Hey, welcome back everybody, Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're at San Francisco International, gauge 54B, and we're not flying anywhere today, which is kind of nice. It's the Alaska Airlines event, really talking about their elevated experience, and it's everything, it's flying, but it's also before you get to the plane, lounges, et cetera, and we're really excited to have somebody who's really important to your flight experience, and he's the guy responsible for the food. So we're excited to welcome Joshua Rappaport. He's the executive chef, meal design for LSG, food provider for Alaska Airlines. Great to see you, Joshua. Thanks a lot, great to be here. So food is something that probably people don't really think about unless something goes either really bad or really good. So you think about it every day. What are the key things you think about in delivering a better experience for people in planes? Well, you know, for me, the biggest thing is freshness, and I think one of the most common misconceptions that people have about airline food is that it can't be fresh. And we actually have flight kitchens in every location the Alaska flies at. The food that you're eating on board was prepared within hours of when you took off. Within hours, literally. Within hours, literally. And we have a small army of people in these kitchens ensuring that you're getting the freshest food possible and the best meal experience possible. Before I started doing this, the logistics involved in getting fresh food onto an airplane were something that had never occurred to me before. I mean, there are layers of complexity that are really kind of mind-blowing at times, but when you do everything right, when you plan well, when you design effectively for that space, you can provide a great, fresh experience for your passengers, first-class and main cabin. So really more of a logistics challenge to get through before you get to the culinary challenge. Can you get a fresh tomato from the farm to your facility packaged up and onto the plane? Exactly, it's almost equal parts, culinary and problem-solving, and that's part of what I love about the job. I've been a chef my whole life. I've done fine dining, hotels, restaurants, corporate dining, but this is the most fun I've ever had because there's that added component of trying to solve for how you provide this absolutely elevated experience for your passengers within the restrictions that you have. Especially with all the distributed kitchens all over the place, even if it's the same company, you've got different suppliers, you've got different food suppliers, different local foods. So do you incorporate the local food at the different locations? Do you try to be consistent across? How do you deal with so many kitchens loading planes at so many locations? I spend a lot of time traveling to our different kitchens to make sure that food is being executed consistently. That's a big part of my job is just managing the menus once they're actually in flight. It doesn't end when the designs are approved and the food is flying. I work a lot with local vendors in individual cities to make sure that the product that we're getting is up to standard and exactly what we need. And because Alaska is leaning in so hard to trying to feature great West Coast producers on our flight, I work a lot with distributors trying to get hyper-regional product from San Francisco, Seattle, LA distributed nationwide so that we can feature those great local flavors on our menus. Right, and then just kind of philosophy for feeding people in airplanes. Is there certain things that you always want to do or certain things that you want to avoid just in terms of the comfort and kind of the experience that they're going to have? I try to avoid anything that's going to be too polarizing or that's maybe going to scare people off as something unfamiliar. The challenge for me is to try to introduce really great, innovative, on-trend flavors but to do it in a recognizable and approachable way. We like to say adventurous but approachable as kind of our catchphrase. And so I might take something like Zatar or Ras al-Hunut that's a spice that's very much on trend right now in West Coast restaurants, but I'll incorporate it into a chicken dish that people can recognize as something familiar and then they'll find that they're really enjoying this cool new flavor that they may never have had before. All right, well Josh, thanks for taking a few minutes. We look forward to seeing what you're going to have for us on the plane in a few minutes. My pleasure, thanks a lot. Great talking to you. All right, it's Josh from I'm Jeff. You're watching theCUBE. We're at San Francisco International Gate 54B for the elevated Alaska flight experience. Thanks for watching. See you next time.


I am welcome to the session and since that's the polling question, the question says if A, B, C are the lengths of the sides opposite respectively to angles A, B, C of triangle A, B, C using vectors prove that cos C is equal to A squared plus B squared minus C squared divided by 2 A, B. And this is the triangle A, B, C and we are given that A, B and C are the lengths of the sides opposite to angles A, B and C and we have to prove that cos C is equal to A squared plus B squared minus C squared divided by 2 A, B. Let's now begin with the solution. Let vector B, C is equal to the C, A is equal to vector B, A, B is equal to vector C. Now magnitude of vector A is equal to magnitude of vector B, C and this is equal to A, magnitude of vector B is equal to magnitude of vector C, A and this is equal to v. Similarly, magnitude of vector av is equal to magnitude of vector c and this is equal to c. Now by triangular law of addition, vc plus vector ca is equal to vector va, vc plus vector ca is equal to minus vector av. Now vector vc is equal to vector a and vector ca is equal to vector b, vector av is equal to vector c. A plus vector v dot vector v is equal to minus vector v to magnitude of vector a into magnitude of vector v into.


The English language is most surprising peculiarities. The English language is a peculiar fascinating beast to teach and to learn. It comes with a long legacy of Anglo-Saxon and Norman invaders, empire building, and globalization of the 20th century. With multiple layers of rules and culture, it overflows with idiosyncrasies and peculiarities to confound native and learning speakers alike. Whether it's pronunciation, grammar, or even just the system of time, English is a welcoming lingua franca, and an intimidating coil of strangeness at the same time. Cultural. Any language has their culture imprinted on their language, but the English words for days and months are patently a product of its unique culture. While other languages such as Chinese use numbers for denoting their days, English named the second day after the Norse god Tyre, likewise using Odin or Woden to name Wednesday. For more confusion, the English months instead use Roman gods and historical figures, such as Janus Mars in August, to name January March in August. An English learner would likely not have the foreknowledge to recognize any of these references, and it's hard to say if many native speakers recognize them all either. Historical. On the other hand, the English language has a particularly rich history of borrowing from other languages, accumulating words from invasions and invaders, consequently, it is filled with loan words. This includes the French words ballet, faux pas, and quiche. And also German words, such as kindergarten and hamburgers. And these languages can be mixed with impunity, such as the kindergarten class put on a ballet. Since English also borrow the rules of these languages as well, including pronunciation and pluralization, English speakers need to balance these donor languages' peculiarities as well. Conceptual. Plurals are a particularly thorny concept in the English language, even for native speakers. In comparison with extremely regular plural systems like Latin, where language where plurals are largely absent or implied like in Chinese, English has inherited multiple plural endings over the centuries. The majority of plurals simply end with S, such as donuts, press, such as glasses. But then there's the US words whose Latin-inspired plural is I, such as cacti for more than one cactus. And to add to the confusion, there are words whose singular and plural are the exact same, such as moose and apparatus. Orthopical. Pronunciation in English is an even more ornery system. While some languages are beautifully phonetic like Italian, words largely being pronounced exactly the way they are spelled, English vowels and consonants are dependent on order, context, and even sometimes the origin of the word. There's a classic example of the Uke words, such as though, through, and trough, which are all pronounced differently. Then some words demand the pronunciation of their home language, like the French word faux pas. And to add one more layer of complexity, there are regional dialects, depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you're on. Grammatical. English grammar has plenty of rules, but the most common yet peculiar rule of them all is I before E, except after C. Any English-speaking child can recite this rule for spelling words such as achieve, receive, and believe. But the English language has numerous exceptions as well, including exotic loan words such as hacienda, or even everyday words like weird and science. It is English's unique peculiarity that it has such well-known and common rules, and promptly breaks them. All of these examples have been some of English's most flagrant and pernicious peculiarities to face new and native speakers. But here is a small but surprising peculiarity to consider, the curious case of the English phrase aren't I? Such as in I'm very lucky, aren't I? Any English student would recognize aren't as the contraction of are not. But they'd likely also know that the to-be verb in the first person is am, not are. And yet, English speakers both in Britain and America would rarely use ain't, which would immediately grate against the ear a slang like ain't. Using the second person to-be verb with I in a negative question is a colloquialism codified directly into the English language. In cases like these, there's not a much better explanation for it except that's the way it is in English. Do you want to teach English abroad? Take a TEFL course today. While English's peculiarities can be certainly confounding, it's also part of its charm. It is a flexible language that has and will continue to adapt to new people and new surroundings. It can carry the weight of loan words seamlessly. And it is more than willing to bend its own grammatical rules to produce flowing poetry and everyday speech. Instead of worrying and begrudging what a fickle system of language it is, teachers and students alike should celebrate it for what it is, a living, breathing organism that has survived centuries with stories to tell.