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

MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

fastcoexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#21

Post by RobAley »

andrewcooke wrote: post #18

the article is misleading ("we could save about one million tons of food from being thrown out every year") because it's using absolute numbers to boost what is a relative saving. there are a lot of sauce bottles. even an unimportant saving will, totalled over all of them, add up to an impressive sounding number. but unless the fractional amount of each bottle is important, it's really not significant: saving a milli…

Actually, when considering things like climate change, these small contributions are important, because they don't sit on their own. Most plans for significant carbon emission reductions that don't significantly change our standard of living rely on aggregating the savings made by many many "micro" reductions in production/consumption like this.

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#22

Post by pm90 »

darrhiggs wrote: post #20
001sky wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Q: how many MIT scientists does it take to pour Ketchup out of a bottle? A: !+!+!+!+!+!=6

Did it never occur to them that they could just turn the bottle upside-down? Is that not why they designed the lids like that; so you could just stand them up on the lid?

Imagine that: we changed the way we store bottles just so that all the ketchup would all come out. Its a simple solution that works, but I think I would still prefer the slippery coating though.

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#23

Post by k2enemy »

I wonder if food companies will embrace a bottle that ends up decreasing the number of bottles of ketchup consumers need to buy? I suppose if one company adopted the bottle then it would give them an advantage in the marketplace over their competition and possibly increase sales, but if everyone adopts the bottle then the whole industry loses (assuming prices don't change). Prisoner's dilemma!

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#24

Post by kmfrk »

ck2 wrote: post #3

What does it do to your blood when you digest traces of it? BPA was happily used for years by industry.

Still is where I live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Ironically, with BPA, the only container you know does not have traces of it is a glass container.

Not even that might be safe anymore. No wonder kids reach puberty earlier and earlier.

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#25

Post by pm90 »

nnq wrote: post #9

...somehow the fact that it's only made out of FDA approved ingredients doesn't make me feel save at all. it's a lot of dangerous stuff that is approved for food and drug use in certain quantities... but it's always about the quantity and nobody can even begin to test the effects of the combinations. and it clearly spells out the fact that some non-negligible amount of it ends up being ingested, otherwise they wouldn…

Take a close look at the "preservatives" and "coloring" section of most processed foods. They consist of industrial chemicals invented for that very purpose only in the last century or so. We're already consuming an inordinate amount of this stuff (More so in developing countries actually, where regulation is slightly....lax)

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#26

Post by andrewcooke »

RobAley wrote: post #21
andrewcooke wrote: post #18

the article is misleading ("we could save about one million tons of food from being thrown out every year") because it's using absolute numbers to boost what is a relative saving. there are a lot of sauce bottles. even an unimportant saving will, totalled over all of them, add up to an impressive sounding number. but unless the fractional amount of each bottle is important, it's really not significant: saving a milli…

Actually, when considering things like climate change, these small contributions are important, because they don't sit on their own. Most plans for significant carbon emission reductions that don't significantly change our standard of living rely on aggregating the savings made by many many "micro" reductions in production/consumption like this.

i'm not going to argue here because http://www.withouthotair.com/ makes the point better than i ever could.

see, for example, http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_11... - Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply.

and, of course, we may be talking at cross purposes - there is some middle ground where a large-ish number of small-ish things can help. i am not arguing against maths, but i am saying that our natural assessment of what is significant without actually doing the maths is often misled by absolute values, as here.

anyway, if you haven't read that book, i recommend it.

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#28

Post by goldfeld »

k2enemy wrote: post #23

I wonder if food companies will embrace a bottle that ends up decreasing the number of bottles of ketchup consumers need to buy? I suppose if one company adopted the bottle then it would give them an advantage in the marketplace over their competition and possibly increase sales, but if everyone adopts the bottle then the whole industry loses (assuming prices don't change). Prisoner's dilemma!

Many technological advances happen like this, where the first few to use get an edge, then everyone else uses as it becomes a requirement rather than an edge--and the situation is then irreversible because anyone trying to opt out of the trend would be at great disadvantage (unless some really clever marketing and rationale is employed, of course).

But if somehow everyone opted out together they would be better off for it (sometimes even consumers, though arguably not in this case). It's commonly referred to as "smart for one, dumb for all."

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#29

Post by RobAley »

andrewcooke wrote: post #26
RobAley wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when considering things like climate change, these small contributions are important, because they don't sit on their own. Most plans for significant carbon emission reductions that don't significantly change our standard of living rely on aggregating the savings made by many many "micro" reductions in production/consumption like this.

i'm not going to argue here because http://www.withouthotair.com/ makes the point better than i ever could. see, for example, http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_11... - Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply. and, of course, we may be talking at c…

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I'm not saying "every little helps", more like "ALL little helps". Saving 5% of my ketchup doesn't help me save 5% of my carbon emissions. Saving 5% of the ketchup, 3% of the mayonnaise, 10% of the plastic bags, 7% of the car fuel etc. etc. does help.

I could probably meet my individual targets by simply taking a big action like scrapping my car. But I'm not going to do it (for various reasons), and most people won't either. I'm much more likely to meet them by skimming a small amount of the top of a lot of other things than changing my lifestyle significantly in one or two areas.

Big change is needed, but it can come from a few big things or many little things. I disagree with the sources that you cite only in so far as I think, given the society we live in, the little things route is much more likely to succeed, particular in the consumer arena.

I think we both agree that just a little bit of a little bit isn't going to help.

Re: MIT’s Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing

#30

Post by arethuza »

brianwillis wrote: post #5

That last photo is just hilarious. A group of people wearing safety goggles so they can pour ketchup out of a bottle. Those lab coats also look brand new. You can just imagine the photographer saying "quick! everyone! do science!".

"A group of people wearing safety goggles so they can pour ketchup out of a bottle."

They look to me like they are in a lab and its generally a really good idea to stick to safety rules in materials labs.

Post reply on HN