Connect with us

Regional

Why can’t prices just stay the same?

If high inflation hurts just about everyone, why can’t we have no inflation?

Published by Web Desk

Published

on

Over the past few years, most of the world has experienced some pretty intense inflation, with prices rising as much as 10 percent in a single year. In 2024, even though inflation rates have fallen to more manageable levels, prices are still way up and are very unlikely to come down. Which, understandably, continues to be a source of major stress for people all over the world. So why can’t prices just stay the same?

As a consumer, steady prices and zero inflation seems like the ideal: You want your purchasing power to stay the same and for your dollar today to buy you exactly the same amount as your dollar tomorrow. But even in times of global economic health and stability, governments and their central banks actively avoid letting inflation get too low. That’s because 0 percent inflation might actually end up doing more harm than good.

You can find the video above and the entire library of Vox’s videos on YouTube.

This video is presented by DCU. DCU has no editorial influence on our videos, but their support makes videos like these possible.

Continue Reading

Technology

This smart smoker makes barbecuing indoors a breeze

The first indoor smoker has Wi-Fi connectivity, easy clean-up, and simple controls, making it a breeze to use. But its basic smarts are disappointing.

Published by Web Desk

Published

on

My love affair with barbecue has been a slow burn. I’m from England, where BBQ means grilling burgers and steak in the garden on a gas grill. So, when I moved to South Carolina over a decade ago, I had no clue what pulled pork was or that brisket was even a thing. I learned quickly. Smoking meat is akin to religion around these parts, and I suspect many pitmasters would view the latest gadget I’ve been testing as something akin to heresy. 

Today, barbecue is one of my favorite dishes — brisket from Lewis Barbecue in Charleston is what I would request for a last meal. However, while I fancy myself as something of an accomplished home chef, I have never had much luck smoking my own meats. So, I was intrigued to test the $999.95 GE Profile Smart Indoor Smoker.

A smart indoor smoker, GE Profile’s gadget promises an easier, quicker way to get that smokey flavor; plus, it’s literally the only option if you don’t have the space or an accommodating climate for using an outdoor smoker. I do have an outdoor smoker, but it rarely gets used. It’s huge, requires a lot of prep, and I feel compelled to smoke a lot of meat to justify using it — plus, as mentioned, I’ve not been very successful making my own barbecue.

GE Profile Smart Indoor Smoker

$100015% off
$850

The GE Profile Smart Indoor Smoker is an excellent gadget for smoking meats, veggies, and more from the comfort of your kitchen. While it didn’t handle the more classic BBQ cuts as well as I’d hoped, if you love that smokey flavor and don’t have room for an outdoor machine, it's a great — if expensive — option.

$850 at Amazon$850 at Best Buy

Its main tricks are being small enough to fit on your countertop (although it’s not small) and smoking food without smoking up your kitchen. Something called Active Smoke Filtration technology and an airflow system combined with tight gaskets and seals keeps the smoke in the appliance. This worked very well. No smoke escaped the oven at all during cooking, but I still got the lovely aromas. The one thing that did come out of the gadget was heat. My kitchen got very warm while using it. 

The Smart Indoor Smoker promises an easier, quicker way to get that smokey flavor

This is because it’s essentially an oven that adds smoke flavor. Unlike a true outdoor wood-pellet smoker, the Smart Indoor Smoker doesn’t cook your food with smoke. It uses a separate heating element that does most of the hard work while the smoke infuses it with flavor. This significantly cuts down on cooking time and means you use way fewer wood pellets. But I did find meats didn’t always achieve that tenderness you get from smoking alone.

The smart smoker is nicely designed — looking like a fancy toaster oven set on its side. The single door has a glass front and a cavity light, so I could watch the meat smoking. The smart smoker is nicely designed — looking like a fancy toaster oven set on its side. The single door has a glass front and a cavity light, so I could watch the meat smoking.
The smart smoker is nicely designed — looking like a fancy toaster oven set on its side. The single door has a glass front and a cavity light, so I could watch the meat smoking.

If you want to smoke meat indoors, though, this is a very good way to do it. Purists might scoff, but it’s more efficient than an outdoor smoker. And while I found it hard to fit into my everyday cooking routine — it still can’t cook anything in under an hour — in the two months I tested it, I used it at least twice a week, far more often than I use my outdoor smoker. It’s super simple to use and easy to clean, and its neat Keep Warm feature meant I could put a piece of meat or some sweet potatoes in the smoker in the morning, and it would be ready for dinner time.

Two downsides are the price — $1,000 is a lot for a single-purpose gadget — and the size. Only consider this if you have a lot of countertop space or somewhere you can store it when it’s not in use. It’s short enough to fit under my cabinets, but not with the four inches of clearance the manual recommends. My husband didn’t want it near anything that might catch fire (he’s a firefighter and was deeply suspicious of this device, but it never caused any issues). 

<em>The smart smoker has three racks and a removable drip tray.</em><em>The smart smoker has three racks and a removable drip tray.</em>PreviousNext

1/5

The smart smoker has three racks and a removable drip tray.

It needs to be big so it can fit the popular barbeque meats. GE Appliances says its three removable racks allow for enough space to cook three racks of baby back ribs, a brisket, a whole chicken, up to 40 wings, or a 14-pound pork butt. I did not test these capacity limits — there’s only so much meat one family can eat. But it didn’t struggle to handle anything I put in it, from a whole chicken to two racks of ribs to a sizeable brisket (halved). 

The rest of the device is similarly well-designed. It has a nice big digital display that’s easy to read, with a large dial you turn and press to select temperature and smoke level, plus digital buttons for basic functions. There are six presets for brisket, pork ribs, pork butt, chicken wings, chicken breast, and salmon that can be activated from the device or GE Appliance’s Smart HQ app. Then there’s a customize option for setting your own smoke. The app isn’t required, but it offers some tips and tricks and can alert you when the door is left open, when the smoker is preheated, or when the food is almost done, which is handy.

To start a smoke, I selected one of the presets, chose whether to use the built-in temperature probe or a set cook time (annoyingly, you can’t use both), added the pellets, filled the water bucket — where the pellets go to be extinguished — and pressed start on the machine. Once it reached the set temperature, I had to press start again (which I couldn’t do remotely), and the smoking got underway. 

<em>My first brisket was full of smokey flavor but on the chewy side.</em><em>My first brisket was full of smokey flavor but on the chewy side.</em>PreviousNext

1/6

My first brisket was full of smokey flavor but on the chewy side.

The smoker did a great job infusing everything I cooked with a lovely smokey flavor, ranging from mild for shorter cook times to really rich for meats that were slow-cooked over eight to 10 hours. I liked that I could monitor and control the device from the app and use voice commands with Alexa to adjust the temperature. 

The smoker did a great job infusing everything I cooked with a lovely smokey flavor

But its smarts are limited. As is common with smart kitchen devices, I couldn’t remotely start the appliance. I was also disappointed that the smoker couldn’t automatically adjust the cooking temperatures for me. The Traeger smart smoker I have will adjust the temperatures over a long smoke, which takes a lot of the guesswork out of barbecuing. The GE Profile smart smoker required frequent manual intervention for bigger meats like brisket, including rotating the meat since the compartment doesn’t heat evenly.

The smoker keeps all the smoke inside and has a button to clear the smoke before you open the door. But in this slow-motion video, I opened the door while smoking to show the amount of smoke it generates and where it comes from inside the oven.

Sadly, my manual intervention was not successful. While all the meats I cooked had excellent smokey flavor, my two attempts at pork butt and three tries at briskets all came out chewy. Chicken, salmon, and sweet potatoes were all fine, but those more complicated meats I struggled to get right. 

To be fair, I struggle with those in the Traeger, too, but the GE Profile smart smoker didn’t make me a better pitmaster. That’s still a skill I guess a machine can’t learn. In retrospect (and based on a similar experience this professional griller had with the smart smoker), it’s likely that using the Keep Warm setting overcooked my meats. It takes a while for the internal temperature to get back down, so I probably needed to adjust the cook time to account for that.

What would be great is if this smart smoker was smart enough to do that for me. Or smart enough to adjust the cooking temperature automatically during a smoke so that the meat comes out tender every time. While this innovative gadget brings something new to the kitchen, right now, its smart features are fairly basic. Smart kitchen gadgets that help you cook are great, but what I want most from the smart kitchen are smart devices that help you be a better cook.

Photos by Jennifer Pattison Tuohy / The Verge

Comments
Continue Reading

Regional

The Supreme Court decides not to trigger a second Great Depression

Even Clarence Thomas thought a lower court decision that could have triggered a second Great Depression went too far.

Published by Web Desk

Published

on

The Supreme Court delivered a firm and unambiguous rebuke to some of America’s most reckless judges on Thursday, ruling those judges were wrong to declare an entire federal agency unconstitutional in a decision that threatened to trigger a second Great Depression.

In a sensible world, no judge would have taken the plaintiffs arguments in CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association seriously. Briefly, they claimed that the Constitution limits Congress’s ability to enact “perpetual funding,” meaning that the legislation funding a particular federal program does not sunset after a certain period of time.

The implications of this entirely made-up theory of the Constitution are breathtaking. As Justice Elena Kagan points out in a concurring opinion in the CFPB case, “spending that does not require periodic appropriations (whether annual or longer) accounted for nearly two-thirds of the federal budget” — and that includes popular programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Nevertheless, a panel of three Trump judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — a court dominated by reactionaries who often hand down decisions that offend even the current, very conservative Supreme Court — bought the CFPB plaintiffs’ novel theory and used it to declare the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional.

In fairness, the Fifth Circuit’s decision would not have invalidated Social Security or Medicare, but that’s because the Fifth Circuit made up some novel limits to contain its unprecedented interpretation of the Constitution. And the Fifth Circuit’s attack on the CFPB still would have had catastrophic consequences for the global economy had it actually been affirmed by the justices.

That’s because the CFPB doesn’t just regulate the banking industry. It also instructs banks on how they can comply with federal lending laws without risking legal sanction — establishing “safe harbor” practices that allow banks to avoid liability so long as they comply with them.

As a brief filed by the banking industry explains, without these safe harbors, the industry would not know how to lawfully issue loans — and if banks don’t know how to issue loans, the mortgage market could dry up overnight. Moreover, because home building, home sales, and other industries that depend on the mortgage market make up about 17 percent of the US economy, a decision invalidating the CFPB could trigger economic devastation unheard of since the Great Depression.

Thankfully, that won’t happen. Seven justices joined a majority opinion in CFPB which rejects the Fifth Circuit’s attack on the United States economy, and restates the longstanding rule governing congressional appropriations. Congress may enact any law funding a federal institution or program, so long as that law “authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes.”

The law funding the CFPB clears this very low bar and is therefore constitutional.

Notably, the Supreme Court’s CFPB decision was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, who is ordinarily the Court’s most conservative member. The fact that even Thomas delivered such an unambiguous rebuke to the Fifth Circuit is a sign of just how far the lower court went off the rails in its decision.

Two justices did dissent: Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s most reliable GOP partisan, and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also dissented in a similar case that could have triggered an economic depression if Gorsuch’s view had prevailed. Alito’s dissenting opinion is difficult to parse, but it largely argues that the CFPB is unconstitutional because Congress used an unusual mechanism to fund it.

Among other things, the CFPB’s funds first pass through a different federal agency, the Federal Reserve, before it lands in the CFPB’s banking account.

But, as seven justices correctly conclude, the fact that CFPB’s funding mechanism is unusual does not make it unconstitutional, and judges are not supposed to simply make up new constitutional restrictions on Congress because they think that Congress acted in a way that is novel or unwise.

Continue Reading

Trending

Take a poll