Right. Specifically, its the kind of advice that even if it works on the market at the time it is written, if it gets popular, it is very trivially subject to gaming in the way that gives truth to Goodhart's Law. "More colors of liquid in the pod = sells better" is an obvious target for trivial optimization with no change in substantive composition.
On the other hand, if they care enough to manufacture the pods with multiple liquid compartments, why not put the good stuff in them? I don't think the chemical composition will meaningfully change the cost.
Because the good stuff may cost more than the 'placebo', and given each pod can cost 10-30¢ each, small amounts matter in terms of margin.
The direction completely changed. Now it's all about fancier foods and restaurant stuff. Compare an episode from 2010 to now. Complete difference.
> Because unless you know what the liquids are/do, you're just cargo culting. By some account the liquids to nothing practical:
Uh, yeah, by definition I'm appealing to authority. Namely the authority of the people who did the comparison testing in America's Test Kitchen. That's literally why I watch it: because they know better than me and they put in the work.
Is the fanciness of ATK any different that CK's Milk Street? Season six of the latter had Jordanian, Brazillian (pizza), Turkish, falafel, Mexican, Greek cuisine; season five had Ethopian, Japan, Ukraine, Crete, etc:
* https://www.youtube.com/@ChristopherKimballsMilkStreet/video...
If anything it's Kimball that seems to have gone in the high falutin' direction. Regardless: if fancy is where the viewers/audience numbers are now, then that's the direction that either/both shows have to go to. What was done in 2010, or whenever, is irrelevant if the landsacape has changed.
> That's literally why I watch it: because they know better than me and they put in the work.
That's fine, but the authority should at least explain why so the more curious viewer could dig into things more. The YT link to the Technology Connections videos is to a comment by a chemists that breaks things down:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll6-eGDpimU&lc=Ugxn7pFkryB_j...
For example:
> Some pods, such as our top pick and runner-up pick, contain additional liquid cleaning agents in separate chambers that release when the PVA film dissolves. This design keeps liquid and powder separate until they are dispensed, allowing detergent boosters that best operate in liquid form to combine with powder detergent during a dishwasher’s cycle, enhancing their effectiveness.
* https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-dishwasher-d...
Yup this is what it is. My understanding is they have different enzymes that clean better but need to be mixed at the time of washing.
1. I don't see any/much difference in pre- and post-Christopher Kimball ATK. The rest of the senior staff is basically the same, so I'm not sure what would have changed.
2. What exactly is so special about the colored liquids? What is the chemical make-up of them and their purpose? And are the liquids the same between difference brands? Is the red of one the same as the red as another? Or is the red of one have an equivalent to another (brandA->red = brandB->blue)?
Because unless you know what the liquids are/do, you're just cargo culting. By some account the liquids to nothing practical:
> Chemistry expert and former detergent chemist here, chiming in. Modulo some small semantic differences, you're 100% spot on. Functionally, there is zero difference in the formulations. Every powder dish detergent on the market comprises the same functional components, though the exact chemicals selected may vary. It's always some combination of detergent, anti-deposition agent, water conditioners, strong base, oxidizers, enzymes, buffers, "processing aids", and what I call "foo foo juice" - colors and fragrances.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll6-eGDpimU&lc=Ugxn7pFkryB_j...