Would you rather eat at a restaurant with 4 things on the

>>8623398
Less choice is always better, so long as there is choice. Humans just aren't equipped to deal with 200 varieties of peanut butter on a grocery store shelf. Either you stand there all day scrutinizing them, or you choose randomly and leave feeling regretful. That's no way to live.

>>8623398
I guess if they're open, they can do 4 things, or at least 1 thing well
i'll take that 25% chance

>>8623398
4 things

restaurants with huge menus invariably suck; the food is going to be frozen or just shitty variations on the same thing.

File: find jesus.png (382KB, 615x431px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 615x431px

>>8623421
>Humans just aren't equipped to deal with 200 varieties of peanut butter on a grocery store shelf. Either you stand there all day scrutinizing them, or you choose randomly and leave feeling regretful. That's no way to live.
This is the truest post on this board I've read in literally months. I have spent nearly 15 minutes in the PB aisle doing exactly that.

>>8623624
That scos ur a fat cunt losers

there is an inverse relationship between menu size and food quality. You can't expect anyone to make 400 things really well but they can manage a handful.

I like it when a restaurant has just a few things but you can order them with every variation possible. Like In-N-Out.

>>8623626
Eloquently put anon.

How the fuck are restaurants going to manage the ingredients for 400 items in their menu? Chances are three or four of the ingredients are going to be moldy/rotten.

File: IT'S FUCKING SPIRAL BOUND.png (701KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 800x600px

>>8623627
>there is an inverse relationship between menu size and food quality. You can't expect anyone to make 400 things really well but they can manage a handful.