My understanding is Belgian beer culture considers the aroma to be an important part of the experience. But I’ve never been, that’s all through osmosis.
This is exactly it. That's why the glasses have the same basic form (stem, bowl, and tapered rim) as wine glasses and snifters. The liquid sits in the bowl, and the aroma is captured in the empty space between the liquid and the rim.
Look, I get it. Beer is expensive, these days. Always has been. But I feel like these movements miss the forest for trees.
If we mandate beer volume then places that are “shorting” you will just raise the prices. Not to mention the tax on beer that would be required to pay for the inspection service. No one likes feeling like they got less than they paid for, but there’s solution is to take your business elsewhere.
Also, you know what really annoys me? When a bartender pulls a pint for me, and it’s up to the brim with no foam. Foam is part of the joy of a crisp beer. It adds aroma and anticipation. If I wanted to drink something with no foam I’d drink a soda. And in my heart of hearts (or stomach if stomachs?) I fear that’s where these arguments lead.
No one likes feeling like they got less than they paid for, but without regulation, how do you know that you got less than you paid for unless you're going to carry around a measuring glass yourself?
If the places that were shorting you have to raise prices when they have to give you what you paid for, that's false economy -- you're not saving money, if you want to drink less beer to save money, ask for a smaller glass.
There's a distinct difference between food retail and food service. This kind of regulation will harm the later, it does not belong. Are we going to weigh every pizza, every omelette, every side of fries too? We don't need to sterilize every single part of our food culture.
Anyone who has spent even a short amount of time in the food service business will be familiar with shrink. The average bar is probably seeing more than 15% shrinkage. The short pours are probably not offsetting that loss. Margins are thin.
Solutions for the neurotic drinker this website appeals to:
- order a can or bottle
- buy retail and stay home
- go to a self pour joint and pay by volume. Bonus: you don't have to talk to anyone.
Otherwise put away the scale and talk to the bartender. Chances are you come away with plenty of free beer. Most small taprooms will help you find a beer you like by giving you free beer. If you're obsessing over getting what you paid for in food service, you're missing out on the true value of that industry.
Let's not harass our bartenders, a hell of a tough job, with scales. I spent years behind the case of a cut to order cheese shop. There's a time and place for scales. This is not it.
Yes, generally food service operates on thin margins. A neighborhood brewery probably won't be profitable for the first few years, then if successful might stabilize around 15% net* profit margin.
If you go to a beer bar or a tap room, a large part of the role of a bartender is helping you find beer that you like. Successful bars and bartenders thrive from repeat customers. Community is important. This is very obvious if you actually sit down at bars and talk to the people behind them.
I guess I feel the same way about that as I do about a steak. How do I know that the steak is the 16oz I ordered? Ultimately the most important part is if I found the experience satisfying enough to return, not whether the steak was within .5oz of its stated measurement.
> No one likes feeling like they got less than they paid for, but there’s solution is to take your business elsewhere.
People need to know how much they got. it can be hard to judge, especially as you will be comparing across visits to different places on different days, and different styles of glass, etc.
I think your expected outcome is actually the desired one, to kill shrinkflation in favor of actual price increases. When the measures are all the same you can compare apples to apples across different businesses.
Indeed, regular drinkers know what to expect as far as pour and price from any given bar. If I drop into a new bar and I feel ripped off then I don't go back. I do the same with burritos.
This is actually great advice for any bad habit you're trying to break. In general, just thinking "Stop doing this thing" (or "do less of this thing"), doesn't really work. It's usually more effective to find something else that you do enjoy (and is better for you), and try to do more of that thing and have it "crowd out" your bad habit.
When it comes to eating, there is a nutritionist with a pretty sizable online following (Kylie Sakaida), and I love one of her mantras of "add, don't subtract". That is, don't think of abstaining from foods you like that might be unhealthy, but instead try to add more healthy things to that food to make it a balanced meal. For example, she gives the example of wanting a frozen waffle for breakfast. Instead of thinking "No, I can't have this frozen waffle", she instead makes a spread using Greek yogurt to add protein, then adds fresh fruit and nuts for more nutrients, fiber and healthy fats, so what started as an 'empty carbs' meal is turned into a pretty balanced, filling breakfast.
BA might have gone downhill, it's been a few years since the whole unfair pay debacle, and I know a lot of good people left, and I haven't checked in as much lately.
I consider myself to be on the lower conscientiousness side of the spectrum. For others who are like me, what has worked best to improve myself in this area are these two things:
1) develop empathy and compassion for yourself. celebrate wins, and analyze losses.
2) make small, concrete steps to simplify your environment. as the above commentor mentioned, task completion is expensive. however, some things decrease the cost of task completion or increase your available energy. among these are: habits, good sleep, consistent exercise, a decluttered environment, proper nutrition.
together these form a virtious cycle, improving your capacity to make meaningful decisions by either increasing the energy you have available to you, or by decreasing energy drain from other areas.
finally, remember that some things are not worth thinking too much about.
This rings more true for me. Food simply used to be a lot more expensive.
"Between 1960 and 2000, the average share of Americans’ disposable personal income (DPI) spent on food fell from 17.0 percent to 9.9 percent." [1]
I am not going to look for a source right now but I would venture that since the 1960's were part of the industrial era that food was even more expensive before the creation of the Haber process and gas powered farm tools.
> I am not going to look for a source right now but I would venture that since the 1960's were part of the industrial era that food was even more expensive before the creation of the Haber process and gas powered farm tools.
You are correct that it used to be even higher. The US BLS estimates around 40% of DPI was spent on food at the turn of the century (1901). [1]
I'm glad the bear case includes the "will never be economically practical" which is my core criticism of fusion, even with "high funding".
I also didn't see anything about vessel irradiation, which also never seems to be discussed. I get it probably isn't as big a problem as solid fuel rod fission in terms of waste creation, and tritium breeding may help, but it still will be kind of the same problem with LFTRs: a reactor design will fundamentally need an ongoing reconstruction/replacement strategy due to the vessel irradiation and transmutation from high energy neutrons.
Feel free to correct me if this isn't as big a problem as I think it is.
reply