
The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas - drx
https://medium.com/what-i-learned-building/9216e1c9da7d
======
flatline
Of course, there is the risk that everyone thinks McDonalds is a swell idea,
and then no one will ever do anything nicer for lunch ever again. Not to
stretch the analogy too far, but I have had this happen both literally and
figuratively.

~~~
alxp
There's a fable warning about the problem of throwing out a suggestion because
you think one needs to be made, and then everyone going along with it because
it's what they think the group wants, when no individual actually wants to do
that thing. It's called the Abilene Paradox:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>

~~~
incompatible
Wikipedia is actually a great example of how getting something started can
eventually lead to something much better. Here's the first version of that
article:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abilene_paradox...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abilene_paradox&oldid=904222)

That's what Wikipedia was like after it was created: random people writing a
few words about some subject they thought they knew something about. It didn't
seem like it would amount to much, at the time.

~~~
pekk
Maybe it hasn't amounted to as much as you think.

In addition to a great deal of general information substantially duplicating
what you already could have found on the internet (much of Wikipedia is
actually scraped/aggregated from elsewhere, which is the real use of
crowdsourcing here), it's also jammed full of trivialities and utterly biased,
misleading, politicized articles guarded jealously by special interest groups.
All those interest groups together form one giant defensive cabal which
rejects criticism of Wikipedia and is constantly begging for money to sustain
itself. Because it's democratic, you see, and not dominated by those egghead
academic experts (but rather by Wikipedia experts, who established their
tenure by making an account and writing rarely-verified information to
Wikipedia in a way that complied with the politics of Wikipedia incumbents).

Wikipedia could have put effort into seriously verifying incoming information,
but that would have made it an elitist affair like academia. Or it could have
seriously taken everything democratically, which would have made it a total
populist mess. Instead it created its own insular oligarchy to tell everyone
what is true or not. And the appointments of this oligarchy are utterly
opaque, but they definitely aren't based on any combination of merit and
democracy.

~~~
splawn
I disagree with your assessment that Wikipedia doesn't add value. It acts as
an awesome aggregator and is usually a good place to start when learning about
any topic. Im not going to play "name that fallacy", but your points against
it seem weak to me. Of course its info is scraped and aggregated from other
sources. Thats how information works. Thats normal even in academia. Im sure
that on pages that don't have many watchers, a bad edit could go unnoticed for
a long time, but this shouldn't be an issue for you, since you follow up on
sources and practice critical thinking no matter what source you use .

~~~
samegreatsleeve
So wikipedia is a low quality content farm that shows up for every google
search and prevents actual expert pages from being seen--taking revenue and
visibility from experts--while providing lower quality content.

And that's a good thing to you.

An unreliable encyclopedia is the most useless thing in the world. An
unreliable encyclopedia with the most powerful SEO in history...is a grave
threat to human knowledge.

~~~
splawn
This is an interesting take on it. What are some examples of experts that are
being silenced?

Usually when people criticize SEO, its over the methods used to get irrelevant
links on pages, putting junk in your serps. Afaik wikipedia does well because
people link to its content, not because of spam tactics.

~~~
samegreatsleeve
The experts aren't bing silenced, they just show up on the second page of
google so get no hits.

The first page will often have literally 5+ links to wikipedia, and those
articles will cite the never-visited reliable page but get a lot of the
details wrong.

You're absolutely right that it's a cultural issue more so than a tech issue.
Wikipedia marketing has managed to convince people that an amateur content
farm should be the first stop for information. But why should your first stop
be amateurs who often get it wrong?

Ask any academic how good wikipedia is for their specialty. It always ranges
from "ok" to "terrible". And why would we expect anything else? How can
amateurs be expected to understand, interpret, and report on reams of subtle
developments in any area?

The best wikipedia articles are the ones that tend most toward plagiarism--
literally just copying the words and concepts of an academic while barely
rephrasing them to avoid copyright infringement. It's not worthwhile.

Meanwhile, every important article on wikipedia has a high quality,
professionally written counterpart on Encyclopedia Britannica. What's the
point of wikipedia?

For an easy example just search any topic in philosophy. Wikipedia comes up
first. Read that, then read Stanford Encyclopedia, then read Encyclopedia
Britannica.

Why is wikipedia the top hit? Because their SEO/marketing is overwhelming.
It's definitely not due to quality! In contrast, the other two options being
beat out by Wikipedia SEO are written by notable experts. The quality
difference is enormous. EB and SEP can actually be relied on. On wikipedia you
never know what important subtlety they got wrong.

Wikipedia is the eHow or expertsexchange of information. It's a drag on human
knowledge. It needs to die.

~~~
incompatible
I can't reproduce your results: I find typical searches give 1 or 2 links to
Wikipedia on the first page. And if you add "-wikipedia" you can get rid of
the lot.

I do realise Wikipedia is far from perfect. So many articles don't cite their
sources, for example, or cite some personal website that doesn't cite any
sources at all.

~~~
samegreatsleeve
Understand that it isn't MY problem. I find it easy to avoid wikipedia because
I know how to do things like -wikipedia.

But I'm not the vulnerable population. Most people don't know to do that, and
just think wiki info is fine when it's not.

The results that give 5+ wikipedias on one search are usually long tailed.

Here's one search I just made up:

logic axioms encyclopedia

First 4 hits are wikipedia, all 4 of them are shit. If you just add -wikipedia
the results are infinitely better. Therefore, wikipedia is a low quality
content farm shitting up the Internet.

It also doesn't help that google, apple products and other services now
directly prioritize wikipedia.

Example:

continental philosophy definition

Google first gives a big bold wikipedia box, presenting wikipedia info as if
it is the fucking gospel.

Then the next hit is wikipedia.

Then the rest are a mix of reliable sites that wikipedia stole its content
from, and wikipedia subsidiaries (Jimmy Wales affiliated) like Citizendium.

How is this considered ok? It's an intellectual travesty and a giant threat to
public education. How many people will click the first link, or the giant
google endorsed wikipedia box, and ignore all the reliable experts below it?

~~~
splawn
I just did your "logic axioms encyclopedia" search, it supports what you say
about google giving preference to wikipedia. However, if you compare
wikipedia's page to britannica's i think it undermines your argument against
wikipedia's inferiority. Wikipedia not only has more information, but it also
lists all of the contributors and has a complete list of citations.
Britannica's banner ad plastered page featured only 3 paragraphs, no citations
for deeper reading and no list of contributors to help you evaluate the
content. I know this is just a sample size of one, but I think it shows that
your opinion is extreme. As I said before, it doesn't matter where you get
your info, you have to practice critical thinking and demand sources. I
totally see where you are coming from, but i am not convinced that it is as
bad as you are making it out to be. Imo, its the lack of education on how to
evaluate information (this includes the ability to determine the "authority"
of its sources) that is an intellectual travesty and a giant threat.

~~~
samegreatsleeve
Britannica costs $5 a month. Their articles are excellent.

A free source written by top philosphers is Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosphy. That should be the first hit.

If Wikipedia wants to be a link farm with citations and links to every source
on some topic, that might be an OK service. That's not what they are. They
claim to be an encyclopedia. They get it 80% right, but 20% wrong is
unacceptable for the world's go-to source for information. Especially when the
better alternatives are just as accessible; they only lack SEO.

------
brucehart
I use a technique like this when I am stuck trying to write code and can't
figure out how to do it efficiently. I ask myself "what is the worst possible
way to implement this function?" and start writing that. Sure enough, that
gets my mind going almost immediately and I start thinking of the improvements
needed to turn it into good code.

~~~
modarts
TDD?

~~~
mjcohen
Test driven development.

As opposed to TTD, which is test to destruction.

Or DDT, which is development driven testing.

Or DMD, which is don't mean diddly.

------
VLM
There's never really anything new in IT. Looking at past revolutions of the
eternal IT wheel the next article will be about Fred Brook's "second system
effect" where a simple 1st choice like McDonalds for lunch inevitably leads to
a ridiculously overengineered second solution in reaction, like a $300/plate
steakhouse or perhaps a strange ethnic restaurant for lunch 90 miles away.

This article is basically a rehash of Fred Brooks "pilot system" concept where
regardless of if they admit it or not, the first system design will be a
throwaway which the team uses to gel their ideas around. Often the second
system ends up like the above paragraph.

As far as I know Brooks was the first turn of this eternal IT wheel, and he
wrote this in the mid 70s about his experiences in the 60s. I'm still young
enough that I suspect most of what Brooks invented in the 70s will be
rediscovered many more times before I retire. As far as I know Brooks was not
rehashing someone previous to him, I'd be interested to learn if anyone has
older references.

Its still a reasonably well written article, even if there's nothing new in
it. Brooks's original writing is also pretty good, if you want to see the
future of software development, what will be claimed to be "invented" over and
over in future decades, you could do worse than "the mythical man month". The
re-release is better than the original but not immensely so, so don't freak if
your local library only has the first edition.

~~~
specialist
I read the article differently. The OP is suggesting failing faster by
starting with an idea, any idea, just to get moving.

I've done something similar.

I was a new minted engineering manager. We had lotsa grumpy gate keepers.
Domain experts who would withhold information, but happy to snipe later on.

So when it wasn't clear (to my immediate team) what to do, I'd add something
really stupid, but plausible, to the requirements. Then claim the document was
being sent to our dealer channel.

Oh boy! Then I'd get the feedback I needed.

~~~
jk4930
Sounds similar to the "duck technique", even if the provoked reactions rely on
different motivations:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_trivialit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality#Related_principles_and_formulations)

------
incision
I don't see this as a creative concern.

Does anyone really think this group of coworkers, which almost surely eats
something, somewhere eat day needs "inspiration" that they are truly bereft of
ideas when this happens?

I don't.

They aren't out of ideas, they're avoiding blame - the inevitable bitching,
disagreement or silent resentment that comes with making a choice.

It's the same blame culture that screws up any number of workplaces only worse
as there may be nothing so pressing and universally felt as something like the
human need for sustenance.

Projects are put off for days, weeks or years and they aren't universally felt
when they remain undone. Individuals can't necessarily act to satiate
themselves either, that could make them "cowboys".

In the original analogy, silence is complacency, the stream of ideas is a
reactive response and the question should really be about how to eliminate the
blame culture and replace it with something proactive and productive.

~~~
ripter
Having been in this same situation at work and at home, I have to disagree
with you.

We go out to lunch several times a week, and unless someone is craving
something, it almost always comes down to this. We use Subway instead of
McDonalds, but the result is the same.

There is no blame, we honestly can't think of where to eat until some idea is
thrown out there. Then all of a sudden we remember that mexican place in the
park, or the new burger joint that opened up a few weeks ago. We throw out
suggestions and if we all agree, then we go. It just takes a little push to
get the ball rolling.

~~~
incision
Seems a bit much you all should consistently be unable to "think of where to
eat" when the question is asked "several times a week".

Does this pervasive forgetfulness show up everywhere in your lives?

If so, you guys should probably be mulling over doctors, not lunch. If not,
you might want to reconsider what I've suggested and why you so consistently
"forget" in socially arbitrated situations.

~~~
jonb
Speaking of investigating life choices, you're coming off like an asshole. You
might want to reconsider the way you talk to people.

Here's the summary:

1\. A post uses food as a metaphor* to make a point.

2\. You basically say bullshit to the food, then rant about life.

3\. Someone says "I dunno if it's BS, I've experienced this!"

4\. And you say "then there's something wrong with you".

Fuck you, buddy.

*I'm the guy who wrote the essay, and for the record it was referring to a bunch of foodies in a design studio who were a few blocks from Pike Place market. It was Hick's Law in action. Frequently.

~~~
incision
_> You might want to reconsider the way you talk to people._

That's amusing to see in a post where you've included both an "asshole" and a
"fuck you".

 _> Here's the summary:_

More like an angry oversimplification.

1&2: I think your post actually goes in two directions, finding individual
motivation and catalyzing group motivations. The latter is what I chose to
comment on.

3&4: The commentor offered an anecdote, I asked him to think critically about
what he's saying versus experiencing. You've taken it upon yourself to assume
a very specific response and quote it as a statement - ridiculous.

------
Dove
My coworkers used to call these "straw horses". Like straw men, but attacking
them is supposed to take you somewhere.

~~~
SagelyGuru
This is a well known psychological effect. The "powers that be" use it all the
time to force their will on an initially resisting population. They first
propose an obviously draconian and unfair legislation, which is then, after a
public outcry, mellowed down to the originally intended form. Hey presto,
everyone is now happy about "the concessions and safeguards", forgetting that
in the process they got something that they never wanted in the first place.

~~~
Flenser
You're describing the overton window
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>

~~~
potench
Rather, SagelyGuru is describing how to manipulate an Overton window.

------
shinykitten
> people are inspired to come up with good ideas to ward off bad ones.

Interesting theory, but I think something else is happening here.

If you have a bunch of people trying to solve a problem, the game is
implicitly defined as "propose the best solution." After the first proposal,
the game changes to "improve on the best solution so far."

This is something to keep in mind during interviews [1] for people on both
sides of the table. If a candidate is silent for too long, propose a bad idea
and ask them to improve on it. That gets them talking out loud, and you get
more info to go on. If you're a candidate, you can start with a bad (yet
probably obvious) solution and explain why it's bad. In the process of talking
it through, you'll likely think of a better solution.

[1] The algorithm/coding one-big-question-over-45-minutes style of interviews
commonly conducted by large software companies.

~~~
babuskov
+1. I think the same. People, esp. smart people judge their ideas as not so
good, and won't even mention it. When you bring up McDonalds, the person
suddenly thinks: Hey, I didn't know the bar was _that_ low.

------
bravura
Related hack:

When you can't make progress and choose between two comparable options, Dan
Ariely (behavioral economist) recommends you flip a coin. As you flip it, the
impact of a potential decision might prompt you to realize the outcome you
truly want.

However, there is a caveat: "The coin trick is indeed only useful for cases
where the two options are of the same type (two cameras, two movies, etc). In
your example, one option is more tempting in the short term (chocolate cake)
while the other is better in the long term (fruit). In such cases we should
not trust our gut feelings to drive us to the best decisions."

[http://danariely.com/2013/01/05/ask-ariely-on-stretching-
tim...](http://danariely.com/2013/01/05/ask-ariely-on-stretching-time-coining-
decisions-and-gifts-of-effort-not-money/)

~~~
mjcohen
Piet Hein wrote a grook about this. It essentially says "don't look at what
the coin flip says; look at how you feel about the result of the flip."

------
pfitzsimmons
A related trick to avoid procrastination: I have often found myself
procrastinating when needing to send an important, but non-urgent, email.
Procrastination is often a result of fear. I realized that the procrastination
came from a fear that I would phrase the email wrong, or get the tone wrong,
and blow my chance at getting a favorable response. To avoid procrastination,
I find it helpful to tell myself, "ok, I will just compose the email right
now, that is all, and I can send it whenever I want tomorrow, the next day, no
hurry." Of course, after composing the email, I almost always get over the
fear and just end up sending it.

~~~
Apocryphon
That is an excellent productivity tip that can be applied to anything. I think
what helps, especially for hackers, is to think of activities as a series of
simulations before the actual action. There is less pressure when you were on
sims, or drafts, or prototypes of the real thing. Such things can fail with
far less consequences. So I guess rapid prototyping is one cure for
procrastination.

------
Guthur
My take on this is that it is effective because it reduces peoples fear of
suggesting an idea.

We all feel something for our own genuine suggestions, a sort of ownership,
and so fear the possibility of rejection as it would be a rejection of
something personal to us, our preference.

When someone suggests a universally and whole heartily rejected idea we can
take a degree of security from that that our idea will not be as universally
disliked; "Well it's not as bad as McDonald's"

It's also possible that it just gets the "flow" going, which again is more to
do with removing peoples fears i.e. "well, he suggested an idea and it wasn't
so bad for him so I may as well suggest one as well"

------
DigitalSea
I get the theory behind recommending the worse idea so that people recommend
something that isn't nearly as bad but what is so bad about McDonald's? Here
in Australia there aren't many fast food establishments opened at 3am besides
McDonald's and when you're driving to work or had a night out on the town
which is worse: dodgy kebab, slightly warm 3 day old curry or McDonald's?

I tend to use a similar tactic when we're brainstorming internal project ideas
especially. I'll come up with something really stupid to break the ice and
then others feel better knowing their ideas probably aren't nearly as bad.

~~~
alwaysinshade
> what is so bad about McDonald's? Here in Australia [...]

McDonald's Australia has excellent QA, process management and supply chain. I
received some insight through someone...involved in all that good stuff (my
background is QA/Environment so I get to meet some interesting people from
various industries).

Coworkers from the US all tend to say the same thing after going to an AU
McDonald's - great burgers but ~3x the price. It's a different beast in the US
where quantity trumps quality.

~~~
DigitalSea
Very well put. I can't speak for US McDonald's but Australian McDonald's where
I worked in my youth for a bit had very strict QA processes. The store I
worked at was in a low income area, but it was kept spotless, food was kept
for the minimum amount of time (maximum 10 minutes for fries I think), burgers
made to order.

~~~
yoster
Nothing wrong with McDonald's in the states. The guy is probably some hippie
who thinks he's too good for fast food. You know, the type who flairs his
nostrils if he can't order his favorite bottle of wine at a restaurant.

~~~
philwelch
(Not the author, just another McDonald's hater.) It's not an elitist thing at
all. I think McDonald's is absolutely disgusting and no one should eat there,
not that I'm above it. And I don't even drink wine.

------
rjknight
This reminds me of a very similar idea from Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert):
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329320457610...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106164123424314.html)

Quote: _I spent some time working in the television industry, and I learned a
technique that writers use. It's called "the bad version." When you feel that
a plot solution exists, but you can't yet imagine it, you describe instead a
bad version that has no purpose other than stimulating the other writers to
imagine a better version._

------
marknutter
I like McDonald's. It's cheap, consistent, and fast. I don't need to be a
foodie for every damn lunch I have.

~~~
papsosouid
Maybe it is just Canada, but I have been lucky to get 1/3 of those qualities
from McDonald's lately. A big mac (just the sandwich, nothing else) is $5, and
isn't very filling. Every other fast food place around here is just as cheap
or cheaper, and very few are as low quality and inconsistent.

It is hard to consider McDonald's the "cheap option" when a big mac and fries
is $8, but a gyro and fries that taste way better, and are ~30% more food is
$5 at the place across the street. McDonald's is actually the second most
expensive fast food option I've found, only being cheaper than Mucho Burrito
(which is far better food).

------
superkamiguru
I've had two different experiences like this. The first is a co-worker that
did a different tactic. When someone would ask him if he wanted to get lunch
and no idea of where to go, he would ask "rice or noodle?" This somehow always
lead us going to a place that had neither of those things.

From what I've seen, the inverse of this seems to also imply where a group
will end up going for lunch. I've had co-workers say Costco or Taco Bell
"isn't lunch". Because of those negative statements, that is exactly where the
group ends up going.

------
digz
This was also the idea behind the sequester... somehow good ideas aren't
exactly flowing.

------
mwfunk
I am much more likely to be frustrated by really having a hankering for some
McDonald's and everyone else being the sort of people who haven't had fast
food in 10 years, if ever in their entire life (pretty much my entire team). I
try to appreciate both the finer and coarser things in life.

------
Aqueous
The theory is correct, and I applaud the author for willing to be that guy,
because if you do this too often you become the person who always has the
worst idea.

~~~
r00fus
And yet if the outing is good, the "worst idea guy" is always invited. Results
matter.

------
nshepperd
Perhaps throwing out a bad idea like McDonalds just lowers the bar so that the
others don't have to worry about being looked down upon for having a bad
suggestion. No-one wants to be the guy who says "I really like X" while
everyone else thinks "X? How low-status."

------
arbuge
It certainly is easier to edit than create. You need at least one "creator" on
a team with the initiative to get things going when they're stuck. After that,
good "editors" can make for pretty effective team players also.

ps. This article hurt my feelings as an MCD stockholder. :)

------
pieguy
Congress tried this...and we got the sequester.

------
bwang8
If you are working by yourself, this trick only works sometimes. If you have
extreme apathy against your subject matter or absolutely no idea on what you
should do, then putting down a bad idea would just result in a bad idea
written down, and there is nothing that follows. I only experience partial
success with this technique (in cases, where I have some idea on what I am
doing, but I am just debating internally about minor details).

------
obviouslygreen
The problem I have with this starts as soon as the author insists that the
second step is "always" easier than the first, and implicates that first step
as somehow being a time sink.

As soon add you say "always" you are almost certainly wrong, and you have most
likely missed something important, or at least relevant. This article
dismisses a huge breadth of ideas and processes simply because sometimes it is
effective to skip them.

~~~
r00fus
so s/always/often/ the fact remains that the first step is often the most
difficult.

It's a pattern - applicable to any "analysis paralysis" scenario - break the
ice by suggesting a lowest-common-denominator (bad) suggestion, and let others
be the "winners" by suggesting "acceptable" choices.

By suggesting the unseemly, you actually end up doing the graceful thing.

------
john_p
Nice article. One factor that seems to overlook is the cost of an early
decision that becomes impossible to change as the project matures as I descibe
here: [http://www.codingismycraft.com/2013/05/01/be-extra-
cautious-...](http://www.codingismycraft.com/2013/05/01/be-extra-cautious-of-
early-decisions-in-your-development-cycle/)

------
mpweiher
Sort of like the interrogation technique demonstrated by the new "Sherlock":
instead of asking questions that your opposite doesn't want to answer, make
(false) assertions that they will want to disprove.

Seemed very plausible to me.

------
sjtgraham
I happen to like McDonald's.

------
jawr
Surely everything after is considered a good idea, because the it was bad;
even if suggestions were repeated prior and post suggesting mc donalds, that
suggestion is suddenly considered a better idea...

------
iMark
I've worked on too many projects where I've received a spec and concluded that
only a room full of people arguing without reaching agreement could have
produced something so bad.

------
prawks
I like the article for it's "get started rather than waiting for the perfect
solution". However the McDonald's example makes the author sound like he's
advocating proposing bad ideas. It's probably best if you don't present ideas
that are intentionally awful (like his McDonald's recommendation). You'd just
be sabotaging your reputation (you're now "that guy with all the bad ideas").

Get to work and don't be afraid to propose ideas you have.

~~~
jonb
I wrote "here's a way to be less scared".

And you're saying "just don't be scared".

(shrug)

------
calhoun137
Here's the problem. If your team takes the time to really try and come up with
something that everyone agreed they wanted to eat, then you all end up with a
high quality lunch. If you just start with the worst idea and iterate from
there you run the risk of getting something that has bugs in it which you
don't even realize were there until much later when it's already too late.

------
melling
Isn't this just a "straw man concept?" Just throw out some idea, even it it's
bad just to get the conversation going?

~~~
stephengillie
It is very much a "straw man" argument -- the straw man being that the first
suggestion has to be terrible. I've used this strategy many times, but instead
I'll make an actual suggestion, like a more popular burger chain, or a
sandwich chain.

------
tams
I always thought starting a discussion with a deliberately bad plan works
because people always excel at criticizing existing ideas, but coming up with
something new is harder. Creative discussion naturally emerges when there is
something that can be improved upon.

------
austenallred
I like to think of brainstorming as a conveyer belt full of bad and good
ideas. If you stop at the bad ones you don't let the good ones through either.
You can't help what's on the belt, you just have to let it run.

Don't stop the conveyor belt.

------
calinet6
Fantastic article. Love the Ann Lamott reference; read her book "Bird by
Bird," from which the quote came; it really is great. Reading more into this
article than "start with something and go from there" is reading too much.

~~~
jonb
_touches nose_

------
bestest
I tried that with my girlfriend. Doesn't work. We always dine at McDonald's
now.

------
programminggeek
I throw out ridiculous ideas all the time, but the thing is, a lot of the time
they are only slightly exaggerated. A lot of times a truly bad idea has some
good idea hidden just beneath the surface.

------
kimandre
I've done this online for a long time. I.e you start a forum thread but dont
get any replies. Make a 2nd account replying a silly answer that is wrong -
experts suddenly appear.

------
pilsetnieks
On the other hand, you're anchoring on the worst possible idea. Afterwards
even barely mediocre will seem pretty great compared to the McD idea.

------
therandomguy
How bad is eating at McDonald's for you? If you just get a BigMac and diet
coke, is it all that worse than any other food establishment?

~~~
gertef
[http://24sevenpost.com/cuisine/mcdonalds-subway-menu-
nutriti...](http://24sevenpost.com/cuisine/mcdonalds-subway-menu-nutrition-
fact/)

~~~
yoster
You could also compare a McDonald's salad with a Subway sandwich.

------
ericmoritz
Works until you're forced to build a PHP site with GDBM as a backend because
everyone but you thought it was a good idea.

------
slinkyavenger
The rest of his staff will one day refer to him as "that guy who really seems
to like McDonalds"

------
lhnz
This is because the only thing worse than being a leader, is having bad
leadership.

------
peterwwillis
Article doesn't work in Opera Mini =(

------
yoster
I happen to like McDonald's every once in a while.

~~~
mynameishere
There are a few items on the menu specifically aimed at adults who would be
otherwise reluctant to bring their children.

~~~
yoster
Children do love their happy meals though. There wouldn't be a plethora of
these fast food places all over the world if the vast majority of people
didn't like McDonald's. It isn't healthy to eat at everyday, but every once in
a while is fine.

~~~
qompiler
about once a year is already pushing it

~~~
yoster
You could eat there all the time if you wanted. They do sell salads....

