Kind: Reads

reading a book, magazine, newspaper, other physical document, or online post

What is a Juicy or Hazy India Pale Ale?

Brewers Association Beer Style Guidelines by Brewers Association

Since 1979 the BA has provided beer style descriptions as a reference for brewers and beer competition organizers.

The New England India Pale Ale/Double India Pale Ale is now called the Juicy or Hazy India Pale Ale/Double India Pale Ale and The Brewers Association has finally set guidelines for what makes up my favourite American craft ale style.

Brewers Association Beer Style Guidelines by Brewers Association

Since 1979 the BA has provided beer style descriptions as a reference for brewers and beer competition organizers.

The New England IPA is dead. Long live the Juicy or Hazy India Pale Ale (IPA).

  • Color: Straw to deep gold
  • Clarity: Low to very high degree of cloudiness is typical of these beers. Starch, yeast, hop, protein and/or other compounds contribute to a wide range of hazy appearance within this category.
  • Perceived Malt Aroma & Flavor: Low to low-medium malt aroma and flavor may be present
  • Perceived Hop Aroma & Flavor: Medium-high to very high hop aroma and flavor are present, with attributes typical of hops from any origin
  • Perceived Bitterness: Medium-low to medium
  • Fermentation Characteristics: Low to medium fruity-esters aroma and flavour may be present, but are usually overwhelmed by hop fruitiness. Diacetyl should not be perceived.
  • Body: Medium-low to medium-high. Perceived silky or full mouthfeel may contribute to overall flavor profile.
  • Additional notes: Grist may include a small amount of oat, wheat or other adjuncts to promote haziness. Descriptors such as “juicy” are often used to describe the taste and aroma hop-derived attributes present in these beers.
  • India Pale Ale has an Alcohol by Weight (Volume) of 5.0%-6.0%(6.3%-7.5%) • Bitterness (IBU) 50-70
  • Imperial/Double India Pale Ale has an Alcohol by Weight (Volume) of 6.0%-8.4%(7.6%-10.6%) • Bitterness (IBU) 65-100

For those who have never tried or heard of it, a Juicy IPA is an aggressively hopped unfiltered IPA or Double IPA. The appearance ranges from slightly hazy or cloudy to opaque or muddy but NOT chalky. Dry-hopping, the use of high-protein grains (flours, flaked oats, wheat), certain yeast strains, water chemistry, CO2 levels, and other techniques may also contribute to the beer’s haze and mouthfeel. But the overall goal is typically a hazy, juicy IPA packed with fruity and floral flavours and aroma.

The style got its start in Vermont and Massachusetts but has spread throughout the Midatlantic area. New Jersey has a few micro-brewers who make top-notch examples of this style and three of them are close to home. My number one favourite brewery is Troon Brewing in Hopewell, New Jersey but I also love ales from Flounder Brewing in Hillsborough and Conclave Brewing in Raritan/Flemington, New Jersey.

I am blessed with the good fortune of living within 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 40 minutes of these three breweries.

Untappd (in-order of proximity to my home).

Google’s Selfish Ledger, R. Daneel Olivaw and Asimov's Robot and Foundation series

Google’s Selfish Ledger is an unsettling vision of Silicon Valley social engineering by Vlad Savov

Foster’s vision of the ledger goes beyond a tool for self-improvement. The system would be able to “plug gaps in its knowledge and refine its model of human behavior” — not just your particular behavior or mine, but that of the entire human species. “By thinking of user data as multigenerational,” explains Foster, “it becomes possible for emerging users to benefit from the preceding generation’s behaviors and decisions.” Foster imagines mining the database of human behavior for patterns, “sequencing” it like the human genome, and making “increasingly accurate predictions about decisions and future behaviours.”

I read that block of text and I immediately was reminded of the main protagonist, R. Daneel Olivaw, in Asimov’s Robot and Foundation series.

In Robots and Empire, where Asimov finally links the Robot series with the Empire series, [R. Giskard Reventlov] and Daneel often discuss the limitations of the Laws of Robotics, a process lengthened by the fact that their positronic pathways prevent thought along these lines, thus often leading to a temporary loss in the ability to talk or move. By the end of the book, when Daneel has formulated the Zeroth Law of Robotics (“A robot may not harm humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"), Giskard is the first robot to act according to this new law.
…
Together Daneel and Giskard imagine the science of “psychohistory" or laws of humanics, that would enable them to execute the "Zeroth Law" in a quantitative sense. Thousands of years later this would be developed into practical application by Hari Seldon.

Blockchain and individuals’ control over their personal data

Blockchain and individuals’ control over personal data in European data protection law by Roberta Filippone

Blockchain challenges the European data protection law at its very foundations. Blockchain is a peer-to-peer technology with a distributed community and fragmented actions, while the GDPR’s obligations are conceived for centralized architectures where there is a clear distribution of roles and activities. In particular, under the GDPR’s approach, data controllers and data processors are those actors who have to comply with this legislative framework, bearing responsibilities in case they do not. However, blockchain is a technology whose core aspect is the absence of a middleman, namely a controller. Peer-to-peer design challenges the application of traditional legal regulation and questions who must comply with the GDPR and, thus, who has to be held liable for the processing and protection of personal data through the implementation of adequate technical and organizational measures as the principle of accountability calls for (Art. 5(2), GDPR).102

This study by Roberta Filippone analyses blockchain technology through the lens of the individuals’ control over their personal data, to assess whether blockchain can empower the individuals’ control in compliance with European data protection law.

Blockchain and individuals’ control over personal data in European data protection law by Roberta Filippone

Blockchain challenges the European data protection law at its very foundations. Blockchain is a peer-to-peer technology with a distributed community and fragmented actions, while the GDPR’s obligations are conceived for centralized architectures where there is a clear distribution of roles and activities. In particular, under the GDPR’s approach, data controllers and data processors are those actors who have to comply with this legislative framework, bearing responsibilities in case they do not. However, blockchain is a technology whose core aspect is the absence of a middleman, namely a controller. Peer-to-peer design challenges the application of traditional legal regulation and questions who must comply with the GDPR and, thus, who has to be held liable for the processing and protection of personal data through the implementation of adequate technical and organizational measures as the principle of accountability calls for (Art. 5(2), GDPR).102

This study by Roberta Filippone analyses blockchain technology through the “..lens of the individuals’ control over their personal data, to assess whether blockchain can empower the individuals’ control in compliance with European data protection law”.

The study looks at two potentially competing initiatives, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which is intended to give individuals the right to control how data about them is collected and used, including a right to have that information erase, and blockchain technology which may require the collection and long term retention of personal metadata to provide transparency and non-repudiation.

… the blockchain’s ledger is characterized by its immutability, meaning that every purchase, transfer or vote become part of a permanent record from which data cannot be erased.

Art. 17 GDPR:

The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:

However, I think the GDPR provides and escape hatch:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:

  • for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;
  • for compliance with a legal obligation which requires processing by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;
  • for reasons of public interest in the area of public health in accordance with points (h) and (i) of Article 9(2) as well as Article 9(3);
  • for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing; or
  • for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

I think all five of those can be applied to making the argument that the right to erase does not apply to blockchain technology used for financial transactions, identification, public records and smart contracts.

We are living in interesting times!