Every State, Ranked by Its Food
Here's a state ranking that guaranteed to cause offense and arguments. Thrillist employed a mysterious panel of judges (described as "omnivorous") to eat their way through state cuisines. They don't reveal their methodology, although locally grown crops and products like wine and whiskey are factored in. The rankings will only surprise you for certain places you feel strongly about, such as your home state. Kentucky didn't make the top half, but it also didn't make the bottom ten, as it usually does in state rankings. And I thought Louisiana was robbed. However, you learn some details about the states along the way.
37. Arizona
Allegedly inventing the chimichanga by deep-frying a burrito definitely counts for something, and we're insanely fixated on Pizzeria Bianco. But it's hard to get excited about all those chains dotting the scorched landscape. If you happen to be elderly, advance this ranking seven spots up the list. If you happen to be a minority, drop Arizona 13 spots.
36. Indiana
Indianapolis has come a long way in recent years, with establishments like the universally beloved Milktooth injecting some life into a far too chain-dominant dining scene. And when you're outside Indy, keep your eyes peeled for some sugar cream pie. Maybe skip the fried brain sandwich.
Check out the entire ranking at Thrillist. -via Digg
(Image credit: Jason Hoffman/Thrillist)
We hope you like this article!
Please help us grow by sharing:
Get Updates In Your Inbox
Free weekly emails, plus get access
to subscriber-only prizes.
Comments (0)
Umm... I'm not so sure that I agree. The value the pieces have ON the board can be said to be derived from the fact that they are not OFF the board. That being said, a queen worth 9 pawns ON the board should be considered to be worth -9 pawns OFF the board.
Looks fantastic, even as an interior design gadget.
This statement also got my attention when I first read it. I think that its “Truth” depends on what perspective you take. If you have your queen taken, and it is placed in front of your opponent, then yes, you can look at YOUR queen as much as you want, but it has no value to you since you can’t use it. But if you look at the situation from your opponents view, it has tremendous value since it is indeed off of the board. I think that the statement is most true from the perspective of an observer watching the game, since for the most part, the observer does not have an invested interest in the pieces (unless they have put money on the game of course, then its back to no value).
It’s kind of like Hurley from LOST. Yes, he was a millionaire, but since his money was not with him on the island, did the money have any value to him? Hurley tried telling people his background, but he got no respect. The money was worthless. Zero points.
Side Note: There are several references to Alice in Wonderland on LOST. I wonder if the writers used the above statement about chess to write the character of Hurley?
Seems to me that not having his money with him does indeed have a value, b/c having the money has a value. There has to be a reciprocal.
Having the money is worth 'x'
Not having the money is worth the opposite or 1/x.
So by this proof, anything deemed to have value in a given circumstance will have the reciprocal value in the opposite circumstance, no?
BTW, When did this thread turn into math?
I definitely agree that it's a really neat set. I would love to own one.
One of the things I like about Neatorama is that you can have insightful (albeit sometimes whimsical) discussions over the stories and not get flamed.
Sorry if the math bores you... it's just a silly thing I do :)
Queen on the board = 9 pawns
Queen off the board = -9 pawns
I guess one way to contradict my own argument might be that the value of the queen off the board is actually zero... but that it leaves the overall value of the the side playing that queen 9 less (or -9).
That would mean that you look at the board with no pieces as being worth -78 pawns (kings having no pawn equivalent).
From a mathematical perspective, it seems the board should exist with a value of zero. Which would mean it's worth nothing without pieces on it. Each piece then adds its respective value to the board... and each piece that's removed removes its respective value from the board.
Reminds me of the glass with a picture of a bikini-clad woman. When you put liquid in it, the bikini disappears.
Now there's a concept.
Second thought: how inconvenient for initially arranging the pieces on the board.
Thought after reading the comments: I interpreted that "off the board" value as in when a game is not in session and the pieces are just stored away. Outside the game entirely, each piece has no more significance than any other. Also reminiscent of the prover, "when the game is done, the king and the pawn go into the same box."