The founder of Wendy’s has said that he chose the square patty because it was distinct, because it allowed the meat to hang over the round bun which he believed would appeal to customers, and because more burgers fit on a standard grill without wasted space if they are square.
Wendy’s has actually looked at going round but has always decided to stay square in part because it was their founders original vision and in part because it is so much of their brand identity. They often rely on the images of square burgers or square burger based puns and turns of phrase in their marketing.
Wendy’s is aware, they have done focus groups in the past, and they know that there is a general perception that square burgers look more “processed” and less “hand crafted” by a human. Of course the perfect circles of identical and consistent ground beef that form the patties of fast food rivals don’t exactly look like what most human cooks are turning out, especially “home made,” but it’s a perception..

.. a figure of weight by a cubic unit. So square burgers can possibly be more efficient when simple packing methods and standard containers and transport or storage are employed. A big but intangible potential advantage is… they are somewhat novel. Being that round tends to be the norm, a square burger is distinct in a market where toppings and ingredients and such are pretty homogeneous. Wendy’s was aware of this and so the square burger is a component of both their branding and market strategy. A way to stand out in a market full of burgers where adding lettuce or tomato or onion or bacon or cheese or an extra patty etc etc. are easily copied and not terribly distinct.

So it is and generally has been through at least modern history and the age of “fast food,” most common to see round burger patties. Largely because they would most likely gain early traction due to their favorable logistics and their relatively simplicity where technology has not matured for patty making or industrial production. Square patties do have some advantages, when it comes to things like shipping containers such as boxes, “square” tends to be the norm. Easy and cheap to mass manufacture, strong, simple handling etc. for the same reason “box” is a common shape for transport methods like train car and truck. Cubic dimensions are fairly easy to work with and calculating weight by cubic unit or costs per cubic unit are generally simple. So squats burgers in square boxes in square trucks can theoretically or at least intuitively be one way to maximize the amount of product being moved per unit of space, and transport and storage costs usually depend on unit of space and often..

In the age of “fast food” and where things like tiny costs make huge differences, a circular burger which fits the same footprint as a square one will use less meat for the same thickness since there aren’t corners. I won’t get into buns because that’s its own discussion. Skipping that I’ll say there are certain considerations in mass production. For example, a tubular shape- a log which can be cut into consistently thick circular patties, is easier to extrude than a bar when working with a material like ground meat. The corners present a point where deformities can easily occur, jamming, catching, you have product moving at different rates as it is pushed through the mold as opposed to our circle where each point is the same distance from center.
But it isn’t worlds more difficult to mass manufacture square patties- in fact it can be easier even. There are factors like the methods used, scale, and of course wether there is existing infrastructure/inertia/economy in your methods.

Logistics isn’t the main reason, although one might say it could be a reason for early adoption of round shapes before such tools would be available or practical etc. the simple science is that it is easier to cook a round patty evenly and consistently. A round party of even or near even thickness will- when positioned properly in relation to the heat source for the method of cooking, cook at the same rate across the entire party because the distance from any point on the edge to the center is essentially the same. A challenge with square patties is to completely cook the meat without bringing the corners or leaving them under cooked.

A big reason why the circular patty came to be so common is asides generally being simpler to make “by hand,” rolling and flattening balls of equal amounts of meat, a square patty “by hand” is quite difficult to make let alone consistently. In a kitchen with minimal tools and especially where large amounts of burgers will be made quickly, weighing or pre allocating balls of equal portions of beef is more achievably accurate to tolerance and generally faster and easier than taking a giant ball of ground meat and rolling it out and then measuring and cutting, then gathering the excess at the edges as waste or to be added in to other meat to roll out again. Logistically it’s easier to do circle in a “simple kitchen” setting. If you are using dies (like cookie cutters) to get “perfect shapes” quickly and consistently then they are about even in logistics. In mass production like a factory the point basically becomes moot, though not entirely, but we will get there.

Splendubsodorous phenioverbosity. Buttered noodles on you, fair mug-o-peaches.

lol on both counts. But I do have to say to @happy_frog- that’s a devilishly delightful sort of bi-partisan joke. One could read that as either a commentary on the perceived lack of security and areas of the US/Mexico border that have “gaps” or as a commentary against the fervor for such walls and the surrounding politics, or even as a “one world” sort of stance pointing out how borders are constructs and humans are all… people.
This is top tier Rorschach humor.
I don’t want to leave Karlboll’s poetic and hilarious reply unrecognized either, my lack of commentary isn’t a lack of appreciation, I just had the thought that it was neat the wall comment could be interpreted by the reader to suit their liking.

It’s hilarious but sad because the well known and mocked “Team Edward” “Team Jacob” thing defines modern marketing and politics (one and the same they really are..) and while tired and cheesy when used so bluntly as “are you team Pineapple on Pizza or Team No?” Or such- that’s all this stuff is. Brands- corporate or human- are aware that we have reverted to this primitive team mentality. With us and against us, you are an ally or an enemy, etc. the “enemies” are mostly people who probably wouldn’t be your supporter even if they weren’t your enemy. Turns out that ambivalence doesn’t usually translate into business, strong positive or negative emotions guide sales and votes.
The dark joke is that by controlling our behavior and not reacting on emotion we could upend the whole thing, but that requires people to use discipline and self awareness.

For sure. There are some real issues that get attention but so much of this “culture war” and wether some conservative used to be a drag queen or some liberal vapes in the bathtub or these mouth pieces who no one ever heard of until some news or social media decided the crazy things they say would get people angry or scared is just distraction or manipulation. Using “culture wars” to influence who you may vote for or what you buy- people buy tickets to shows or not, shoes and even cars to make a statement on where they stand, and brands are well aware. You don’t see a lot of gun ads aimed at liberals- they know their market and it is not to their advantage to try and win everyone over, having a loyal customer base and not alienating the people most likely to be your “customer” is key- you don’t generally need to worry about the people who would probably never vote for you or buy your product anyway, or the people who basically have no choice.

Indeed. To not care about such a serious issue you’d have to have your heart sealed away behind an invisible wall.

I kinda enjoy it. It’s like being told you have hit the truth but someone doesn’t like it on some reflexes level but can’t articulate that dislike. While it is disappointing in that it reminds me of how toddlers throw tantrums because they lack the words or comprehension to communicate, there is this aspect of silent defeat- someone who can’t stand on merit and is upset slinking off knowing they are beaten before they try, but wanting some sense of satisfaction that they aren’t completely impotent just because their ideas are. The downvote is just an upvote for people who don’t agree to point out how damaging your words are to their delusions. That’s always my take anyway.

Ahhhh. I feel slightly less foolish then. Lol. I suppose propaganda abounds, though I do find it somewhat disturbing that in An age where we can often so clearly identify and quickly call out and debunk propaganda and misinformation (regardless of political stance) that so many people just really seem to want to believe it wether it is crooked or not. “It aligns to my beliefs and worldview so propaganda or not it was already true to me..” I mean.. that can get complex but when we find ourselves too aligned to propaganda we probably shouldn’t bother to question the propaganda as much as we should question our own beliefs. The fact that our beliefs fortuitously align to the needs of some puppet master is perhaps a warning sign.

Being wealthy is not linked to one’s value or output in society, we link your value to your wealth. I don’t have a problem if some people would rather or must do simpler jobs, more flexible schedules, less work, etc. and they are ok without yachts and mansions. But when people can do less work than the ones actually producing something and make thousands of times more than those productive folks will make in their lives- and do so in perhaps a few years- that’s a perversion of capitalism. That isn’t a market that rewards betterment but one that rewards exploitation and clever tricks.

Then the rest is broken down on percents with certain exceptions and such- the main ideas being to allow people to make as much as they like and to invest- but to have to spread wealth around and be dynamic. Entrenchment is a major issue as at a certain point money prints money in a way you have to be rather foolish or exceptionally unlucky to endanger your wealth. So power tends to consolidate along with wealth with creates a cycle of incest between power and wealth. It’s history- it’s basically always been such- dynasties and institutions which gain such dominance that they no longer need to be “the best,” they are simply so big or so entrenched that there isn’t a reasonable competition and thusly they can stagnate and focus entirely on self enrichment. I like the idea of capitalism as a motivator and the freedom to have a choice of lifestyle and wealth- but the two aren’t indexed.

What I will say is that wealth disparity as a cause isn’t quite accurate in my mind. Wealth disparity today is generally a side effect of another issue- finance and commerce and infrastructure and business and government are incestuous. They share so much DNA that the World Wide Web could be a description for their toes.
I don’t have Ana answer but I certainly have some ideas. One of which being- while I don’t favor limiting what a person can earn (though it’s ultimately pragmatic), perhaps requirements on what percent of one’s wealth can be from what categories. In other words, something like:
- up to 100% of one’s wealth can come from money paid directly for production of non abstract resources and services. The wording would be tricky- we don’t want to put certain “thinking” professions like accountants out of business or stop digital payments processing but the idea is that if you work a “real honest job” you can make 100% of your income that way with your own hands.

as the same people who hold large personal wealth tend to be the same people who sit atop both private and public corporations in positions of high influence, and those people are often many the same people who sit in government or hold influence there. The officials tasked with regulating and policing corporations and business and commerce are often personally and deeply involved in those same industries or literally the exact entities they are watchdogs for. That’s before we get in to who pays for campaigns and such.