research findin…

The [22] source doesn't say anything about that research. But a commuter is a very specific customer and hardly represents all customers. Further, I'm guessing but doubt that commuters wouldn't go to mcd just for coffee, whatever breakfast(?) maybe didn't last long enough for it to cool down. Sure, but that all depends. And apparently, commuters didn't mind enough to find something else. Part from safety issues I hav…

Isn’t a commuter the typical customer buying coffee at a drive-through?

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#183

Post by emodendroket »

SilasX wrote: post #178
roflyear wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, here's the facts: when I make coffee at home, it is brewed at 200ish F. That is true. When I make tea tho it's like 170ishf. By the time I am ready to consume (post brewing) both are still not, but consumable, so I think it is safe to say that they won't burn me, at least very badly, if spilled on me.

And if you served them to a guest, right after preparing for yourself, it will be before it’s cooled down enough to drink. That doesn’t make it your fault if they spill it on themselves and fuse their labia. And it doesn’t make the grossness of the accident into prima facia evidence of the culpability of any one party up the line, as it’s always presented in these discussions.

I can’t speak for the other guy but I don’t pour tea for myself or others until it’s cooled down considerably, and also in this scenario we’re not giving the guest the beverage in a paper cup they’re meant to consume in their car.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#184

Post by SilasX »

emodendroket wrote: post #183
SilasX wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you served them to a guest, right after preparing for yourself, it will be before it’s cooled down enough to drink. That doesn’t make it your fault if they spill it on themselves and fuse their labia. And it doesn’t make the grossness of the accident into prima facia evidence of the culpability of any one party up the line, as it’s always presented in these discussions.

I can’t speak for the other guy but I don’t pour tea for myself or others until it’s cooled down considerably, and also in this scenario we’re not giving the guest the beverage in a paper cup they’re meant to consume in their car.

We're not talking about idiosyncratic special cases here, we're talking about the norm. That's why I provided a citation rather than building a case off of a particular individual's routine. From the link:

"Black and oolong teas are generally steeped in hot or boiling water (about 210º F) and brewed for about 4-5 minutes. Green tea is steeped at a slightly lower temperature 180º F from 4-15 minutes. The longer tea steeps, the stronger the flavor with bitter notes."

And I don't think anyone recommends you put hot beverages in your crotch area.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#185

Post by emodendroket »

SilasX wrote: post #184
emodendroket wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak for the other guy but I don’t pour tea for myself or others until it’s cooled down considerably, and also in this scenario we’re not giving the guest the beverage in a paper cup they’re meant to consume in their car.

We're not talking about idiosyncratic special cases here, we're talking about the norm. That's why I provided a citation rather than building a case off of a particular individual's routine. From the link: "Black and oolong teas are generally steeped in hot or boiling water (about 210º F) and brewed for about 4-5 minutes. Green tea is steeped at a slightly lower temperature 180º F from 4-15 minutes. The longer tea st…

OK but that tells me nothing about serving? Do you expect a plate of pasta to be served in boiling water?

It also seems clear to me that one should take into account that someone is having the drink in the car and not at the table if you’re operating a drive-through restaurant.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#186

Post by lmm »

db48x wrote: post #170
lmm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was purely a stunt for the congresscritter in question; they were not fooled into thinking that the hammer had really cost that much. As far as I can tell the hammer "really did" cost that much in every meaningful sense. The government's accounting said they'd paid $435 for a hammer and they didn't have a problem with that. Whether the government was getting ripped off by some dude buying a hammer at a hardware…

No, it really wasn’t outrageous. It was bad accounting, but not an outrageous waste of money. They were essentially building repair kits that could be shipped off to military bases and used to maintain particular pieces of equipment. The contractor bought the tools and spare parts in bulk, marshaled them all at some warehouse somewhere, and then broke down the bulk items into individual kits. A palette full of hammer…

> Then whoever did the bookkeeping recorded it as if they had purchased COTS items each with some normal price, instead of doing it as a contracted service with both material and labor costs.

OK, and why was that? Like, they were essentially embezzling this "R&D cost"; even if they were embezzling for the sake of buying useful military equipment, embezzling is still an outrage, I think rightly.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#187

Post by db48x »

lmm wrote: post #186
db48x wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it really wasn’t outrageous. It was bad accounting, but not an outrageous waste of money. They were essentially building repair kits that could be shipped off to military bases and used to maintain particular pieces of equipment. The contractor bought the tools and spare parts in bulk, marshaled them all at some warehouse somewhere, and then broke down the bulk items into individual kits. A palette full of hammer…

> Then whoever did the bookkeeping recorded it as if they had purchased COTS items each with some normal price, instead of doing it as a contracted service with both material and labor costs. OK, and why was that? Like, they were essentially embezzling this "R&D cost"; even if they were embezzling for the sake of buying useful military equipment, embezzling is still an outrage, I think rightly.

There’s no evidence that it was embezzlement, or any other type of fraud. Just bad accounting.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#188

Post by lmm »

db48x wrote: post #187
lmm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then whoever did the bookkeeping recorded it as if they had purchased COTS items each with some normal price, instead of doing it as a contracted service with both material and labor costs. OK, and why was that? Like, they were essentially embezzling this "R&D cost"; even if they were embezzling for the sake of buying useful military equipment, embezzling is still an outrage, I think rightly.

There’s no evidence that it was embezzlement, or any other type of fraud. Just bad accounting.

"Embezzlement is [...] where someone takes money or assets that were entrusted to them and uses them for a different purpose than for what they were intended." That would seem to apply just as much to spending funds on useful military equipment that's different from what they were allocated for as it does to spending them on blackjack and hookers. If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be accounted for falsely?

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#189

Post by tjoff »

emodendroket wrote: post #182
tjoff wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The [22] source doesn't say anything about that research. But a commuter is a very specific customer and hardly represents all customers. Further, I'm guessing but doubt that commuters wouldn't go to mcd just for coffee, whatever breakfast(?) maybe didn't last long enough for it to cool down. Sure, but that all depends. And apparently, commuters didn't mind enough to find something else. Part from safety issues I hav…

Isn’t a commuter the typical customer buying coffee at a drive-through?

I would even go as far as to say that among commuters buying coffee mostly consist of commuters buying coffee. Maybe they have other customers too?

And come to think of it, you won't buy a coffee (at a drive-through!) when you are one minute away from your destination.

You most certainly have time to let it cool down and enjoy it at your preferred temperature. Even if you intend to consume it as soon as possible.

Re: The myth of the $600 hammer (1998)

#190

Post by harry8 »

emodendroket wrote: post #173
harry8 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"caution: contents hot"

Sorry, does this answer my question somehow?

There can be no improvement of anything with safety implications without an admission of guilt?

Writing "Caution: contents hot" in tiny writing that cannot be seen until after the cup is picked up is not a safety improvement so no admission there.

I can hold two things in my head at once. I can be desperately sorry that a lady spilled coffee down her crotch and got burned and have a great deal of sympathy for her, I could have done something as idiotic as that, easy. There but for the grace of $deity go I. At the same time I can think that really isn't anyone else's fault that she put a cup of takeaway coffee between her legs driving a car. Making decisions as poorly as that should preclude you from having a license. A rigid cup could have had the same result and while in agonizing pain she could easily have run down children.

Writing "caution: contents hot" in tiny writing is just flipping daft and deserves to be scorned for the nonsense from awful lawyers that it is.

This idiotic thing that looks idiotic because it is gets the AKTUHALLY treatment to defend lawyers and stop tort reform. Bleh. Oh, btw, I hate mcdonalds.

Post reply on HN