Synchronicity

When an idea's time has come, it seems to dawn suddenly upon a population's collective unconscious as a shining object of conventional wisdom. Malcolm Gladwell called it the "tipping point." Jung called it "synchronicity." Whatever you wish to call it, maybe we've reached such a moment in our collective frustration over cheater pints. New Englander Andy Crouch (heretofore unknown to me) is my psychic brother on another coast:

In the next issue of BeerAdvocate Magazine I call for the death of the Shaker pint.

Yay! This quote comes from a post (raised pint to Bill for seeing it) that actually cites another fault of the shaker pint I hadn't thought of:

And while I’ll leave the details of that particular rant to the next issue, I’ve come up with an additional reason that brewers, and more specifically bars and tavern owners, should consider dumping their boring collections of stackable drinking vessel widgets. They cheat the bar owner out of profits....

But we’ve all seen the problem with the Shaker pint, where even the most careful bartender experiences some beer spillage while pouring pints. Various industry sources suggest that beer spillage results in somewhere between 5 to 20-percent loss per keg, a huge cost loss for the bar owner. Often the loss is due to inexperienced or poorly trained staff who simply leave the tap open until enough beer has spilled out of the pint to leave it filled. Other times the system’s temperature or gas system isn’t properly calibrated. Other times still, bartenders are busy or distracted. Many of these problems could be alleviated or at least reduced with the death of the pint glass, especially where bar owners and beer pourers actually attempt to serve a 15 or (gasp) 16-ounce pint, with the introduction of differently sized glassware.

Shaker