OK, so does everyone remember earlier this year when some organization did a study of Subway's foot-long sandwiches and discovered that most fall .25-.75 inches short of a foot ?
a picture of a sub next to a ruler was posted online and went viral. people were upset. there was gnashing of teeth. there were riots. (well, maybe not quite that serious.) lawsuits were threatened.
people take their footlongs seriously!
Subway’s justification was that "each footlong loaf is formed from exactly the same weight of dough but the inconsistencies of kneading, rising, shaping and proofing entail that on occasion some loaves fail to measure up."
OK, I can buy that. same deal as the cereal box disclaiming "sold by weight not volume" i guess.
well, news broke yesterday that really fried my cookies. (not really.... i am just saying this for dramatic reasons)
"Think those Double Stuf Oreos are really double-stuffed? Well think again. A New York high school math class found the cookies don't really live up to their name. After weighing and measuring, the students concluded that Double Stuf Oreos contain only 1.86 times as much filling."
well, holy crud! i have been duped! (more drama there, folks)
i am not getting my full double stuf of sweet white goodness? everytime i eat one, my life is shorted by 0.14 of deliciousness?
oh, the horror!
oh, the agony !!
(oh, the drama!!!)
first off, i congratulate the high school teacher who brought the cookies to school. teaching is a skill. teaching with Oreos.... mastery of that skill. IMHO
secondly, I know exactly what the solution is. everytime i eat a Double Stuf Oreo, i need to eat a second one, so i get my full 2.0 of stuf.
however, i see this leading to a vicious "circular reference", as Excel users like to call them.
but, with Oreos, that circular reference isn't all that bad at all.
out for now.....
Matt