News on Youtube Jul 27 2018

In this video I review how to calculate maximum occupancy for a bar. Coming up!

Hey, Rick Uzubell again from Bar Designers, where I share my ideas and

tips on bar design, draft beer system design and product reviews. Later in this

video I'll give you 'Today's Takeaway'.

If you're new here, please consider subscribing,

subscribing and check-out the show notes and links in the 'YouTube Description', below.

Now let's jump into the show!

For those who are unaware, the stated occupancy for all buildings is a

combination of the building code and fire codes. The International Building

Code, known as 'IBC', is a solid point of reference but can be superseded by local

codes because it's regarded as the minimum acceptable standard.

The local fire official has the final stamp of approval of stated occupancies. For this

discussion, the building of interest will be a one-story 4,700 square foot, non-sprinkled

restaurant-bar and the IBC is what I'll be referencing.

As defined in the IBC, restaurants and bars fall under the use and classification of 'Assembly Group A-2'

and the most basic governing limitation is the quantity of egresses,

known as exits. Fire safety is at the core of all building codes and egress

is the first criteria we need to address.

The following table stipulates the

number of exits for various occupancies: 0-49 - one exit, 50 - 500 - two exits,

501 to 1,000 - three exits and >1,000 - four exits.

The general guidelines for floor area allowances per occupant for A-2 Assembly

is as follows: concentrated chairs only (not fixed) -

7 square feet per patron;

standing space only - 5 square feet

and unconcentrated tables and chairs - 15 square feet.

When calculating occupancy we do not use one calculation for the entire building.

We need to apply the occupancy rules for

each of the various areas to attain accurate calculations.

Consider the 4,700 square foot, one-story non-sprinkled sports bar-restaurant shown here.

The following is an evaluation of each seating area in the 'front-of-the-house':

the reception area is a 30 square foot space in the vestibule; IBC allows us to

factor five square feet per patron as this as a standing space; this yields a

total occupancy of six. We would only be allowed seven square per patron

if this were chairs-only.

For the bar, we cannot include the area

inside the bar in our calculation - only the number of seats around the perimeter, which is 29.

The overall area of the bar and adjacent 'Bar Dining' is 1,393 sq.ft.,

but in order to calculate the occupancy for 'Bar Dining', we must deduct

the area of the bar, which is 410 sq.ft.

This leaves us a net calculation of 983 sq.ft.

and according to IBC, for areas with tables and chairs,

we need to allocate 15 sq.ft. per patron in this area,

which yields an occupancy of 65.

The fourth area of this facility is the Dining Room.

Again, in order to calculate occupancy, we can all use the 'net area', as

depicted within this border, which is 681 sq.ft., and because we're using

tables and chairs the occupancy for the Dining Room is 45.

The VIP Room, which is 183 sq.ft., and has tables

and sofas. We again apply 15 sq.ft. per patron for a total of 12.

If the Dining Room were a dance floor,

IBC would allow 5 square foot per patron, which would yield an occupant

load of 136 in that area. On the other hand, if an owner wished to operate the

dining room space as a dance floor on weekends, the local fire official may

only grant the most restrictive occupancy of 45.

If this were a fine dining facility, many owners

would likely create a more comfortable open space by

allocating 18-20 sq.ft. per patron, which would reduce the occupant load to 34-37.

Back to the example at-hand, to calculate the tentative

occupancy of this building, we simply tally the occupant loads from each

given area, for a total of 157.

The Building Code is constantly evolving.

According to my good friend, architect

Tom Kuhn of CKS Architects, as of 2018

IBC now requires businesses in Occupancy A-2

that serve alcohol, any new or existing

modified fire area over 1,500 sq.ft. would be required

to have sprinklers, if you want to meet the current code without implementing

workaround design parameters available in Chapter 34.

Always consult your local architect.

I want to thank our good friends at Bullpen Luxury Sports Bar and

Gelsomos Pizza for their courtesy.

A great place to hang-out, have pizza and

watch the game.

The final-stated occupancy of any commercial building is the decision of a

local fair marshall. See you next time!

For more infomation >> How to Calculate Maximum Occupancy for a Bar - Duration: 5:39.

-------------------------------------------

How much is "about 2" really? - Duration: 10:13.

So these soups were on sale and I was trying to figure out how to get the most bang for

my buck and I noticed something odd.

So I went down a little bit of a rabbit hole to see if there were a SOUP CONSPIRACY.

Now, people look at calories on products for all sorts of reasons; some soups are marketed

as Light for people who look at 70 or 80 calories and think, that's good, I want a low number,

while some people think 70 calories is not worth the effort of opening the can.

A savvy consumer will look at the fine print and see that's per serving, and a serving

is one cup, and I don't know if anyone in the universe opens up a can of soup and carefully

pours out just half of it, but assuming you eat the whole thing like a normal adult who

eats canned soup by themselves because they can't cook and have no friends and are home

alone with only their microwave for company, of course you eat the whole can which has

about two servings.

And who doesn't expect to do a little arithmetic in the grocery store, two times 70 is 140,

which if you want a low number, is still pretty low.

It's kind of funny though because calories per serving means total calories divided by

number of servings, so multiplying it by the number of servings is really just undividing

it.

Or maybe it's division that should be called unmultiplication?

Anyway maybe you want high numbers, life's too short and budgets too tight, so they market

the rich and hearty soups with 150 calories per serving!

Also about 2 servings per can, and 300 calories is a number worth opening a can for.

Funny thing though, both serving sizes are one cup but on the light soup one cup is 236

grams and on the rich hearty soup one cup is 253 grams.

Do rich and hearty things weigh more?

On the one hand it seems intuitive that yes, rich food is heavier, mm look how rich and

gloppy, can you tell this video isn't a paid sponsorship?

But on the other hand fat and oil weigh less than water, foods weigh all sorts of things.

Luckily we can look at the net weight of the product and huh, it's the same for both

soups.

So does that mean light food isn't lighter?

I don't know, maybe there's more of it in the can.

But I do suspect there's something going on with these serving sizes, meaning we can't

really compare these advertised calorie numbers, and we can't just double the calories per

serving to get the calorie count for the can either, so, so much for arithmetic in the

grocery store.

See, for light zesty santa fe style chicken, arithmetic says 236 grams times 2 = 472 grams.

Which is clearly not helpful as the total grams is 524, not 427.

If we want to figure out how this 524 grams happens, we have to multiply 236 grams by

"about 2".

So don't get distracted by the suggestion of 2-ness, we don't know what this number

is… unless we treat it like any other variable and do algebra to it.

So let's just unmultiply this 236g, which means we unmultiply the other side too, and

we get "about 2" equals about 2.22.

Which is a very 2-ey number, but definitely not to be confused with actual two.

So now that we know how many servings are actually in here, we can multiply this 80

calories by about 2 and get 177.6.

So if you were expecting 160 calories you're cheating by 11%.

And if you were expecting 33% fewer calories than a leading competitor that has 140 calories,

I have bad news.

But what about rich and hearty chicken pot pie style?

One cup is now 253 grams.

Times 2 equals 506, but times "about 2" equals 524.

So once we unmultiply both sides by the serving size we see that this time about 2 equals

2.07, that really is about 2. and 2.07 times 150 calories is 310.5.

So if you were expecting 300 calories you're getting just 3.5% more than you bargained

for.

So about 2 can be more than 2, it could be actually about 2, but what about less than

2?

Is this can of black bean soup an organic alternative with the same amount of calories

per serving as the non-organic soups?

Obviously it's a smaller can but maybe those organic black beans are really just that much

more dense and nutritious.

Serving size is still one cup, still "about 2" servings per container.

One cup equals 256 grams, times two equals 512 grams of soup with 300 calories.

But 256 times "about 2" = 405 grams.

That's a pretty big difference.

This "about 2" equals 1.58.

This time, about two servings of 150 calories gets you only 237 calories, that's 79% of

the 300 you might be expecting when you read this label.

So according to this soup company "about 2" can mean anything from 1.58 to 2.22 and

I wondered whether that was about the legal range of what's allowed on the can so I

went and read the FDA guidelines for nutrition information and learned lots of interesting

things.

Now between 2 and 5 servings you have to round to the nearest .5, but somehow numbers less

than 2 aren't accounted for here.

Wonder how that loophole got in there.

Other fun marketing details: Light is in a little spoon, rich and hearty is in a big

spoon.

Organic is definitely an entire bowl that is a meal that is organic.

Also the chicken soups are inspected for wholesomeness, but steak and beef is USA inspected and passed

like a champ.

Good job, soup.

But servings aren't the only numbers with exploitable rounding rules.

According to the guidelines any calorie numbers over 50 get rounded to the nearest 10s place,

so this 80 might represent 75, or it might really be 84.9, which * 2.22 is 188 calories.

And then again, there's margins of error for how many grams in the can and in a serving

and maybe they round the number of ounces first and then convert that number to grams

and round again, which means the number of grams isn't necessarily accurate to three

significant figures, and I'm sure there's margins of error for everything, basically

who knows.

Let's just take a moment to appreciate the layers here.

If all we want to do is know how many calories are in this can of soup, we've got four

strategies.

A quick look at the label gets you an answer of 80 calories.

"read the fine print and do basic arithmetic," which sounds like due diligence to me, gets

you 160.

"read the finer print and solve an algebraic equation," as ya do in a grocery store,

bumps that to 176, and finally, "read the Department of Health and Human Services plus

Food and Drug Administration 132 page guidelines plus do an advanced analysis with fuzzy numbers

that even I couldn't do without a special computer program" gets you to "up to 188+

but nobody knows, and that's assuming their accounting is both correct and within the

guidelines".

I mean, just imagine you're this soup company with a 188 calorie can of soup that you want

to market as low-calorie as possible.

You're not allowed to round 188 down to 180 and you certainly don't want to have

to round up to 190, but by choosing the right amount of soup and the right serving size

you can make sure you get a round-downablenumber of calories, ideally a maximally round-downable

number like 84.9, and label it 80.

So in one way, your number is accurate within 5 calories which is the rule.

But on the other hand, you've rounded off those 5 calories more than once.

Also use a maximally downroundable number of servings and you can shave an additional

10 to 12 % of calories off and there you go.

And careful number wrangling can trick you with other things too, like this reduced sodium

soup that if you read the fine print still has 20% your daily value of sodium, times

two is 40, plus algebra is 43% your daily sodium in one soup and that's the reduced

sodium soup.

I don't know how much it matters if your numbers are a little off, most people are

pretty far from the recommended daily values of everything anyway, but I find the math

interesting and also the politics, like, if companies go out of their way just to tweak

the presentation of some numbers by 10 or 20 percent, that to me is a sign of how successful

the DHHS and FDA have been.

I like that I can go to a store and pretty much trust that the food I buy probably won't

make me sick and that the labels are roughly accurate, so these agencies are a positive

force for both public health and consumer trust, which is like food for economies, and

economies are food for federal services, at least when digested properly through an educated

tax-paying voting public, and that's the kind of non-zero-sum feedback loop I like

to see, everything gets better for everyone.

Unless your feedback loop grows parasites who are too small to understand why cutting

off their hosts circulation will kill it.

Ooh I just found a supposedly 50 calorie per serving can of french onion, 524 grams divided

by 230 grams per cup means there's 2.28 servings per can, so busted, that should round

up to about 2.5 servings per container for the more accurate informational benefit of

anyone who doesn't want to waste 2/3 of their daily sodium quota on something that

barely surpasses instant ramen for food content.

Actually, I take that back.

This instant ramen is significantly more food-like than this particular canned soup, and somehow

less sodium even with seasoning packet because their "about 2" actually equals 2, wow,

I thought ramen was just an excuse to eat textured saltwater but this is something else.

Ramen pro-tip, gently drop an egg or two in the boiling noodles for the last about 2 minutes,

then it's definitely food, lookit that protein and calories, and I like to mix it all up

in the bowl so that the pot doesn't need much cleaning.

Mmmm.

Eggs.

This video not sponsored by top ramen or its parent nissen, also not sponsored by… eggs?

Whose parent is… chicken.

This video is sponsored by viewers like you through patreon!

Anyway, go check out your products and see if you can find some interesting "about

2s" in your life.

For more infomation >> How much is "about 2" really? - Duration: 10:13.

-------------------------------------------

What SD card is best for GoPro Hero 5 ? ► GoPro HERO5 Black 4K HD Camera - Duration: 1:23.

For more infomation >> What SD card is best for GoPro Hero 5 ? ► GoPro HERO5 Black 4K HD Camera - Duration: 1:23.

-------------------------------------------

Sarah Jessica Parker Tells Gwyneth Paltrow How She Became Obsessed with Shoes: 'I've Always Loved Th - Duration: 5:47.

 Since her days on Sex and the City, Sarah Jessica Parker has appeared to be the ultimate shoe fanatic

Her character, Carrie Bradshaw, collected — and walked around in — heels that got more trendy (and more expensive!) with each and every episode

And eventually, long after the show's ending, her obsession enabled her to create her own line, SJP by Sarah Jessica Parker, which consists of heels, flats, Mary Janes and more

 But according to the actress, her fascination with the accessory began long before she landed a role as a fashion-obsessed NYC woman on the iconic television show

And in an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow on Paltrow's new Goop podcast, explaining her longtime love for all kinds of shoes, which dates back to when she was a young girl living in Cincinnati

 "I've always loved them but not in the way that Carrie Bradshaw loved them," she tells Paltrow in the interview

"I didn't know you could love shoes and then have them, you know? When I was living in Cincinnati, there was a shoe store in this place called Kenwood which was a pretty serious drive from our neighborhood

But we went twice a year. We went at the end of August for our school shoes for the year, and then we would go, we would get fall/winter shoes and then spring/summer shoes

So we got two pairs of shoes a year, and then we had a pair of Mary Jane's — proper Mary Janes

But if my sister outgrew hers then I would just get my sister's."  The actress, who is one of eight children, explains how much the trips to that shoe store fascinated her: the smell of leather, the cold air conditioning in the summer and the blasting heat in the winter

 "In those days, there weren't anything but leather shoes. It did't matter how much money you had, there weren't the Targets of the world or the Walmarts," she explains

"These were mom and pop independently owned shoe stores. I really would pick up all the shoes and I would smell them and I would look at the stitching on the soles, I would look at the sock liners, I would fantasize knowing full well what shoe my mom was going to make me get, but they were beautiful

It smelled so incredible and I loved my new shoes. Even if they really weren't the shoes I wanted, I loved a new pair of shoes

"  But the ritual of shopping for the accessories isn't the only prominent childhood memory she has about them

Parker says she and her siblings also learned how to take care of them, in order to make sure they lasted throughout the entire year

 "My mom got out newspaper and every Sunday, she got out the Kiwi shoe polish and we were all lined up and we had to polish our own shoes every Sunday to keep them as nice as we could cause we weren't getting another pair

"  Little did she know back then that one day she'd not only have access to the most mesmerizing shoes on the market, but she'd also create some of those shoes on her own — a task that she was very careful about when the time came

 "A while after the show ended, and I think even after I did the second movie, a bunch of companies were asking if I'd consider going into business with them and it was very exciting and I was very flattered and I had lots of very interesting meetings with big shoe people, but they all wanted me to make the shoes in China and sell them for $69, $99 and those margins were incredibly seductive for everybody and it just meant, like, we would all be rich

," she tells Paltrow, explaining that she  "just had a hard time saying yes."  But after having lunch with a group of businesswomen, she decided to seek out her own partnership, which ended up landing her the company she has now: SJP by Sarah Jessica Parker

 "We were talking about stuff and the shoe category came up and one of them said to me, 'well what do you want to do?' And I said, "well what I really want to do is to go into business with George Malkemus III but he's already spoken for, he's the CEO of Manolo [Blahnik]

"  Parker continues, "They were like, have you asked him? And they said just ask him

"  So she did. After leaving the restaurant, she got Malkemus on the phone — and the answer was an immediate "yes

"  "I got a phone and I went outside and I called George and I said, "George I know this is a long shot but would you go into business with me?' And he said, 'be at my office tomorrow morning 9am

' And I was and we wanted all the same things."  For more from Parker, listen to the full podcast, here