h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Mayonnaise mixed with salsa, thousand island mixed with
that garlicy, yoghurty one. Some people insist on mixing
their dips on a single dip visit.
This is the weak-form double-dip and let's just agree that
it's not nice. The strong form, where the dipper bites
half and dips again with the
remainder, is beyond the
pale, and I won't mention it again.
To mitigate the problem, I propose a 2 dimensional array
of dips. Each row and column represents a combination
of the available dips. At the start of the event, the array
is initialized with all the columns containing the same
dip.
So for the 4 dips above, abbreviated to MSTG, the
columns of the array would be labelled MSTG and we
would adopt the convention that the first row would be
M, the second S and so on.
The array of dips would be initialised like this...
MSTG
MSTG
MSTG
MSTG
For guests who really have to weak-form double-dip,
they are instructed to start their dipping on a diagonal
and then move to the left or right for one additional dip
only. So for example, Mayonnaise followed by Salsa
would start at the top left M and move one to the right
to get S. Salsa followed by Mayonnaise would start at the
second position of the second row for the S and move
one to the left to get the M.
Triple dipping could be accommodated with a double-dip
cube and quadruple dipping with a 4 dimensional double-
dip hyper-cube, although building this in our normal 3
dimensions might pose some engineering challenges to
say nothing of the training course guests would need.
[link]
|
| |
[Denholm]! Long time no see - welcome back. |
|
| |
I too am outraged by strong-form double dipping. The only
exception to this rule is when eating Chinese food with a
bunch of Chinese people, where the philosophy is "We've
survived for 5,000 years and haven't died out of infectious
disease, so just eat." |
|
| |
As for weak-form double-dipping, one of the main problems
is that its aftermath (salsa in the mayonnaise, or guacamole
in the raspberry coulis) is indistinguishable from that of
strong-form double-dipping. The same problem exists with
bread-sticks: when someone dips a half breadstick, you
can't be sure whether it's the end they've just bitten off, or
if they've been meticulous and used the one-end, one-dip
method. |
|
| |
So, I am very pleased to see someone addressing this
problem seriously. [+] |
|
| |
It would be easier to have MS, MT, MG, ST, SG , TG dual dishes that can be dipped through the centre and, of course, M, S, T, G separate dishes. Ten spots compared to sixteen spot plate. |
|
| |
You could indeed include dishes above the diagonal of the
matrix to remove 6 in the MSTG worked example. The
trouble is some people want M first then S, whilst others
want S first then M. Don't ask me why. |
|
| |
Perhaps the consistency of a particular dip makes it more suitable as
the basal rather than the apical layer. For example, I imagine you
would want the runny salsa atop the comparatively firm guac, rather
than the other way around. |
|
| |
Surely your two-dimensional grid of dips should be
pre-mixed double-dip combinations, rather than allowing people to double-dip? Thus, the columns would be labelled MSTG and the rows also would be labelled MSTG. Each cell would contain the dip made from a 50:50 combination of the dips represented by the column and row labels. So, if a person wanted a
double-dip of Mayonnaise and Salsa they would dip *once* in either the M/S dip or the S/M dip. Pure uncombined dips would be on the diagonal. |
|
| |
// Surely your two-dimensional grid of dips should be pre-mixed
double-dip combinations, |
|
| |
I don't know; would you puree a hamburger? Maybe
it wouldn't matter if some dip combinations were pre-mixed, but
mixing others might be revolting. |
|
| |
Another option would be stratified dipping mixtures in shallow cups
everywhere except the diagonal so you can dip once and get two
layers. |
|
| |
I'm thinking there may be a mechanised solution here. I think we have to first define the desired outcome in process terms - suppose we want any possible combination of sequential dips to be possible, but further suppose that we also want there to be pristine dishes of each dip. So for any given first dip there should be four dishes, {m,s,t,g}. For a second dip there could be a further four dishes {m,s,t,g}. A budget system could specify that the second rank may be used in any order and get thoroughly mixed up, but I don't think that is very nice. |
|
| |
A superior system might have 16 second-order dips; that is ({m,s,t,g}{m,s,t,g}), or to expand, {mm, ms, mt, mg, sm, ss, st, sg, tm, ts, tt, tg, gm, gs, gt, gg}. |
|
| |
Each dip in the second order is reserved for use only by items that have been previously dipped into the specified primary dip. So for example the 2nd order dip {ms} is a dish of M which can only be used by items that have been previously dipped into the first order dip S. Savings could be made by omitting the "redundant" second-order dips viz. {mm} but that would reduce the options for people who wished to double-dip in the same dip to double the amount of dip they get on their dipper; and so I deprecate that option. |
|
| |
Having sufficiently and satisfactorially defined the desired system, it can be constructed by one's resident engineering workshop. I propose a dial-operated system. There are (in this case) two dials, each labelled with the four possibilities M, S, T and G. There are also two holes in the upper surface of the enclosure which conceals the apparatus and acts as a table top (and can also support the dishes containing dippers). |
|
| |
The user selects their preferred first dip using the first dial; and their preferred second dip using the second dial. The first dial rotates the appropriate dip from the four dips in the first rank, to position it beneath the first hole. The second dial rotates the appropriate second-rank dip to be beneath the second hole. |
|
| |
I suppose the easiest solution is to have a disc, with the four first rank dips arranged at cardinal points on the disk; the sixteen second-rank dips would be on four subsidiary discs mounted in line with the fixed first-rank discs, so that when the first rank disc has been rotated into position, only the appropriate second-rank discs are available to be rotated into position. |
|
| |
So a person selecting S for their first-rank dip can then turn the second dial marked M, S, T, and G, which will rotate one of the four appropriate dips {sm,ss,st,sg} into position. Suppose the user chooses T for their second dip; then {st} will be rotated into position in the second hole. They can then dip first into the first hole, to get a helping of S, and then they can dip their S-covered dipper into the second hole, and get a serving of T. The dish of T will already have a little S mixed in, but that doesn't matter, since they are dipping an S-laden dipper into it. |
|
| |
The apparatus could be expanded to allow treble-dipping by adding a further 16 discs, four onto each of the four second-order discs. But this might be excessive. |
|
| |
I like pocmloc's suggestion but surely a simpler solution is to ban dip. |
|
| |
// dial-operated system // |
|
| |
// stratified dipping mixtures // |
|
| |
Some bright spark will invent "double-dip in a tube". A bit like stripey toothpaste with the difference being a slightly more edible result. |
|
| |
Hey, how about "double-dip in a tube". A bit like stripey
toothpaste with the difference being a slightly more edible
result. |
|
| |
Cheers. Actually, I may have found a third way. |
|
| |
In paint stores, they have these colour-mixing machines.
The machine has N canisters, each containing a different
pigment. The customer selects the colour they want (from
some insanely vast set of colour-cards), and then the
machine dispenses the appropriate dollops of pigment into a
tin of white base. Another machine then shakes the tin to
mix its contents. |
|
| |
Clearly, this can be adaptised for dips, with each of the N
canisters containing a different dip. Diners can then specify
their preferred mix, and have it prepared in a single-serving
tublet. No cross-contamination of the individual dips, and
of course double-dipping _sensu stricto_ would be
impossible. |
|
| |
One-word Googlewhack. (Until Google spots this page.) |
|
| |
// Diners can then specify their preferred mix, and have it prepared in a single-serving tublet // |
|
| |
But that would mean everyone would get their own set of tublets to carry round and an end to dipping in the communal sense. If we assume a party of 100 guests with a selection of 4 dips. This means at least 400 tublets with a possible worst case of 1000. |
|
| |
I can't see any problems with that. |
|
| |
I don't really like the idea of full homogeneous mix tublets, a double ended toothpaste tube seems viable but lacks infinite variation. |
|
| |
For me it is down to taste and the only way is a two set Venn diagram in one dish. Stroke direction and path through the two dips completely delivers (if one of the first few people) the desired result. |
|
| |
I just never want to apply two or more dips to the same dippee in the first place. |
|
| |
How about replacing the dip tubs with some sort of dip applicator, either in the form of a mastic gun, or some kind of sputtering tool? Either of these would allow you to choose the precise mix and layering of dips that you want with no risk of cross-contamination. |
|
| |
Here people usually go for the B and D before the S
and M. |
|
| |