I don’t remember ever seeing grinders in Costco but… WT ever loving F is the point of grinding a hot dog? Even if it worked.
People used to love those old Does it Blend videos.
Plain and simple vandalism, most likely.
Q: What’s the best kind of coffee grinder to run other things through?
A: The kind that’s not yours.
Sure, first major chain.
The point is, it wasn’t customary like coffee until after that.
Late to this thread, but…
It’s still less common than unlimited coffee.
Agreed. Springboarding off your point …
I wonder how much that’s a matter of cost difference of coffee / soda versus restaurant industry cultural inertia versus the difference between a beverage that normally sells to adults and one that sells to kids & teens?
To that last point …
Back when Starbucks was actively trying to be that so-called “third place”, they really wanted folks to linger there over coffee. Hence self-serve refills at least for the basics.
I have a hard time imagining a similar store that sold only umpteen flavors of soda with unlimited refills. Real soon kids would be hanging out all day, being disruptive / destructive as kids will be, and the business would not be happy.
Something I just thought of - way back when I used to work in fast food places,before the days of free refills, it was not unusual to see two people (or more) people order and share one soda. I never saw people do that with coffee.
But strange as It may sound, I’m pretty sure fountain soda costs the restaurant less than ordinary drip coffee , once you add in hte cost of the milk/sweetener.
Actually, that’s a problem sometimes even in places that don’t sell only umpteen flavors of soda and coffee - there are a couple of fast food places near me that got rid of their self-serve soda dispensers pre-COVID because of kids hanging out for hours and making a mess and it’s not unheard of for Dunkin Donuts/McDonald’s with limited seating to have a problem with people occupying the seats for hours even without free refills.
I’ve noticed in my own fiction writing I’m prone to leaning on people sharing either water or a glass of wine in scenes involving conversation. It’s a quick, easy way to ground the scene with action and objects, to avoid white room disorientation, and to give the characters a thing to do so they can move around, demonstrate emotions and character, etc. I have to keep reminding myself to find other things for people to do.
It may simply be, at least in fiction and screen, that this was just a go-to way of giving characters something to do.
I saw that in a Panera that advertised their fast Internet. Many tables taken up with people working there. But their customer service is horrible, so fine by me.
I set a conversation by a river bank for two characters discussing a problem. I found one of the characters occasionally picking up a pine cone and tossing it in the river. Just for something to do during a lull in the talk.
Yeah, for decades editors and writing teachers suggested smoking, with lighting cigs and all that as a tool to break up conversations. One of them was John Campbell, who was a certified nut about smoking and a racist to boot. He made Asimov throw in smoking into Foundation. (Asimov hated smoking)
Can you give us a citation for the claim that Campbell made Asimov put scenes with people smoking into the Foundation books? I can find evidence that Asimov hated smoking. I can find evidence that there were smoking scenes in the Foundation books. The Foundation books were first published in magazines that Campbell edited. I can’t find evidence that Campbell insisted that there be smoking scenes.
Well, Asimov didnt put any smoking (except maybe a pipe) in his Non Campbell edited writings, and Campbell was so pro smoking that he (wikipedia)-
Campbell was a heavy smoker throughout his life and was seldom seen without his customary cigarette holder. In the Analog of September 1964, nine months after the Surgeon General’s first major warning about the dangers of cigarette smoking had been issued (January 11, 1964) Campbell ran an editorial, “A Counterblaste to Tobacco” that took its title from the anti-smoking book of the same name by King James I of England.[45] In it, he stated that the connection to lung cancer was “esoteric” and referred to “a barely determinable possible correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer”. He said that tobacco’s calming effects led to more effective thinking.[46]
And it was a common editors trick for “spicing up” long conversations.
Asimov did complain about Campbells sometimes heavy handed editing.
I wonder if that’s what David Lodge was lampooning in Nice Work when he introduced a one-scene pipe-smoking character who performs some needlessly conspicuous action with his pipe between every line of dialogue (tapping it on the desk, noisily cleaning out the bowl, etc.).
I’ve seen more people pecking away on a laptop in Panera’s than anywhere else I’ve been* but it hasn’t been enough to block the eat-and-go diners.
*I don’t hang around coffeehouses much.
O.K., but that’s not an outright statement that Campbell insisted on their being smoking in the Foundation books.
Not in those books, no. But the evidence is pretty solid.