No but I also wouldn't have bothered going to the closer DQ.
post
If you're at the lesser DQ, you could pay a couple extra bucks and upgrade it to the next size up. You would save from having to buy a gallon of gas if you're not electric and 20 minutes.
So both are wrong.
The one on the left is too low. It needs to be, at the minimum, at about the rim.
The one on the right is too high. You can't put a flat lid on it, and if you put a tall lid and it melts even a little, you end up with a mess on your hands. Blizzards aren't cones with drip rings (the holes in the top of the wafers, which is why they shouldn't be covered up), they're supposed to stay in the cup.
Source: was a DQ Store Manager 20 years ago, went to DQ School (yes that's real... or at least it was).
No, because 40 minutes of gas isnt worth the sub par ice cream.
And technically according to the FDA it isn't even ice cream
5% butterfat vs 10% butterfat for the FDA standard.
Whatever. People write "it's not ice cream" like it's plastic.
The FDA is BARE MINIMUM, not quality. If you can't make the bare quality, Im comfortable asserting its not that food item, much less a desirable one.
The amount of butterfat says absolutely nothing about quality.
Is whole milk not a "quality food item" because it's only 3.25% butterfat?
Edit: I forgot the quality adjective which confused some.
It's not ice cream. They didn't say not a food item. They said not that food item. It isn't ice cream if it can't meet that incredibly low bar. If they want me to call it ice cream, they can make a small amount less in profit and deliver a better product. Until then, it's an ice dessert to recognize it's subpar quality.
ice dessert to recognize it's subpar quality.
The amount of butterfat says absolutely nothing about the quality of a food item.
Gelato from the Cremeria Cavour in Bologna is higher quality than Dairy Queen despite Dairy Queen having more butter fat.
Edited for clarity.
A sorbet or an Italian ice doesn't have butterfat at all, because neither contain dairy.
I think that it'd be hard to convincingly claim that an ice cream intrinsically is higher quality than a sorbet or Italian ice.
It tells you something about the quality of ice cream. Yeah, it doesn't tell you about the quality compared to a totally different product, but if you are comparing "ice cream" quality then it is an objective measure of quality.
Amount of butterfat is a single ingredient. A single ingredient does not determine the quality of a food product.
Even if two food products were identical except for butterfat content, it still wouldn't be an objective measure of quality because it only affects taste and taste is subjective. It's like declaring that one burger is objectively better because it has more chili pepper seasoning. Now imagine if the FDA declared that to call a product a burger, it needed to have a minimum Scolville level of 500,000. The FDA would have created the requirement as consumer protection because people expected burgers to be spicy. The label would have had nothing to do with quality.
Better =/= quality. You can prefer things of lower quality. Sure, it's only one component (I'd argue the most important one), but it's still an objective measure of quality. Maybe you can have just of high quality by using better quality ingredients other than that, but if you're skimping on this one then you're skimping everywhere almost certainly.
DQ is not a fancy ice dessert place. Everyone knows that. They're the bottom tier for it. It's fine to like that. We all have certain low quality things we like; junk food for example. It's OK. You don't need to pretend like it's high quality though.
The definition of Quality: "the degree of excellence of something."
The amount of fat in a food product has nothing to do with its excellence.
objective measure of quality.
It is an objective measurement of an ingredient. It says nothing about quality.
If burgers were traditionally spicy and the FDA declared a burger needed to be Scolville 500,000 to be called a burger, the level of spice still would have nothing to do with its quality. Its a label for consumers to know what they are purchasing. It is not a label about quality.
I didn't say DQ is fancy. I object to confusing a consumer label about an ingredient with an objective measure of quality. No one would say the Gelato from Cremeria Cavour in Bologna is low quality because Dairy Queen has more butter fat.
This except the complete opposite... :p
The FDA definitions and regulations cost corporations money, because they need to produce what they claim.
History lesson, pre-FDA a large corporation got caught selling thickened yellow sugar water as honey... The kicker was they would put a dead bee in each bottle to sell the fraud.
FDA, EPA and other larger government regulating agencies aren't perfect but jesus was shit crazy bad before them.
(Another fun example, look up the Ohio river fire. Yes, the companies literally dumped enough shit into the river, it caught fire.)
I wouldn't go that far. Even labeling what should be called ice cream is good. The problem is not understanding the regulations that cause people to make judgements that have nothing to do with quality.
Tbh I don’t really need the full blizzard anyway, most of my enjoyment comes from the first several bites then the rest I finish out of inertia. I’d rather have half the size twice as often, from a calorie-counting perspective.
Also you could just buy a bigger size with your gas savings if you really needed it.
No. I could probably get 3 gallons of ice cream at the grocery store for what one of those costs.
No, I’d show my local this photo and ask why they were shafting me.
20 minutes total or 40 minutes total? Honestly probably no to both. Depends how regularly it is.
I would report the DQ on the left to corporate. Fast food franchises have standards they meed to follow in order to not damage the brand. The franchise owner will absolutely get spanked for that.
You're assuming the one on the left isn't the one already doing it correctly.
Honestly dude, just show them the picture, and tip an extra 2 bucks when you go. They’re minimum wage workers, they don’t give a fuck and they do not get tips ever at dq. They will remember that shit forever and do that for you.
This question is more American than apple pie and an AR-15.
Edit: I've started some shit with the apple pie.
Trivia: while the phrase "American as apple pie" is a thing, it's something of a misnomer. Apples aren't New World, and apple pie was a thing prior to Europeans heading over to the Americas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple
Apples have been grown for thousands of years in Eurasia before they were introduced to North America by European colonists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_pie
Originating in the 14th century in England, apple pie recipes are now a standard part of cuisines in many countries where apples grow.
Apple pie was brought to the colonies by the English, the Dutch, and the Swedes during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Although originating in England and eaten in Europe since long before the European colonization of the Americas, apple pie as used in the phrase "as American as apple pie" describes something as being "typically American".[31][32] In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, apple pie became a symbol of American prosperity and national pride. A newspaper article published in 1902 declared that "No pie-eating people can be permanently vanquished."[33] The dish was also commemorated in the phrase "for Mom and apple pie"—supposedly the stock answer of American soldiers in World War II, whenever journalists asked why they were going to war. Jack Holden and Frances Kay sang in their patriotic 1950 song "The Fiery Bear", creating contrast between this symbol of U.S. culture and the Russian bear of the Soviet Union:
We love our baseball and apple pie
We love our county fair
We'll keep Old Glory waving high
There's no place here for a bear
Maybe we should use "American as chocolate chip cookies"
those were invented in the US.
Blueberry Pie
As American as regular school shootings. Nobody else has those.
Hmm. I'm in the US, but I think my favorite style is the Dutch style, which has that streusel topping with brown sugar and cinnamon.

That being said, I don't know whether Dutch apple pie actually originated in the Netherlands.
kagis
Hmm. Well, I don't see anything that clearly indicates that, though it looks like the Dutch did make apple pie without strusel topping, at least at one point:
https://www.historicalcookingclasses.com/oldest-dutch-apple-pie/
The first printed Dutch cookbook appears in 1514 in Brussels . It is called Een notabel boecxken van cokeryen (a notable book of cookery). It is filled with many tasty recipes involving the use of luxurious products, and it also has a great apple pie recipe. The apples are richly seasoned and cooked in a luscious layer of dough. The spices used to season these apples are the most expensive ingredients in the 16th century. Back then, this was a pie that was only eaten by the richest people in town. Nowadays, everyone can enjoy it.
investigates further
These guys think that what we call Dutch apple pie in the US may be actually a development in the US fusing various European dishes:
Many pies will grace the Thanksgiving buffet today, and perhaps one of them is a Dutch apple pie, topped with a buttery, crumble crust laced with chopped walnuts.
The name Dutch, however, is a bit of a modern-day misnomer.
The etymology of these names have historic roots that pervade the ties of colonialism in the New World and old European traditions. The term Dutch, now used specifically to identify people from The Netherlands, was once used interchangeably to describe people from both Germany and The Netherlands.
The Dutch and Germans each had their own version of an apple pie that would include a lattice crust or be more cake-like in consistency.
"Dutch apple pie is not Dutch. Our 'appeltaart' is either more cake-like or made with a buttery crust," says Peter Rose, a food historian and author specializing in Dutch cuisine.
But where did Dutch apple pie originate, and why the walnuts?
"The Netherlands certainly has walnuts and perhaps adding those makes it Dutch. In his book of 1655, Adriaen van der Donck remarks on the quality of the walnuts here. The Dutch are and were very fond of nuts. In New Netherland (the Dutch American colonies), it was customary to offer 'nuts ready cracked' to visitors," says Rose.
Black walnut trees grew with abundance in the Northeast — one of the few sources of nuts — and the American ideal of "make it do," paired with the availability of the nuts, apples, sugar (thanks to triangle trade stops in Albany, where rum was made for British bastions in New York and western Massachusetts) easily led to pie (which was more of a breakfast food at the time.)
Beyond that, dairy farming as an industry didn't begin in America until the 1800s, and butter was used sparingly. (Many apple pie recipes from the time will call for a touch of cream, but not butter.) Making a simple strudel of sugar and walnuts, a technique long employed in Europe, could replace the top crust and save the precious golden butter for other uses.
As New York settlers began to move into Pennsylvania, they took with them the habit of crumb toppings on pie. In her book, "The Lost Art of Pie Making," Barbara Swell lists various Pennsylvania Dutch pies with crumb toppings (like shoefly, vanilla custard and sour cherry), stating that most of the original pies in the area are the unique cake-pie combination Germans were known for.
Many of the settlers in that area were also French Huguenots, who brought with them a tendency toward flakier, crispy doughs and crusts that we associate with pie today. The claim can be made that modern Dutch apple pie actually has French-colonist-in-Pennsylvania origins.
Hmm. So maybe Dutch apple pie derives from a dish that started in England, has a crust from France, a cake crumb topping from Germany...but that the fusion probably happened in the US, maybe in part due to limited availability of butter in the early US. So at least my favorite form of apple pie probably was developed in the US, though it was a fusion of various European dishes.
There are fancy restaurants in London specialising in almost anything.
No wonder where the global warming comes from. This looks to me like one of the stupidest wastes of energy.
What are we even doing freezing cream? Adds carbon to the air to chill stuff. And cream? Belching, farting cows. Plus they put flavors in it, which are totally unnecessary.
Take those pictures to the closer one, ask to see the manager, sweep your bangs back behind your ear, and Karen the fuck out of them. Justice achieved
No, I don't need all those extra calories. I also would eat at a local shop instead.
Yes, this. Can’t say it any better. Local shops for stuff like this is a win.
Got to be honest here, I know and patronize a lot of Mom & Pop shops, but it hadn't occurred to me until just now that there were still independent ice cream shops anymore. I'm super jelly that you have one available to you.
I'd probably just buy the next size up at the closer store if I wanted that much. I usually buy the smallest size & end up throwing about 1/4 of it away.
Still, when I go for ice cream(*), I'm going because it's a treat. Getting one overstuffed like the one on the right would certainly trigger more dopamine.
So, I guess it's a coin flip depending whether or not it's a nice day for a drive.
I can’t tell what size blizzard this is thanks to the short cup, they’re usually taller. (Where I am in the US) They’re $4.99 or so for a medium, that’s my best guess. 20 miles round trip for the further “better” blizzard, 40 minutes in the car at that distance means city/town driving, so I’ll guess 18mpg. Extra gallon of gas for that round trip is gonna be ~$3+ USD unless you’re in California, and then it’s probably $4.25 or so.
Your best bet is to not waste gas, time, and wear on the car and order the next size up if your gas is $3-ish, or maybe order two if you’re in California.
No, I would not drive further.
No. I'm not driving anywhere (walkable city resident) and I'm not eating that junk. I'm insufferable, sorry.
As a European just let me say wow.
This is wrong on so many levels. And I assume you're not aware of half of them.
As a Canadian, lol.
I hope I'm aware of at least 3/4's of the levels of wrongness. We're pretty influenced by American culture but still have our own identity. It seems to be fading a bit with time but I remember travelling to the US and thinking why is the yogurt so sweet? Why is the bread sweet?
I went on a work trip, pancakes had so much sugar they did not taste good, then powdered sugar on top, and a large slab of butter. The table syrup was just brown glucose-fructose. It was terrible. For dinner we went to Panerra bread, again everything you expect to be savory was so sweet.
As a Central American I'm... kinda clueless. What's this about? Enlighten me, please!
Aside from the environmental impact of driving 10 (!) Extra miles (or at all) for a tiny bit of extra ice cream, which is neither healthy nor needed. It just doesn't make sense on a personal financial level to waste so much gas to get a cheaper (per volume) treat. For a European driving to get ice cream alone is ridiculous as many placed have ice cream shops in the town we live in that we walk or bike to.
Oh, I thought they were taking about the ice cream itself as if it had some ungodly ingredients and sprinkles of human rights violations. Now I feel silly.
Thank you!
I was thinking with the petrol expense factored in wouldn't it work out cheaper just to buy 2?
Gas is pretty cheap
I also dont know how much a blizzard is. I imagine theyre basically the same as a mcflurry from mcdonalds?
Looks like a blizzard is in the realm of $6? I don't go to DQ, but living in a region with many of them I can say gas is generally accessible for ~$2.50 so unless you're driving something that gets 10mpg there's basically no way to make buying two be worth it. I only have to fill up gas once every month or two because my car is a plug in hybrid and I rarely go more than ~40 miles in a trip so it's unlikely I use gas at all. With free nights I don't even really pay much to fill my battery.
For overpriced aerated ice cream? Just go to the local supermarket and get some good ice cream. It's cheaper it'll taste better.
20 minutes each way? No. 20 minutes total? Yes. Though, not if I'm working. I'm not getting off later just to get some ice cream.
Accessing the food court without a membership is hit and miss per location isn't it? Like, they really don't want people eating there without a membership but the way the stores are laid out they can't really prevent it so it's all down to how badly each individual store wants to enforce that rule.
No? I got an ice caffee basicly at every corner
Nah, for the obvious gas reasons. Now, is it was a Foster Freeze... still nah, but I'd certainly consider it if I had other business in that town and could get a Boss burger alongside it.
The only place I've seen Foster's Freezes are in California.
kagis
https://fostersfreeze.com/locations/
It looks like they never expanded out-of-state, so probably not an option for OP.
Dairy Queen:
https://www.dairyqueen.com/en-us/locations/
4156 locations
Yeah, unfortunate. Even within Cali, it's not like they went the way of the In n Out, I see them close down more than open up. It's too bad, they're the OG blended ice cream, apparently making the Twister back in 1946.
I keep seeing your comments tonight with kagis used as a verb. I've been interested in trying kagi for a while now. How do you feel their indexing stacks up to Google? I like them from an ethical standpoint, but paying for a browser that doesn't work well might be difficult to pallete I'm afraid.
I guess that they're okay, but I didn't use them because I was unhappy with Google's index, but rather because Google didn't offer a no-log, no-profile service. I didn't want to be in a constant fight with service providers who are trying to make their money via whatever alternate route they can (selling one's data, profiling, showing ads, taking payment from people to get higher result ranking, whatever). Just wanted to pay them up front and not deal with trying to figure out and try to mitigate the latest way in which I was the product.
If Google would offer YouTube service that provided a no-log, no-profile option, I'd probably consider that too. That is, I don't have a problem with Google-the-company so much as I do the fact that they've decided that providing a privacy-oriented service isn't presently worth it to them. Kagi does have a video search that indexes a number of video streaming services (including YouTube, PeerTube here on the Fediverse, and a number of others), but you're still still needing to stream the video from the provider.
The only premium Kagi feature that I make much use of is their Threadiverse search ("Fediverse Forum" search lens), as there isn't really a great way to replicate that browser-side, and other search engines haven't bothered to implement it last I looked. They keep adding stuff, but I mostly haven't bothered to try the new stuff out.
looks
It looks like at some point, they added a Usenet archives search, which I actually commented here at some point saying they should implement. So maybe I'll make use of that. Right now the main alternatives there are Google Groups, which I don't think Google has been doing much work on in many years and has a kinda-broken index that mingles Usenet results with other scraped forum results, and a small search engine that some indie person set up that doesn't have much by way of filtering functionality.
As to result quality, Kagi has some trial option where someone can try out a limited number of searches without paying anything, so you can try it if you want to see whether their results are what you want.
paying for a browser
I don't use their browser, just their website. They have a plugin for Firefox that I use that makes it slightly more convenient to use them as a search option.
Without a doubt yes. Why? Because I bet the customer service and wait time at the 2nd one is better.
I’m too damn grumpy for that.
No. For starters I'm a metric kind of guy. Secondly I'm not that into blizzards.
Ten years ago? Maybe. Not regularly but as a treat. I might talk with the manager about my concerns. Might even take it to corporate if I'm still unhappy. If I still don't like it, then I would just probably go without instead of exerting extra effort.
Now? No way. I'm so fed up with companies giving us less for more, I participate as little as I possibly can.
Nah I'd just buy none and find something better closer. Or if I was desperate buy two of the shit one.
What is a DQ? Either way no I wouldn't drive for any of them.
top 100 comments