The writers of this article (publication) seem to think that the object in life is to “pig out” as much as possible — rather than the much more intelligent strategy of trying as many different things as possible — which is really the strength of the buffets — as well as potlucks.
Only in the old world of journalism do people still think that greater quantities of the same thing is a virtue and advantage — and where plagiarism and purging alternative ideas have become their guiding principles — and the reason for the collapse of their “empires.” The 21st century is not about getting everybody to conform to their consensus viewpoint — but that people want to hear different perspectives and alternatives — and not just their one politically correct and enforced narratives.
We want to taste the whole world — and not just get something for nothing — or very little in a fair exchange of money and ideas. That mainly explains why these “journalists” are obese, in poor health and condition, and feel so entitled from everybody else — while offering very little or nothing of value in exchange.
These writers (journalists) don’t seem to understand that variety is preferred — whether eating or learning, and not just the “Hey, hey, ho, ho...” they want us to chant indiscriminately after them.
Actually the article addressed your point, part of the problem buffets have is they lack variety. Everything at a buffet has to be easy to make in bulk and able to survive on the steam table, this greatly limits the variety, both in 1 chain and across the board. There’s only so many foods that can survive that model. They straight up say that in the article.