There is no music in hell, for all good music belongs to heaven. ~Brigham Young
Question #92161 posted on 05/12/2019 3:24 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Who copied who, Chip or Crumbl?



Dear Yoda,

Chip came first, but Crumbl is infinitely superior. And technically both of them copied Levain, the first giant cookie-delivery company. Besides, it's not like making cookies is such a novel business idea that two separate businesses couldn't come up with it separately (so it's not so much that they were copying each other as they both just thought it was a good idea). I wasn't able to find the exact dates for when Chip opened their doors, but it was at least a couple months before the first Crumbl opened theirs. But Crumbl just does cookies better, and in this essay I will explain why people should stop wasting their money at Chip.

  1. If you just want a giant cookie, they're about the same size at both Chip and Crumbl, so it's not like Chip has an advantage in that way. They also charge the same amount for a box of four cookies.
  2. Chip's cookies are too greasy. They literally soak through the cardboard box they come in (partially because the box is very flimsy), so if you buy them and put the box on the seat of your car as you drive home, chances are you'll end up with cookie grease on your seat. And what the heck even is cookie grease? Why are their cookies so oily? Aside from obnoxiously getting everything the box touches greasy, their weirdly oily cookies also get ALL over your hands, and they're not as fun to eat because it's such an obvious reminder that you're eating REALLY unhealthy food. Obviously a giant cookie isn't ever going to be healthy, but I don't want to feel like I'm ingesting a bucket of lard while I'm eating it.
  3. Chip cookies are too sweet. And if you know me, you know that I have an EXTREMELY high sweet tolerance. But come on Chip, tone it down (or at least start using semi-sweet chocolate chips instead of milk chocolate).
  4. You can only buy boxes of four cookies at Chip--if you just want one cookie, you're out of luck. At Crumbl, you can buy a single cookie, you can buy a box of four, or you can buy a party box with a dozen cookies. That's WAY better options.
  5. Crumbl has so many better flavors! Chip literally only offers chocolate chip cookies, and occasionally they'll have specialty flavors for a few weeks. But it's only ever one specialty flavor at a time, so at best they only ever have two options available, and then only for a few weeks at a time. But their specialty flavors are also so rare that even if you go to Chip every week for a whole year, you'll still probably only be able to try maybe up to seven different flavors over the course of the entire year. Crumbl, on the other hand, has a veritable plethora of flavors. Every single week they offer chocolate chip and sugar cookies (so they already have a leg up on Chip), but in addition to that they cycle out four different specialty flavors every single week. So if you're in the mood for a classic chocolate chip or sugar cookie, you'll always be in luck, but you can also get exciting flavors like Biscoff Lava, Almond Joy, Nutella Sea Salt, Coconut Lime, Raspberry Cheesecake, or Funfetti. And it's fun to see what four flavors they'll have every week. Sometimes it will be a lineup of crowd favorites or sometimes it will be all new and exciting flavors, but they're always delicious, and even if you don't like one of them, you have five other flavors to choose from every single week. I could rant about this point for days, but seriously, Crumbl is infinitely more creative with their flavors.
  6. Crumbl cookies are good the day after you buy them. Heck, I even like some of their flavors better after they've been in the fridge for a day. Chip cookies, on the other hand, do not age well, so unless you can eat a box of four 18-pound cookies in one sitting (yes, I know they're not actually 18 pounds each), you're going to have to throw them away. Chip cookies are good warm because they're so gooey and yummy, but when they're cold you realize that part of the gooeyness is that they're undercooked in the middle. So when they've cooled down you're left with weird congealed yet still raw dough at the center, and it's not great.
  7. The ambiance at Crumbl is nicer. It smells like fresh-baked cookies, they have cute pink boxes and nice tables to sit at while you eat or even just while you wait for your cookies, their storefronts are nice, they have good lighting, it's a lovely experience. Meanwhile, Chip is located in some crumbling building next to a bunch of construction on a busy street with hardly any parking. Inside the lighting is stark, it mostly just smells like sugar without the warm vanilla-y scent of cookies, they don't have tables to sit at, and the customer area is so small that it's often overcrowded.
  8. Crumbl is more diversified. You can also buy ice cream there, based on their most popular cookie flavors!
  9. Crumbl is better at social media. Every week they have a cute video where they debut their specialty flavors of the week, and it's a delight to see those videos on my Instagram feed. Also, one time last year Chip's Instagram said they had Biscoff cookies, but when I went in they told me they were out and hadn't bothered to update their Instagram, and let me tell you, that was a huge let-down. 
  10. Crumbl just won Best of State. If you don't believe me about their superiority, believe all the other people who prefer Crumbl over Chip. True, Chip won Best of State last year, but Crumbl won it for 2019. I like to think that means that people are finally realizing that they should have been eating at Crumbl all along.

That whole rant aside, though, if someone offers me a free cookie from Chip you better believe I'll still accept it. A cookie is still a cookie, and although I sound like I despise Chip in this answer, I really don't. But what I've found is that every time I get cookies there, I end up sort of disappointed, and after spending $10 on cookies you deserve better than disappointment. I've never been disappointed with Crumbl. In fact, I'm usually giddy with excitement about trying their flavors! So, Yoda, the moral of this answer that's probably much longer than you bargained for, is that even though they opened their doors a little later than Chip, Crumbl just does cookies better and you should spend your money there instead of at Chip.


Question #91969 posted on 05/12/2019 3:24 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I am racist against Indians (the Asian kind not the Native American kind). I've worked with Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, Guatemalans, Germans, South Africans and British, and have gotten along well with all of them. But every time I am working on some sort of project with an Indian, they do and say really wacky things and a lot of their mannerisms make my skin crawl. I'm getting worried that I am starting stereotype the Indians I've worked with to an entire race and won't give the next guy a fair chance.

Any advice?

-My Name Here


Dear Your Name,

Like Anathema and Sunday Night Banter, I think you should research famous Indians and Indian history and culture. To give you a jumping-off point for your research, I made a list of some amazing people where you can start your research (*note* I tried to make my list mostly contemporary, with the exception of Gandhi, so you can see modern-day examples of Indians. Some of the people on my list were born and raised in countries other than India, and I'm not doing this to diminish the voices of people from India, but because unfortunately, most internationally famous Indians weren't actually born in India).

  • Mohandas K. Gandhi. Obviously no list of famous Indians could be complete without Gandhi. Over the course of his life he worked to help free India from British rule, dismantle the caste system in India and elevate the status of "untouchables," and protested racism in South Africa. His life is an example of selfless service and non-violent protests (he underwent 17 hunger strikes over the course of his life, two of which lasted 21 days, as well as going on marches and organizing boycotts), and his peaceful approach to creating deep social change had a huge effect on Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Priyanka Chopra. Chopra was a Bollywood star and won the both the title of Miss India and Miss World before eventually headlining the American show Quantico from 2014-2018. She's a philanthropist who has worked with UNICEF since 2006, and was named their global Goodwill Ambassador for child rights in both 2010 and 2016. This past December she got married to Nick Jonas at the Umaid Bhawan Palace in India, and their photos are stunning.
  • Hasan Minhaj. Minhaj was the senior correspondent on the Daily Show between 2014 and 2018, and now has his own show on Netflix, The Patriot Act, as well as a comedy special called Homecoming King. Although he was born in California, both his parents were Indian immigrants, and he's talked a lot about how important his Indian identity is to him, and the ways it shaped him. 
  • Jameela Jamil. If you're a fan of The Good Place, she plays Tahani al-Jamil. She was born in England to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, and has talked about how important it is to her that she's able to represent South Asian women. She's dedicated a lot of her life to activist causes, especially promoting body positivity and inclusivity. 
  • Mindy Kaling. Born in the US to Indian parents, her last name is actually Chokalingam (she devised her stage name when doing stand-up comedy because she realized most people had a hard time pronouncing her actual last name). She's a hilarious actress and comedian, and apparently super nice in real life.

This website also has tons of information on famous people from India, who have accomplished all sorts of really cool things in all sorts of cool fields. Hopefully seeing how diverse Indians are and learning about the amazing things so many of them have accomplished will help you start to see them as individual people rather than just representatives of a group you don't like very much. And then as you learn more about the people who really make up that group, hopefully you can learn to not dislike it as much.

I would also recommend learning more about Indian culture. If you live in Utah, check out the amazing Hare Krishna temple in Spanish Fork. Although it's now too late for the Festival of Colors this year, every Sunday they have their Sunday Love Feast, where they have a sermon and then a vegan meal. It's open to everyone, and the people are so lovely. The priest, Caru Das, is white, but most of the congregants are Indian, and all the food is Indian, and it's really an awesome experience to get to know them. In that same vein, eat at authentic Indian restaurants! Indian food is probably my favorite in the whole world, and Provo has some really great Indian-owned Indian restaurants (my favorite is India Palace, and the owner there is such a kind, funny, wonderful Indian man). 

You can also research more about the amazing cultural and religious and architectural advances that have come from India. Religiously, it's a fascinating place that has had a huge influence on how the world thinks about religion. It's the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism, and is the last stronghold in the entire world of Zoroastrianism (which, by the way, is a really freaking cool religion that more people should know about). In modern India, in addition to the religions listed above, Islam and Christianity also thrive side by side. In terms of religious diversity and acceptance, I think the US has a lot to learn from India. Hopefully learning about some of the religions that have seeped into the culture of India will help you learn why they act the way they act and believe the things they believe. Find worship services for Hinduism or Sikhism or Jainism near you and go learn about the incredibly principled way they live and their amazing policy of non-violence toward every living creature. Find a Holi festival near you or go to Diwali this autumn. The more you immerse yourself in their culture, with an open mind and the expectation that you'll find things to appreciate, the more you'll hopefully start to see all the amazing things about it.

If you're interested in a jumping-off point for more research about all the amazing things to come out of India, this Wikipedia article has a huge list of Indian inventions and discoveries.



Dear Aziraphale,

Research famous Indians who have done amazing things. Dive into Indian history and culture. Essentially broaden your knowledge of Indians to extend beyond the negative experiences you've had.

I hope this helps, and want to let you know that I think it's admirable of you to recognize the beginnings of prejudice, and combat it.



Dear you,

Maybe you could take a trip to India and try to understand Indian culture. Sometimes understanding cultural backgrounds can help us give people the benefit of the doubt and explain why people do certain things.

Good luck!

-Sunday Night Banter


Dear friend, 

Are you on campus? Please please please sign up for SOC 323 (Race and Ethnicity). I'm TA-ing for one of the professors. This is seriously one of the most life-changing classes I've ever taken. Working through the Racial Identity Model and learning to genuinely listen and deeply feel for others will help with racism towards any group. 



Question #92164 posted on 05/12/2019 8:12 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've been thinking about the rise and fall of civilizations. Rome, Greece, and the like. The pattern seems to be that a fall comes because of complacency and decadence; if you see something different, I'd like to hear another angle.

I worry that America may be on the same path. 243 years we've stood, now possibly at the invisible precipice of our end.

My question here is: has any major civilization been able to avert its end? Broken the cycle, or at least forestalled its doom and extended its life? What can America do to forestall the fall of our culture and civilization? What does our future look like?

-Thinking Emoji


Dear Emoji,

Technically every country in world if you think about it. Some are more stable than others but by default none of them have met their end.



Dear Thinker,

While complacency and decadence may have been trends you've noticed, the actual causes associated with the falls of great empires are much more complex. It's so complex that huge, fat tomes written on the subject still can't comprehensively address the issue. 

I think a common tendency people have is to break down large, complex matters into single pithy statements. While the simplification sometimes is useful and describes the most fundamental aspects of the bigger concept, it often misses crucial elements that would completely change perceptions about the concept. Real life is messy and complex, and we can't always simplify it in nice ways. The point of this paragraph is that I don't think it's reasonable to identify a couple of common themes from history and hold them as the standard for what is doomed to happen. Yes, we should learn from history, but we should also be wary of portraying connections as either stronger or more tenuous than they really are.

Anyways. I'll step off my soap box now.

We often talk about the fall of the Roman Empire as having happened in 476, when the emperor was killed on a battlefield. But really it was still going strong in the East: the Byzantine Empire was just as 'Roman' as the traditional Western Roman Empire. I think this actually serves as a nice example of an empire "forestalling its doom", so to speak. The Byzantine Empire faced a lot of the same issues as the Western Empire, and had the same origin. Yet it lasted for hundreds of years longer.

Honestly, I don't feel qualified enough to even offer conjecture for the trajectory of America's future. I'm not up to date on current events (I don't follow any news sources), and haven't taken a single history class in my college career (unless you count history of philosophy). But I do have a resource I think you'd be interested in: The Fall of Rome podcast hosted by Patrick Wyman. Wyman is a PhD in history, and did his thesis on an aspect of the fall of Rome. I think you'd find it enlightening and interesting.



Dear Sage,

The United States already has, multiple times. Most notably, I think the Civil War certainly felt like the end of the civilization of America. I mean, our country literally broke in two. Now, what people posit is that the "Second American Civil War" will occur along the blue-red divide, which is probably what you're thinking about too (I could be wrong.) And some people definitely agree. For example, I listened recently to a podcast called It Could Happen Here, episode "The Second American Civil War." While definitely a left-leaning argument (even for my personal taste), there is some interesting (and terrifying) information and prediction in there. Now, it's not a doomsday prophecy, necessarily. (And let's be real, it wouldn't last very long because only the people with guns would live anyway, so we all know how that would go.) But I agree with you - it feels like we're standing at the end of an era. 

One thing I disagree with is the idea that complacency leads to the fall of a civilization. Sure, you could twist it that way, but I think it has more to do with violence, expansion beyond maintainability, inability to support citizens, and/or acting contrary to the vision of the masses. Rome died and broke apart because it got so big it just couldn't stay together anymore. 

So what about the U.S.? We're seeing a lot of violence, riots, brutality, verbal abuse, etc.... but is it any more than in the past? Not really, it just looks a bit different and is more visible. Are we too big to maintain our existence? I don't think so, that's the point of having state and municipal governments - it breaks things down. We're still 'able' to support our citizens, though we're currently favoring only a handful of people while leaving most to struggle, but that's not something we can't work through with new policies. And, because of our periodic elections, it's not very often that someone who acts contrary to the wishes of their constituents lasts very long in politics. So basically, I don't think America is going to fall any time soon. We've made it through the Civil War, the Gilded Age (not unlike what we're in now), The Great Depression, both World Wars, the Cold War, 9/11, and more. All of those events felt like the end to the people that lived through them. Whatever this thing is we're living through, I doubt it will be the end. It may change the world as we know it, but it won't be the end. (And anyway, climate change will probably kill us all first, so why worry about it?)

At the end of the day, I think most of us do care about our country, we just have different visions for what it ought to look like. We want to solve certain problems and ignore other ones, put money into certain projects that other people disagree with. I think the young adults and kids that are growing up right now are seeing what's happening and we're trying to do something about it, and we're trying to learn to be diplomatic and respectful in our discussions (or at least, I hope we are.) Furthermore, the world is more connected than it ever has been in the past, so there is global reliance, which makes everyone just a bit more stable (sure, it can also cause wars and terrorism and other bad stuff too, but that happened before anyway, so let's think positive.)

I can't predict what our future will look like. I doubt it will look like anything we've seen in the past or present, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. Just different. We aren't "stalling" before meeting our demise, we're just embracing each new day and changing over time. Even if someday the idea of "America" as we imagine it now doesn't exist, I expect that "America" as a civilization will be pretty indefinite. Also, 243 years isn't much. The British Empire has been around for WAY longer than that and gone through LOTS of radical changes, but it hasn't ever really fallen. 

Anyway, that's my two cents. 




Dear thinker,

I was advised this last week to read Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. If I had immediately followed the advice I would have been able to give you a fantastic answer about why nations fail and others don't and where America seems be be standing. Unfortunately, I have not taken any steps to get the book yet. But I suggest you do; it seems like it would answer your question perfectly.

-guppy of doom

Question #92235 posted on 05/12/2019 7:12 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,


With the snap of his fingers Thanos erases all movies except 5. What 5 do you want saved?



Dear Snap,

In no particular order: Gone With the Wind, On the Waterfront, Some Like it Hot, Moulin Rouge, and The Princess Bride.




Dear snow pea,

In the interest of preserving history, I'd go with five of the last--and best--Land Before Time films.

  • The Great Longneck Migration (2003)
  • Invasion of the Tinysauruses (2005)
  • The Great Day of the Flyers (2006)
  • The Wisdom of Friends (2007)
  • Journey of the Brave (2016)

A new LBT film in 2016? What a time to be alive, when we can have nearly fifteen--oh, wait.

Shame about the other nine.


--Ardilla Feroz

Question #92229 posted on 05/12/2019 7:12 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When did they stop putting polyethylene glycol in Dr Pepper? And why?

—Mr Salt


Dear reader,

I haven't been able to find much credible info regarding the historical use of polyethylene glycol in Dr. Pepper, whose exact composition is a trade secret.

As for polyethylene glycol, I found the following: "PEGs are generally considered to be biologically inert, making them safe to use throughout the medical and food-processing industries." Contrast this with the similarly named but very different ethylene glycol, a toxic chemical used as antifreeze.

Ethylene glycol is not used in the production of Dr. Pepper, unless you'd doctored it with some yourself, which I absolutely do not recommend.

Does this answer your question?


--Ardilla Feroz

P.S. You might enjoy Board Question #90206, which discusses edible non-water-based liquid, including my personal favorite, propylene glycol.

Question #92192 posted on 05/12/2019 7:12 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In the aftermath of the Notre Dame fire I've seen a lot of news videos that show the people of Paris singing various hymns as the firefighters work to put out the flames. In this particular video from CNN ( there is a really beautiful song being sung between 2:15 and 3:15 interspersed with shots of the burning cathedral. Can you tell me what this hymn is called? I would love to find a more professional recording, if possible, but I don't speak a lick of French and I have no idea what it could be called.

-Heartbroken Hunchback


Dear justine,

We're sorry, but we haven't been able to figure this out. Perhaps an eagle-eared Francophone reader will be able to help us, and in the event we ourselves learn it we'll tell you via correction.


--Ardilla Feroz

posted on 05/12/2019 11:38 p.m.
YouTube comments to the rescue! Someone had the same question and the response linked to the song "Regarde l'étoile"

-The Happy Medium
Question #91937 posted on 05/12/2019 7:12 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I regularly ride UTA FrontRunner from the North Temple Station to the Provo Station. I do this for lots of reasons, one of which is my perception that I'm reducing the carbon and particulate emission of the trip by taking FrontRunner versus driving. A few days ago, I was looking at the massive diesel fuel tanks on FrontRunner, and it made me wonder how many people have to ride the train in order for the fuel saved from not driving cars to offset the fuel burned by FrontRunner.

Question 1: how many vehicle miles must FrontRunner be taking off the road per FrontRunner mile in order for the train to "break even" in terms of carbon and particulates?

Question 2: Do we have any decent way to calculate, based on FrontRunner trips and ridership data, if FrontRunner, as a whole, is making things net better off in terms of carbon and particulates?

Assumptions: Assume that every vehicle mile is driven by a theoretical "average" vehicle. Assume that nobody is driving to or from train stations.

(I also understand that there are lots of other reasons to have a public transit program. I'm just talking about the pollution aspect here, and am not trying to label FrontRunner as "good" or "bad" on this basis).



Dear reader,

I... this is the kind of question I love, and I daresay it's the kind of question I know how to answer.
I don't want to give up on it, and I think I know how to answer it, or how to go about answering it.

But at present, I'm dealing with a lot of stuff and I'm paralyzed about actually beginning it in earnest, much less finish it. You know I do care about your question, right? And I care about you, random reader, and I'm sorry to let you down.

For now, though, I'm going to have to admit retreat, and leave you with this consolation-prize UTA Sustainability Report from 2014, which would be very nice to be able to find for a more recent year, which I haven't.

I'll also leave you with one more tangible thing I discovered as I tried to map a route to your quest: The Golden Spike Train Club of Utah, a group of train hobbyists who have constructed a surprisingly large and impressively intricate model railroad system in--of all places--the basement of an abandoned public bathhouse (and at one point a childrens' museum) at Warm Springs Park in Salt Lake City. They host open houses open to the public once a month.


--Ardilla Feroz

P.S. Happy Golden Spike Sesquicentennial!

posted on 05/21/2019 12:36 p.m.
This doesn't fully answer your question and I don't know exact numbers, but in my urban transportation planning class GJ LaBonty of UTA was a guest speaker. He said the current number of FrontRunner riders is making a dent in pollution compared to if they were driving individually. Diesel is theoretically more efficient than gasoline, but it does create a lot more particulate matter, so he said UTA does hope to eventually convert to electric engines, and that the FrontRunner has diesel engines because people didn't believe it would have good ridership so they didn't invest in electric right off the bat.
Question #92190 posted on 05/12/2019 midnight

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I work at a grocery store in a city where we only use paper bags, never plastic, at the checkout lanes. (Each paper bag is 5 cents.) Today there was a hilariously rude customer who was very convinced that me asking the checker if we should put the groceries in additional bags was a "plot" to get customers to spend more money. (Obviously as a regular store employee, my best interest is just making sure that the bags are not unreasonably heavy or do not tear apart from too many groceries--I already double-bag 90% of the orders I process.) I found it hilarious to explain this to him while he went on and on about the conspiracy to make people pay more at the grocery store.

I got to thinking about it, and wondered why it is that paper bags are, so often, 5 cents each or something in many cities across the US, while plastic bags tend to be free of charge. Surely it would make more sense to charge for plastic bags, which arguably have a larger negative environmental impact than paper bags. Why is this so? Why do we (stores) frequently pass this charge on to the customers?

-your friendly neighborhood grocery store bagger


Dear Mr. Rogers' Grocer,

They charge to discourage people from using paper (or plastic) and to encourage reusable bags. If you're also having to pay just for the things to carry your groceries in every time, it's supposed to make you want to just buy the reusable ones and stop polluting the environment. Sometimes, they also can use the 'bag tax' for government funding. But really, at the end of the day it's green legislation. 

It seems to me that the decision to charge for paper instead of plastic was made by the store you work for, but I don't believe that's universal. In all the stores I've been in in Canada they didn't even offer paper bags, and charged for plastic. Some charge for both. There are also some (AWESOME) "Zero-Waste" stores where you just bring whatever you want to carry your groceries in, and they keep their goods in glass jars and such. 

I think for a long time people were much more focused on 'save the trees' and not the 'microplastics are killing the entire ocean and getting in our bodies too' camp. That's definitely changing more, and I think they will honestly probably start charging for paper AND plastic, or just stop offering one or the other. I don't really think we can make a quantitative judgment on whether deforestation is worse than plastic production because they're both REALLY bad for the environment (I could very well be wrong.)

More information about plastic and paper bag legislation, see here, here, and here.



posted on 05/13/2019 1:12 p.m.
Planet Money from NPR recently had a podcast about this very issue:

They say paper bags are actually worse for the environment than plastic. Cotton (including organic) bags are much worse than paper or plastic and the best option would be reusable plastic or synthetic (polyester) bags.