Heat

Duncan Leave a comment

In the world of physics, heat is understood as the transfer of the kinetic energy of molecules between bodies. In the world of cooking, heat is viewed as the method by which raw ingredients are transformed into delectable cuisine. Although both perspectives deal with the same phenomenon, their interpretations are much different.

Those who study physics are interested in heat on a microscopic level, observing the mechanics of energy transfer between particles and molecules. Students of the culinary arts, on the other hand, are concerned with the macroscopic nature of heat, which could be described as the role that heat plays in our lives. Both of these approaches are valid, with each exposing a unique truth about heat, but there is something that physics cannot teach us – something that every chef knows – that all heat is not created equal.

For a moment, imagine that you’re going to bake a delicious chocolate cake in celebration of a special occasion, such as an anniversary. The process begins with the collection of the necessary ingredients: flour, sugar, eggs, baking soda, baking powder, cocoa and vanilla. The components are then thoroughly mixed together, resulting in a sweet, yet noxious sludge that any sane person would deem inedible. Without the essential component of heat, the cake cannot become a cake. However, there are many ways in which heat may be added to the ingredients, and only one of them will produce a cake worthy of serving. We must choose the right heat for the job. After all, we don’t boil our bacon, and we wouldn’t bake an egg.

Although each method by which heat is imbued into our food serves a purpose, some methods are considered unfavorable or even unacceptable, regardless of circumstance. Here is a list of the most common ways that we heat our food, including a brief description of the typical result of each method, loosely ranked from most to least prestigious:

  1. Braising: moist, luscious.
  2. Sautéing: rich, succulent.
  3. Roasting: scrumptious, savory.
  4. Grilling: slightly charred, moist.
  5. Steaming: fresh, humid.
  6. Baking: savory or sweet, sometimes dry.
  7. Barbecuing: smoky and charred, sometimes dry.
  8. Frying: greasy, crispy.
  9. Slow cooking: savory, soft.
  10. Deep frying: extremely greasy, crunchy.
  11. Boiling: damp, often bland.
  12. Microwaving: soggy, tasteless, often unevenly cooked.

The precise order of the list is debatable, but its spirit is undeniable. This is why, when browsing a restaurant menu, we would choose the roasted vegetables over the boiled vegetables and the braised ham over the fried ham. The lack of credibility attributed to certain forms of heat also explains why some folks refuse to microwave their coffee. Practitioners of coffee snobbery would rather see their sacred liquid poured down the drain than blasphemously irradiated by the most depraved form of heat.

The quality of heat we use is directly related to the quality of food we wish to create. When whipping up a quick bite, we may choose to boil or microwave, but we wouldn’t consider consuming boiled steak or microwaved salmon. Sure, there are recipes to follow and general rules for cooking, but we cannot ignore the aura of shame attached to certain heating methods. Heat choice is important. In fact, in many cases heat is actually more important than the ingredients themselves.

It’s strange to think that microwaves were originally expected to replace traditional ovens, allowing housewives to cook roasts to perfection with the push of a button. Some advertisements went so far as to claim that the microwave was the greatest cooking invention since fire. If only we recognized the poor quality of the heat they produced, perhaps we wouldn’t tolerate microwavable packaged meals.

Would you rather eat a braised hot dog or a microwaved filet mignon?

The World’s Hardest Multiple Choice Question: Part II

Duncan Leave a comment

If each question in the following series does not share the same answer as its counterpart in part I, which other question in this series has the same answer as question D?

A. If the answer to this question isn’t B, which other choices are also incorrect?

  • C and D.
  • C and D.
  • A and D.
  • A and B.

B. What is the answer to question C?

  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
  • A.

C. What is the answer to question B?

  • D.
  • C.
  • B.
  • D.

D. Which of the following questions is correctly answered, “There is no correct answer?”

  • What answer would make this question answerable?
  • What answer would make this question unanswerable?
  • If there is a correct answer to this question, what could it be?
  • If there is an incorrect answer to this question, what could it be?
Test your skills further in part III.

Creating Jobs

Duncan Leave a comment

How many employees does it take to screw in a light bulb? The answer, it seems, is as many as possible.

In the past, when pitching a commercial venture opportunity to potential investors, one would have touted low risk and high return on invested capital, but these days economic viability won’t cut it in the eyes of the public. This isn’t because of environmental risks or even a disdain for big business. The reason why so many projects are derailed by public opinion is simply because they don’t create enough jobs.

Job creation is now a standard criteria for judging the viability of an investment. For example, if a city is considering constructing a new bridge, prison or stadium, it must first convince the public that the project will employ an substantial number of local workers. Thus, it is understood to be a positive when a project requires a large amount of labor, and a negative when a project requires little labor. This line of thinking seems to make sense, since citizens need jobs in order to perpetuate the consumer-driven economy. But if we think about job creation in relation to efficiency, it becomes clear that the two are actually adversaries.

When we refer to efficiency in this case, we mean the amount of labor required to produce or sustain a specific project or business. For example, a toll bridge may require 5 full-time employees for toll-collection and 5 for maintenance, but after switching to an automated tolling system, now only requires a total of 5 employees in order to function, thus doubling the efficiency of the project. Most would agree that the automated tolling system is a wise investment, but what about the 5 employees who lost their jobs? Doesn’t the economy suffer when people are unemployed?

The short answer is no, the economy does not suffer when efficiency is increased. The long answer is still no, but it’s more complicated.

Ever since the industrial revolution, humans have endured massive layoffs and labor migrations at the hands of mechanization. Movies like The Matrix and Wall-E depict a grim future where machines have either seized, or been entrusted with, control, resulting in a pacified, purposeless human existence.

Another perceived threat is the replacement of skilled workers with a cheap, and often illegal, immigrant labor force. The use of language like, “they took our jobs,” reveals the sense of ownership that we feel about our employment. This is interesting, considering how slaves were seen as a great asset to societies in the past. It’s likely that those from the past would find it comical that a nation considers it a problem when another race is voluntarily doing all of its hard labor.

Eventual replacement, either by a machines, immigrants or the next generation, has always been a threat to the employed. However, the solution is not to restrict automation or immigration or to prevent the restructuring of an inefficient model. No one has a right to a job, for employment is not guaranteed by any charter, but neither should it be gifted to us by charity. Employment is merely the satisfaction of a demand for labor.

In some cases, the government will mandate employment, regardless of the return on their investment, in an effort to stave off unemployment, which can further damage fragile economies. These make-work projects seem like reasonable solutions, since governments worldwide took this approach to solve the economic crisis of the late 2000s. However, we cannot escape the reality that employing for the sake of employment is not a sustainable practice. Now let’s look more closely at how efficiency is a threat to employment.

With many businesses now filing and transferring documents electronically, paper consumption has declined. Because of this, paper mills may be forced to lay off employees. Does this mean that we should keep using paper, simply to keep these folks working? Few would agree.

We can comfort ourselves by knowing that the loss of employment in the paper production industry may be compensated by increased employment in the online storage industry, but this is not guaranteed. Taken to the extreme, imagine that an invention is discovered which will revolutionize human industry, such as instantaneous teleportation. This invention would dramatically increase productivity by reducing transportation costs to zero, but it would also cause the collapse of major corporations, resulting in significant job loss. Do we accept this invention in the hopes that the efficiency will outweigh the economic damage of the unemployment, or protect the stability of the economy by ensuring that the device is never produced?

The answer, of course, is that we should accept the new invention, the same way that we should accept automation and immigration. Although it’s true that technology does replace high numbers of unskilled labor positions with fewer skilled positions, this has not yet resulted in the demise of employment. In fact, employment has remained generally constant over the past 50 years in the United States, averaging about 93% and rarely dipping below 90%. It’s true that increased efficiency costs people jobs, but it also allows us access to products and services that would otherwise be impossible to afford. If computers, cars, books and clothing were all produced locally and by hand, many of us would not be e-mailing, driving, reading or warm.

Will there always be enough jobs? It’s impossible to know. But preventing industrial and technological development for fear of unemployment seems like a primitive and futile response. Perhaps one day all of the world’s labor will be performed by one lucky person, while the rest of us suffer.

Something Else

Duncan Leave a comment

“Wow, that’s really something.”
This phrase we often hear,
when those who feel inspired,
describe what has appeared.

A similar expression,
which carries the same weight,
“That is something else,”
as well means something’s great.

But if it’s something else,
it’s not the thing at all.
And if this thing’s not the thing I think,
Then what should it be called?

Schooled

Duncan Leave a comment

Parents are very concerned with their children’s education, attending parent-teacher conferences and analyzing grades in order to gauge their child’s progress. They claim that they’re acting in the best interest of their offspring, but their chief aim is receiving favorable report cards. For most parents it doesn’t matter whether their child understands long division, World War I or proper semicolon use; they simply want their child to get good grades so they can enroll in a reputable university and earn more good grades.

But are grades really a trustworthy measurement of understanding? As we’ve already discussed, testing in schools often more accurately measures memorization and study tactics than authentic comprehension. Also, we know that students are often graded on knowledge and abilities that have little or nothing to do with the subject of study. For example, it is common for students to be asked to draw pictures, record and edit video, give presentations and create posters in classes such as English and social studies. These tasks are often explained as an avenue for artistic students to succeed in classes that aren’t artistic in nature. In other words, we want students with a poor understanding of the subject matter to do well. In addition, we also know that our education system does little to prepare young people for adult life, namely raising a family.

So what if we actually wanted to measure, with some objectivity, the quality of the education a child is receiving? In order to properly assess the situation, we must look at both the efficiency and the effectiveness of our educational system, for we must consider both the resources and time spent educating students as well as the results of that education if we are to determine the success of our schools. Let’s being by examining educational efficiency.

There are about 195 school days every year, with students spending about 6 hours of each day in class. This regimen echoes 12 times, allowing each student about 15,000 hours of education by the time they graduate. However, this number doesn’t account for time spent studying, doing homework or participating in any extra-curricular activities. As for the funding, the total projected education expenditures in the United States for the 2012-2013 school year is $571 billion. With about 50 million primary and secondary students enrolled nationwide, the annual cost per student works out to approximately $11,500. Now let’s examine the fruit of this expense.

American College Testing exams are designed to measure comprehension of English, reading, math and science in an attempt to determine the level of preparation for post-secondary education. Recent scores indicate that only 1 in 4 high school graduates are prepared for college in all four areas. These findings are corroborated in a study produced by the Alliance for Excellent Education, which revealed that 1 in 3 young adults are unprepared for life after high school. The study asked employers of recent graduates to rate them in certain areas. Around 80% of employers observed deficiencies in communication, work ethic, critical thinking and basic writing skills.

This apparent lack of effective education could even translate into a national security issue, according to the United States Secretary of Education. Today, nearly 25% of young people are unable to pass the U.S. Army entrance exam, which asks basic science, reading and math questions such as, “If 2 plus x equals 4, what is the value of x?”

So after 15,000 hours at school and $150,000 spent, we should expect high school graduates to be flexing some mental agility and confounding their elders with the volumes of knowledge they retain, but as we’ve seen, this isn’t the case. The failure of this educational model becomes even more stark when contrasted with an alternative to traditional education: homeschooling.

Studies have repeatedly confirmed that children taught at home outperform their publicly educated peers on standardized tests. They are also spared from many temptations and adversities that public school students encounter, resulting in reduced teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol abuse and bullying. A common criticism of homeschooling is that children are sheltered from society, leading to deficiencies in communication and social awkwardness. These assertions have no legitimate foundation, since studies show that homeschooled students are significantly more likely to vote, involve themselves in the community and identify themselves as happy. Besides, if parents were really concerned that their children would miss out on the social aspects of public education, they could simply reject and berate their children throughout the day.

So homeschooling is clearly more effective than traditional public education, but how efficient is it in terms of the time and resources invested? The average cost of homeschooling is about $500 per year, which is about 4.3% of the cost of public education. Homeschooled students also put in less time, usually requiring only 3 to 5 hours per day, or around 67% of the time a public student will take.

Homeschooling is clearly far more effective and efficient than public education, revealing just how unsuccessful our schools have become. For if a facility with a library, gymnasium, classrooms, computers, educated teachers and administration, special needs services and counselling can be outperformed by a concerned parent with a textbook, then our approach to education is seriously dysfunctional.

If instead of spending $60 per day to send our child to public school, we were to homeschool them and put the difference in a savings plan, our child would graduate with a better education, a happier life and about $190,000 in the bank.

Menu Mayhem: Part II

Duncan Leave a comment

In part I of our exploration into the subject of restaurant menus, we observed that the way in which we read those menus is both chaotic and thoughtless. But for those who do examine their menus systematically, another problem becomes apparent: inconsistent pricing.

To clarify, we’re not discussing the issue of overpriced food, since all restaurant prices are inevitably excessive, nor are we questioning the difference in price between eateries. We’re talking about the inconsistencies in price within the selection of items on a single menu. To begin, let’s look at an example of a typical menu of an imaginary breakfast diner. We are using a diner menu because their simplicity makes the incongruencies more pronounced.

After a brief scan of the selections, it may appear that the pricing makes sense. However, when we begin to break down the meals into their components and price them, it becomes apparent that individual ingredients are priced differently throughout the menu. The Eggs & Toast, for example, is priced the same as the Bacon & Eggs at $5.99. Let’s use some basic algebra to solve for the price of an egg.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon, t = toast
  • 2e + 2b + t = 3e + t
  • 2e + 2b = 3e
  • e = 2b

So according to the pricing of these two meals, 1 egg is worth 2 strips of bacon. Now let’s compare the Bacon & Eggs and the Meat Lovers meals to get a better understanding of sausage.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon, t = toast, s = sausage
  • 2e + 2b + t + 1 = 2e + 2b + 2s + t
  • 1 = 2s
  • s = 0.5

So each sausage is worth $0.50, which seems kind of strange, but let us persist in our efforts. According to the Jump Start meal and Side Orders section, bacon and sausage are of equal value.

  • Let b = bacon, s = sausage
  • b = s
  • s = 0.5
  • b = 0.5

Since we know from our first equation that an egg is worth 2 strips of bacon, we can now determine the exact value of an egg.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon
  • e = 2b
  • b = 0.5
  • e = 1

So a slice of bacon is worth $0.50, a piece of sausage is also worth $0.50, and an egg is worth $1.00. If we plug these values into the Bacon & Eggs meal, we can find the value of toast.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon, t = toast
  • 2e + 2b + t = 5.99
  • 2 + 1 + t = 5.99
  • t = 2.99

Restaurant menus are clearly weak against algebra. But apart from being mathematically incoherent, there’s another issue which we have ignored up to this point, which is the fact that the Side Orders section has disagreed with every one of our solutions. This isn’t necessarily proof of an inconsistent pricing system, since all businesses intentionally manipulate their pricing in order to create an incentive for their customers to make larger purchases and also to compensate for the inefficiency in taking small orders. However, if we were to construct the Jump Start meal using the pricing from the Side Orders section, we would arrive at a price of $11.95 with hash browns and toast or $12.95 with pancakes. This is nearly twice the price listed on the meal, which is troubling.

So what’s the solution? If we merely sell the components at Side Order pricing, we would no longer be in business. Alternatively, if we attempt to re-work the meal pricing so that it makes sense mathematically, we may end up with some dangerously inexpensive side orders and unnecessary meal options. For if we were to price our meals based purely on components, then there’s no reason to offer multiple combinations of the same items.

The answer is to create a menu of individual items that provides consistent pricing while still rewarding customers for making larger purchases. This could be done by increasing the serving size of components and offering price reductions for purchasing multiple items. Here’s what this might look like. This revised menu includes all of the options of the original menu, yet takes up only half the space and allows even greater customization. And the best part? It makes sense.

Another option could be implementing a minimum order charge, which would ensure that each customer’s visit is at least marginally profitable. But what’s most important is that any customer spirited enough to analyze our menu is blessed with a consistent, sensible pricing system.