Trader Joe's Cinnamon Sugar Almonds

AI is scary. I asked perchance.org for "the latest Trader Joe's food product" and within a couple seconds, it had formulated Trader Joe's Chicken & Waffle Flavored Potato Chips, complete with an enticing product description and images of said fictitious food product. Of course the writing on the packaging is all gibberish and the description doesn't provide actual ingredients, but heck, I'm starting to wonder if Trader Joe's hasn't been doing this all along. I mean they do have some pretty tasty stuffing flavored chips, at least around Thanksgiving time.

What other ideas did artificial intelligence come up with? Products like Trader Joe's Mini Gummy Bears on a Chocolate Pool Day come to mind. I mean, whose brain thinks like that? WTF is a "chocolate pool day"?

All that to say that this isn't really all that weird an idea. I'm glad the guy who wants to dip everything in dark chocolate was absent at the product development meeting that day. Because these things are perfect just the way they are. They're delectable little bite-size candies with a whole almond and plenty of cinnamon and sugar.

In fact, if I had to complain about anything, I might want a little less cinnamon, sugar, and confectionery coating and more nut flavor. These little treats are creamy, sweet, and they have enough real cinnamon that you might start coughing if you eat them too fast.

Some of the spheres are bordering on being too big to eat in one bite. When you break them in half, you can see more than 50% of the product is that vanilla candy coating, so these are definitely heading in the direction of indulgent dessert rather than salty, nut-based snack. Sonia agrees, but she's definitely a big fan of these almonds.

$3.99 for the eight serving resealable bag. Would buy again. 9/10 stars from Sonia. 8/10 stars from me for Trader Joe's Cinnamon Sugar Almonds.

Bottom line: 8.5 out of 10.

Trader Joe's Garlicky Pasta

I've used the word "garlicky" on this blog many times, but I still have a problem with that "k" sneaking in there. There's no "k" in the word "garlic." But I guess we would want to pronounce it like an "s" sound without the "k." In other words "garlicy" looks like "garlissy," you know what I mean? We could always just hyphenate it like "garlic-y" like we do when the word is made-up or not-yet-recognized as a real word. But apparently folks use "garlicky" enough that it has an official spelling, and that spelling includes a "k" whether we like it or not.

So...this pasta is more garlicky than anything else. I guess it's pasta-y too, but all pasta is pasta-y, so that's not even worth mentioning. But I mean, if you're gonna call it "garlicky," I'd prefer it be really freaking garlicky than, you know, just kinda garlicky. And I mean, it comes covered in a medium-thick garlic sauce that is pretty tasty. It has a decent amount of garlic flavor. I guess I just want more, but then again I am a total garlic fiend. I think chunks of actual garlic might help, too.

Sonia loves this dish although she, too, wishes there were more garlic flavor. She added red pepper flakes to her portion of the bag and says it really helped open up the garlic essences in the sauce and gave the whole thing a little kick.

Texture-wise, the spaghetti-esque pasta pieces are soft and supple. The sauce is pretty smooth with no chunks of anything except some sparsely scattered bits of parsley. I think garlic, onions, scallions, or anything from the allium family could have helped not only in the flavor department but the texture one too. Carrots and bell peppers or any other basic veggies might have worked, like in the recently-reviewed stir fry.

Sonia is definitely a bigger fan than I am, but I'm not hating by any means. It looks like four and a half stars from the beautiful wifey and three and a half stars from me, meaning she'd give it a 9 out of 10 and I'd give it more like a 7 out of 10. 

Should I just do scores that way from now on? Should we each just give an "x out of 10" score and then we just average it for the bottom line? Is that less confusing than two "x out of 5" scores? Let me know in the comments.

Bottom line: 8 out of 10.