Coke and Pepsi

Friends,

For as long as I can remember, I've liked Coke more than Pepsi.  In addition, I've liked Cherry Coke more than "Wild" Cherry Pepsi, Vanilla Coke more than Pepsi Vanilla, and, most important to my life recently, Coke Zero more than Pepsi Max. [Note: I cannot and will not compare Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, because they both taste so awful to me.]

I could just leave it at that and call it a day.  But, as per a strange part of the human condition, I'm not satisfied merely stating my opinion; I want to prove it to be objectively true, whether by science, mathematics, or somehow getting every human being to adopt the same opinion.

And so, I hereby plant my flag that in every way, Coke is better than Pepsi.


Coke vs. Pepsi: the definitive comparison
If the chart I threw together on Microsoft Paint doesn't convince you, nothing will

Growing up, I appreciated not only the taste of Coke products, but the perceived creativity and trail-blazing of the whole Coke product line.  Seriously, when I was a teen, I seemed to notice that Coke would release a product, then Pepsi would soon roll out a rival version of that same product.  This happened often enough that I began to view Coca-Cola as a visionary and brilliant company and Pepsi-Cola as a reactionary, copycat group of hacks.

Recently, as I pondered the superiority of Coke, I wondered if this pattern were real or just the illusory perception of a guy who cares too much about cola.  So, I went to the one source that we all know to be unfailingly true (not to mention an old friend of this blog)-- Wikipedia.

Here are my findings:

[Note: It may seem unfair for me to credit Coke with the victory in diet colas based on TaB. The Diet Pepsi Wikipedia page clearly doesn't.  But I think it makes perfect sense, as the existence and early popularity of TaB -- a Coca-Cola product -- appears to be the sole reason that Diet Coke wasn't produced until the 80s.]



Obviously, a clear and decisive victory for the guys in red.  But you might be wondering if I've played some sort of statistics/chart trick on you.  Maybe I've only included those products that would favor Coke?

But alas, if you look at the column on the left, you'll see I've selected the major cola developments.  Sure, I could have thrown in crazy stuff like Pepsi Clear or Coca-Cola BlaK, but those didn't last and thus don't represent successful steps forward.  The one important type absent from the chart is the "alternative recipe zero-calorie version marketed specifically to males", i.e. Coke Zero and Pepsi Max.  This was just way too difficult to sort out, as Zero predates Max, but Pepsi used to have a completely different ginseng-infused product called "Diet Pepsi Max" and also Pepsi One, which, while featuring different sweeteners and no male-specific marketing, was an alternative diet drink.

So, in the most important areas of cola innovation, Coca-Cola has five times led the way, to Pepsi's one.  But look at it this way, Pepsi fans-- you guys pioneered caffeine-free cola! You know, that drink that's perfect for when you want a non-alcoholic calorie-rich carbonated beverage but still want to be able to fall asleep soon.

Rock-and-roller Cola Wars

To quote Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire"

Everyone please chime in:

Do you drink pop? ("Soda", for those of you who grew up with a bleak and miserable childhood.)

If so, what's your cola of choice?

Jon



Wikipedia: the mother of all tangents

As much as I like to write, I like to write for me (and you), not "the man."  So when I was in college, I (somewhat subconsciously) scheduled classes that would force me to write as few papers as possible.  This was made easier by the facts that I was a math major and that WVU gave me like 400 hours of credit for AP tests in fields that would have made me write a lot of papers.

But when, O reader, I was forced to write a paper that required even the slightest amount of research, the first thing I did was consult with wikipedia.  You might think this was shoddy scholarship, maybe even an affront to educators everywhere.  I would defend myself with how that was only the first step in a lengthy, rigorous research process, but A. that's outside the scope of this blog entry, and B. I'm not sure it's true.

I mention all this merely to say that I've had plenty of experience reading wikipedia.  And not just for "fun."  As I was recently using the site (more on that in a second), I realized it is the greatest generator of tangents of all time.  And since tangents are sort of our business here, I decided this blog needed to pay homage to the free online encyclopedia.

An example of wikipedia's awe-inspiring tangent production

Recently Kmech -- a friend of mine and faithful reader of Tangent Space(s) -- suggested I write something interesting about language and/or words (still working on it).  My first thought was that I could write about "auto-antonyms"; an auto-antonym "is a word with multiple meanings, one of which is defined as the reverse of one of its other meanings."  This deals with words, and I'll be darned if it's not riveting.

So I went to the wikipedia page (feel free to follow along if you like).  And look how many tangents wikipedia presented me with, primarily via links to other wikipedia pages:

1. First of all, right off the bat, I'm told that auto-antonym is just one of many items on a wikipedia page called "English words with uncommon properties."  Gotta go there.
2. Secondly, while this doesn't give an actual tangential link to follow, I'm given a list of other names for auto-antonym.  Here it is: autantonym, contranym, contronym, antagonym, Janus word, self-antonym, and enantiodrome.  How can I not ponder how there could be so many names for the same thing?
3. The last name there, enantiodrome, should not be confused with a link they provide to me -- enantiodromia, which is "the Jungian principle of equilibrium."  If you are on that page and don't click that link, you lack basic human curiosity.
4. Then, in what is a relatively short article on this word type, there are over 35 links to other wikipedia articles.  Over 35!  And I don't know who can pass up such obvious clicks as "crossbows", "co-opetition", and "Queen Ann."
5. Tangent-within-a-tangent, but still a number on this list: One of the 35+ links is for "neologism."  It's a term for a word that is new and in the process of being added to common use in a language.  When I saw it, it rang a bell, but I couldn't remember why.  And then it came to me: wikipedia uses this word all the time.  As proof of this, I submit to you the webcomic xkcd.com making fun of wikipedia.

What's my point?  Well, I couldn't possibly focus on auto-antonyms when Queen Ann is shooting crossbows at me and there are huge words like enantiodromia.  Tangent overload.


Wikipedia and you

I offer a suggestion and a question(s):

• If you're ever in the mood for a tangent and I haven't updated this blog since your last read, head over to the free online encyclopedia and travel down whatever rabbit holes catch your attention.
• What has been your experience with wikipedia?  Have you ever used it for school?

Jon