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

The case for bad coffee (2015)

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#621

Post by codefreeordie »

JasonFruit wrote: post #374
doublepg23 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ is the biggest, though I believe there was drama surrounding them.

Yes, I was warned against drinking their "cuck coffee", but I never achieved clarity on what their unforgivable offense was.

In case you actually wanted to know, there seem to be two key incidents that led to Black Rifle losing their reputation as the place to get right-wing coffee.

The major one was an incident involving Kyle Rittenhouse. Shortly after his release from prison, he was photographed smiling and wearing some Black Rifle swag. This happened at a fairly sensitive time for Black Rifle, which was in the middle of opening its first physical coffee shop (in San Antonio, I think). The owner/founder posted on social media some negative commentary about Rittenhouse and indicating that the swag was not given by the company and did not represent the company's support of either Rittenhouse or his actions. As you might expect, the social media "conversation" on the subject got very hot very fast. One of the smaller right-wing coffee shops stepped into the fray and became very vocal supporters of Rittenhouse and his defense, making a bit of a name for themselves (and possibly a lot of money).

The lesser event actually occurred first, and was also some commentary that the owner/founder of Black Rifle Coffee made. I wasn't following the Food Partisanship beat at that time, so I don't know exactly what was said, but he posted to social media some commentary about gun rights that was less guns-for-all than you'd expect from a company with their imagery (and product names), and that talked about the pro-Trump part of the Republican party as not being the good guys, whether armed or not.

There's been some debate about the degree to which these incidents were about a company trying to continue to grow (and thus needing to gain mainstream "legitimacy") or whether the founder was actually never a right-wing ally -- but either way, these events were seen as a betrayal by a portion of the right-wing coffee community.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#622

Post by decafninja »

themadturk wrote: post #607
Aeolun wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starbucks is like McDonalds, but for coffee instead of burgers. I dunno, I don’t need my coffee super fancy, but I do need it conveniently located right next to my office.

This is the correct answer (to whatever the question was). I'm no great connoisseur (see my reply re: Walmart instant), but Starbucks is convenient, consistent and acceptable. And I generally like the people who work there as well.

It definitely seems to contrast with say, Dunkin. Some Dunkin locations have great coffee. Others have terrible coffee. Probably all up to how the day's staff wants to brew it.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#623

Post by themadturk »

decafninja wrote: post #622
themadturk wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the correct answer (to whatever the question was). I'm no great connoisseur (see my reply re: Walmart instant), but Starbucks is convenient, consistent and acceptable. And I generally like the people who work there as well.

It definitely seems to contrast with say, Dunkin. Some Dunkin locations have great coffee. Others have terrible coffee. Probably all up to how the day's staff wants to brew it.

Dunkin went out of business in my region decades ago. I remember it fondly from the 80s (a friend of mine was a baker there), but now it's not nearly as easy to get a donut and a cup of coffee (of whatever quality) as it was.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#625

Post by williamtrask »

Shorel wrote: post #554
williamtrask wrote: post #512

To everyone replying with their coffee preferences, you may be missing the point. This post isn’t about coffee, it’s about people and experiences in life being more important than products. It’s about a product’s quality being defined not by its substance but by its reminder of things that can’t be purchased. It’s one of the most beautiful posts I’ve seen in a long time. Hope you look beyond the coffee. Edit: Hope I…

Both things, the coffee and the memories, are important to me. And I don't see the post about being one, or the other. I see the post about the common point where these two meet, and reinforce each other.

The interesting juxtaposition is that the author didn’t just drink inferior coffee in the course of meaningful life moments, the moments were so much more meaningful that the author has begun to prefer the inferior product. It’s not reinforcement per day, it’s a change in values altogether

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#626

Post by slothtrop »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #597
slothtrop wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we tend to grow neurons to like the taste of things that increase dopaminergic neurotransmission in the frontal cortex, even if our first taste experience of them is downright awful. High caffeine intake (more represented in medium roast) increases dopamine response in the first place. Notwithstanding that a jolt doesn't make one incapable of judging taste. I've experienced different roasts consistently over differ…

I’m not projecting; you’re uninformed. Caffeine is only responsible for a part of the effects of coffee. There are dozens if not hundreds of other psychoactive substances there, all acting in unison. Your preference towards darker roasts suggests the presence of high-activity MAOA/B gene variants in your genome. This hypothesis is, fortunately, easy to validate.

> Caffeine is only responsible for a part of the effects of coffee.

You mentioned dopaminergic neurotransmission, specifically.

Notwithstanding that you've shared no compelling source (and I expect none), this is redundant - I like the taste of dark roast, the validity of that sentiment isn't contingent on genes. By no objective measure is one roast better tasting beyond mere experience. It's basically irrelevant whether I do possess those genes or not. Whether we like ANYTHING depends on our genes, so to say "you only like x because of genes" is a moot point - if entire cultures are primarily drinking dark, who's the real genetic outlier?

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#627

Post by slothtrop »

valarauko wrote: post #599
slothtrop wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clever Dripper is idiot-proof and brews a full body. But it can be a tad oily. Sometimes I prefer drip tbh, but from a decent machine. Disagree on roast, I've had great dark roasts. Even for espresso, I'd say full-city / medium-dark is preferable. However, I've had more bad dark roasts than bad mediums.

Wait, how are you getting oily coffee from a Clever dripper? If anything the paper filter should be largely eliminating oils.

It does a good deal, but still has more than drip. Personally I don't mind but I know my wife describes the brew as "oily".

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#628

Post by parasubvert »

awild wrote: post #461
parasubvert wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is overly dismissive of certain styles, the same could be said for any popular style like yet another chocolatey syrupy Imperial Stout, or yet another crisp Pilsner. Hoppy is anything but accessible, in my experience, clearly some people love them but most casual drinkers do not. I personally find certain DIPAs to be a near religious experience but others can’t stand them. To each their own.

Sorry, but the modern form of DIPA most definitely is one of the most accessible forms of craft beer. They usually aim for low to no kettle hops, only whirpool and high levels of rx hopping. Fermentation, mash and grist all serve to make the beer sweet. The end result: a beer low in bitterness, silky, extremely sweet (these beers can finish above 1.030) with intense fruity notes.

That is nothing like the DIPAs I am familiar with which are typically very dry and strongly hopped, with only enough sweetness to make it palatable. What you describe sounds to me more like Barleywine, though admittedly the style has wide interpretation. I also think we may have very different definitions of the word “accessible”.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#629

Post by valarauko »

slothtrop wrote: post #627
valarauko wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how are you getting oily coffee from a Clever dripper? If anything the paper filter should be largely eliminating oils.

It does a good deal, but still has more than drip. Personally I don't mind but I know my wife describes the brew as "oily".

Huh - I brew with Clever Dripper most days and wouldn't characterize it as 'oily' - its definitely got more body than a V60 (my other go-to). I suppose all immersion techniques will give you similar results in that case, with something like a French Press giving you much more oils.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#630

Post by thesaintlives »

vesinisa wrote: post #620
thesaintlives wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drink that in a year. No big difference from start to finish.

That's 110g or one full pot of strong drip filter coffee per day. I think I typically drink 60g on a workday and 30g on a weekend day for an average of ~50g/day. I believe you, but you do drink quite a bit of coffee I must say!

That is about correct. The problem is that I am espresso drinker. I do have an espresso machine but whilst doing maintenance I broke a part I don't have the tools to fix. I have to put that much more coffee into the french press to get a similar 'feel good' result. One day I will fix the espresso machine!
Post reply on HN