We previously posted about the most expensive drink at Starbucks, when the add-ons added up to $23.60. That was two years ago, and the record went up to $47.30 in 2013.
But now the record has been broken. Andrew Chifari ordered what is now called a “Sexagintuple Vanilla Bean Mocha Frappuccino” which would have run $54.75 according to the menu, but he got his free. See, he’s a gold member of the Starbucks loyalty club, which means he gets a free drink about buying twelve. And that goes for “any drink available.”
The key step for Andrew’s world-record run was getting the baristas on his side. He walked up to the counter and laid out his goals. “So, this might sound a little weird, but I saw a video on youtube where a guy orders the most expensive Starbucks drink. I want to beat the record.” The cashier had seen the video, and through math and teamwork they figured out how to make a record-busting drink that would fit in his cup and break the record.
“It took a few minutes to figure out all the math, but in the end, it took about 55 shots to get us over the $50 line, and we just rounded it up to 60 to make it easy,” he explained to Consumerist. Everyone behind the counter seemed to be on board with the plan, and they produced the massive confection in about ten minutes.
Consumerist has more details about what was in that drink, which includes caffeine by the gram. Did it kill him? No, he drank it all, but it took him five days. -via Uproxx
(Image credit: Andrew Chifari)
Comments (1)
Total Fail...I was onboard for the yellow/blue not being able to occur together (yellow is all red & green, no blue), but red and green are fundamental components of vision (your recepters are for red, green, and blue). Red plus green is yellow!
http://imgur.com/9OsLm
In this little picture I made the square on the left is blue & yellow pixels which looks kind of grey-ish and the right is red & green pixels only, which looks yellow!
Process architecture of the visual system
http://helen.pion.ac.uk/outreach/images/how/Figure-1.png Van Essen and Felleman (1991)
Kind of. The receptors are for short, medium, and long wavelengths.
Their ranges overlap a bit. Wavelengths that trigger the short receptors are translated as blue. The medium green, and short blue (at least as far as I can tell, depending on how you read the various descriptions), but as the receptors respond to the same light, the relative strengths of the signal (I think) are translated into the varying intermediate colors. Long (red) and medium (green) receptors firing at the same time are interpreted as yellow, for example. We can't "see" a reddish green, because red+green (long + medium) is already perceived as yellow. We *already* have a color that describes that combination.
We perceive colors that can be produced by the full range of physically possible overlapping wavelengths within the visible light spectrum. Take Magenta: there's no single wavelength that can trigger both the long and short receptors while NOT stimulating the middle receptors. But since they can be simultaneously stimulated by *separate* wavelengths, we have the "extraspectral" color Magenta - which you will not find in a rainbow, or in an illustration of the visible light spectrum. Wrapping a spectrum diagram around in a circle so the long red end overlaps with the short blue end is how we get a diagram - the color wheel - that shows all the colors we can see: all the possible combinations of length/receptor overlap that can be triggered by actual light sources.
Take a cup of hot water and mix it with cold, you get warm. We have a sensation mapped onto that combination of degrees of heat. Somehow these experiments are stimulating some kind of response where the brain isn't perceiving warm, its like the subjects are their hands in hot and cold at the same time. It doesn't make any sense physically, but the receptors are being stimulated that way nonetheless, and perceiving something new and completely imaginary, that is not mapped directly to anything in the real world. Or, I could be full of it.
"(your recepters are for red, green, and blue)"
Kind of. The receptors are for short, medium, and long wavelengths.
Their ranges overlap a bit. Wavelengths that trigger the short receptors are translated as blue. The medium green, and short blue (at least as far as I can tell, depending on how you read the various descriptions), but as the receptors respond to the same light, the relative strengths of the signal (I think) are translated into the varying intermediate colors. Long (red) and medium (green) receptors firing at the same time are interpreted as yellow, for example. We can't "see" a reddish green, because red+green (long + medium) is already perceived as yellow. We *already* have a color that describes that combination.
We perceive colors that can be produced by the full range of physically possible overlapping wavelengths within the visible light spectrum. Take Magenta: there's no single wavelength that can trigger both the long and short receptors while NOT stimulating the middle receptors. But since they can be simultaneously stimulated by *separate* wavelengths, we have the "extraspectral" color Magenta - which you will not find in a rainbow, or in an illustration of the visible light spectrum. Wrapping a spectrum diagram around in a circle so the long red end overlaps with the short blue end is how we get a diagram - the color wheel - that shows all the colors we can see: all the possible combinations of length/receptor overlap that can be triggered by actual light sources.
Take a cup of hot water and mix it with cold, you get warm. We have a sensation mapped onto that combination of degrees of heat. Somehow these experiments are stimulating some kind of response where the brain isn't perceiving warm, its like the subjects are their hands in hot and cold at the same time. It doesn't make any sense physically, but the receptors are being stimulated that way nonetheless, and perceiving something new and completely imaginary, that is not mapped directly to anything in the real world. Or, I could be full of it.