The Brief

It seems like only yesterday that hacking fast food meant ordering off the menu. The most famous in recent years was the Starbucks pink drink, where customers would order a strawberry acai refresher and substitute the water for coconut milk.

The drink went so viral on social media that Starbucks eventually added it to its permanent menu… making you pay more in the process.

(Let us also not forget The McGangBang (actual name, apparently), which combined a McChicken and a McDouble into one ridiculous sandwich in the 2010s.)

Now, with food influencers trying to outdo each other, menu hacking has gone even further.

Instead of ordering from just one menu and modifying it, now you can order two items and combine them, or even order items from two different fast food chains and mash them up into one meal.

(Driving from one place to another means the result is anything but fast, but hey, this is creativity).

While I’m a little concerned about where this amalgamation could end — Three restaurants? Four? — I figured I’d pull together some hacks that caught my eye, show you how to make them, and then rate them. Call it public service. You’re welcome.

The In-N-Out Patty Melt

The In-N-Out patty melt made with their Flying Dutchman burger and two toasted buns.

(

Sean Vukan

/

For LAist

)

What to order

• One Flying Dutchman 
• Two buns on the side, toasted

The assembly

For the uninitiated, the In-N-Out Flying Dutchman is not a pirate ship but rather two beef patties with a slice of cheese between the patties and on top of them.

It also comes with grilled onions. (It’s my personal favorite of the In-N-Out off-menu items. It's just a great combination of gooey melted cheese and classic In-N-Out hamburger patties.)

Order one of those, and two toasted buns. Now invert the buns — what’s facing the inside on a traditional burger will now be facing outward. (It’s what makes it a patty melt). Finally, carefully peel off the Flying Dutchman from the paper it’s sitting on and place it in between the toasted inverted hamburger buns. Get ready to enjoy a drive-thru version of a diner classic.

Does it work?

A patty melt is at its best when the bread, hamburger patty, onions, and cheese are all griddled together in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, the bun lets this version down.

When I tried it, the bread was dry, whereas on an actual patty melt, all the juices from the onions and meat have had a chance to seep through to the rye or sourdough. This version was fine, though, and if it came cooked as one, it might have yielded a different result.

Score: 6.5/10 There are better versions of this diner classic throughout Los Angeles, but it’s a fun, newer In-N-Out hack that doesn’t involve using grilled onions as a substitute bun for your burger. Oh, and it does double the trash you’d normally produce, but that kind of goes with all these mash ups.

The Baja Blast Float

A McDonald's soft serve cone dipped into the signature Taco Bell soft drink, Baja Blast. Things are about to get messy.

(

Sean Vukan

/

For LAist

)

What to order

• A large Baja Blast from Taco Bell
• A soft serve cone from McDonald's

The assembly

Because you’re dealing with ice cream, it’s best to get the Taco Bell exclusive soda first, so there’s a small amount of time between dunkage of ice cream and soda.

This also allows time to drink some of the soda to somewhere about the halfway to three-quarters point. Why? Because sticking an ice cream cone into a full cup of soda will cause it to overflow. Once the soda is at an acceptable level, scoop the soft serve from the McDonald's cone into the soda and swirl it around at the same time, allowing the ice cream to mix in partly with the soda.

Does it work?

Yes. But a Baja Blast from Taco Bell has been my personal go to drink from The Bell since it was launched in 2004, so I may be a bit biased. The ice cream combination mixed with the citrusy, tropical lime flavor of the soda was really good and comes off as sort of like a millennial version of an orange soda float.

Score: 8/10 Was I questioning my journalistic choices in the parking lot of a Walmart on a Sunday morning as I was slowly dunking and drinking while balancing the Baja Blast to keep it from spilling everywhere? Absolutely. But the end result made me glad that I followed through with it. This would be a great treat just in time for summer.

The In-N-Out/Dave's Hot Chicken Sandwich

A collection of Dave's Hot Chicken, fries and a burger bun with no meat from In-N-Out. This is about to become a sandwich.

(

Sean Vukan

/

For LAist

)

What to order:

• Cheeseburger w/no meat from In-N-Out
• The Two Tender Combo from Dave’s Hot Chicken, OR ask for one tender a la carte if you don’t want the fries and extra tender. The spice level varies depending on preference.
• Honey packets, spread, Dave’s sauce (optional).

The assembly

Ordering the cheeseburger with no meat saves you the question from the attendant at In-N-Out asking if you want the grilled cheese plain or with the veggies, which you absolutely still want, and in some cases, they may not ask you, so better to be on the safe side and order the cheeseburger with no meat. For the Dave’s portion, the first time I asked for one tender they obliged, but looked at me kind of weird (journalism, folks) so the second time I just ordered the #1 combo, which is the two tenders.

Place a tender between the meatless burger and congrats; there’s now an In-N-Out chicken sandwich.

Does it work?

Look, Dave’s Hot Chicken already has a chicken sandwich so there’s absolutely no need for this to happen unless you’re aching for tomato, grilled onions, and Thousand Island dressing to be a part of it. But welcome to the world of fast food influencers, folks. A world where putting a clickbaity title like “In-N-Out Chicken Sandwich?” on a title card in an attempt to rack up views because you think something new has been launched, but in reality, it’s all a ruse.

Score: 7/10 The original concoction of this called for a Chick-fil-A cutlet to be used, but since I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A and prefer a hotter chicken anyway, I opted for a tender from Dave’s. This was fine. Not mind-blowing in any way. Would it have been different if Chick-fil-A chicken were used instead? Probably not. But to each their own. Order the In-N-Out first because the line will probably be long, and it is probably best to be in an area where a place that serves crispy chicken cutlet sandwiches or tenders is somewhat nearby an In-N-Out.

Del Taco Birria Nacho Fries

The contents of a birria quesadilla placed upon an order of Del Taco nacho fries.

(

Sean Vukan

/

For LAist

)

What to order

• Birria quesadilla or birria combo burrito
• Plain crinkle-cut fries or the special nacho cheese fries
• Hot sauce
• Ask for sides of sour cream and jalapeños

The assembly

Scoop the contents out of the quesadilla or burrito onto the fries. The nacho fries are currently a special that Del Taco is running, which is their crinkle-cut fries topped with nacho cheese.

Depending on your preference, the birria quesadilla is just the Del Taco birria and that classic orange shredded cheese they put on, like, 90% of the items at Del Taco. The birria combo burrito comes with birria and refried beans, but I found the chunks of birria in the quesadilla to be more hearty and meaty than the ones in the burrito.

Once the fillings have been placed atop the fries, top with the sour cream, jalapeños, and drizzle the hot sauce of your choosing atop it.

Does it work?

Yes. I got the idea for this from my friend and fellow food writer, Sarah Mosqueda of the L.A. Times. I texted her prior to the assignment to ask if she knew of any under-the-radar menu hacks or mashups that people wouldn’t know about.

She said that while working at an old restaurant of hers, she would bring in Del Taco fries and pour braised lamb over them for a staff meal. While braised lamb from fast food isn’t necessarily a possibility, it got me thinking that Del Taco could be a possibility for a menu hack whereas initially it wasn’t, and specifically their fries or nachos.

Del Taco currently has their recently added birria in tacos, a burrito, in a cup with consomme, and atop nachos. However, they missed an opportunity to place it on their crinkle-cut fries, even though they already offer the fries with ground beef, chicken, and steak.

Score: 7.9/10 The tender beef birria was a great addition to the fries, allowing just enough of the juices to soak up into the crinkle-cut potatoes. Granted, these are light on diced tomatoes or guac, and I did get the smaller, cheaper version of the fries because I was told the larger option with more toppings couldn’t be modified with the birria. Still, it was really good. The pickled jalapeños and sour cream add acidity to help cut through the hearty beef and potatoes.

Behold the Hammer Boi pizza featuring flatty beef patties, pickles, ‘Hammer sauce’ from Hammer Burger, atop a Focaccia Boi pepperoni pizza.

(

Sean Vukan

/

For LAist

)

Mashups for the soul

When all is said and done, the best mash-ups you can support are those your local small businesses create. Post-pandemic, more and more pop-ups and small restaurants are joining forces for special releases and the results are usually home runs. Here are some of my recent favorites:

• The recent Paradise Dynasty/Pho-Holic mash-up, where OC beef pho restaurant Phoholic had a pho xiao long bao at South Coast Plaza’s Paradise Dynasty — an absolutely genius combination that tasted as good as it reads.
  
• The ongoing A’s BBQ/Quarantine Pizza collab at Smorgasburg Los Angeles on Sundays, where East LA pitmaster and sausage king Alan Cruz of A’s BBQ provides his famous al pastor sausages to Quarantine Pizza for an al pastor sausage pizza.
  
• Daniel Castillo of Heritage Barbecue in San Juan Capistrano has been using Burritos La Palma tortillas for his brisket tacos for the past few years.
  

• The recent collaboration between Orange County purveyors, Hammer Burger and Focaccia Boi. Usually in Anaheim, Derek Bracho and his Focaccia Boi pizza has been taking over the kitchen every Wednesday at Loosie’s Pizza in Downtown Santa Ana. Loosie’s also happens to be a stone’s throw from Orange County’s first smash burger truck, now turned restaurant, Hammer Burger.

  The result of this team up? A limited number of slices of The Hammer Boi pizza: flatty beef patties, pickles, ‘Hammer sauce’ from Hammer Burger, atop a Focaccia Boi pepperoni pizza.

The overall verdict

Save the corporate mashups for the influencers just looking for clicks. They’re not struggling. Follow your favorite pop-up, food truck, or small restaurant on social media and be on the lookout for their next collab or mash-up with another local favorite.

Because a pizza burger just might end up being delicious.

A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.

The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.

The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”

In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.

“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.

Two years ago, a judge freed Anthony Bailey after 27 years in the federal penitentiary, giving him a second chance at life.

And Bailey has been making the most of his early release. Between long hours driving a city bus in Indianapolis, attending barbecues and playing card games with family, Bailey has developed deep roots in his community.

Now, after a ruling from the Supreme Court and a legal move by the Justice Department, Bailey, 61, is facing a return to prison in a matter of weeks.

"I'm hoping and praying that everything turn out and I get my life back," Bailey said in an interview. "Today, right now, I'm a better person — I'm a productive citizen, I work hard."

Bailey's case is one of about a dozen that could be directly affected by a Supreme Court ruling in late May that limited how prisoners can use the compassionate release program to get out early.

The high court found that the compassionate release program, designed for extraordinary or compelling circumstances, is supposed to cover such things as severe illness or old age. The court majority said inmates serving much longer sentences than the punishments they would receive today were not automatically eligible for the program.

Retired federal Judge John Gleeson disagrees with that ruling.

"These are indefensibly long sentences, and they need to be corrected," he said. Gleeson launched a pro bono program that has helped more than 100 people in prison petition the courts for early release.

Most of those inmates are Black men who used a gun in connection with other crimes. Prosecutors added severe mandatory penalties to their cases, stacking those punishments, even if no shots were fired, to build prison terms of 50, 60 or even 100 years.

Anthony Bailey (left) poses with family members shortly after his release from prison in July 2024.

(

Via Anthony Bailey

)

"Productive member of society"

That's what happened in Bailey's case.

On Sept. 3, 1997, Bailey and two other men robbed a bank and then carried out two carjackings. Prosecutors said in court papers that his crimes were serious and put several people in danger, including a school-age girl.

"Something that I totally regrets — will never happen again, ever, in life," Bailey said.

He spent most of his time at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., where he worked as a barber — a job that gave him access to scissors and other sharp tools.

His record inside prison was clean for decades, with just one minor infraction mentioned in court filings.

Maryam Kanna is a pro bono lawyer for Bailey. She said he has already served more time than most people convicted of federal murder.

"He has a stable, happy life and is a really productive member of society, so I mean, the idea that he poses a danger is completely farcical," Kanna said.

Congress changed the law, but not retroactively

Prosecutors are now signaling that they could move soon to send Bailey back to serve the rest of his long sentence — one that would give him a release date in 2050, when he is nearly 86 years old.

Kelsie Clayton, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Indiana — where Bailey's case is pending — said the office speaks only through official court filings.

Congress has since lightened some of the harsh mandatory penalties that applied to Bailey and others convicted back in the 1990s. But lawmakers did not make that change retroactive, to apply to people already inside prison.

And the Supreme Court's ruling says that this means those people's punishments are not extraordinary or compelling, as the compassionate release program mandates.

Bailey said he would abide by the law. "OK, just got to keep fighting," he said.

He has been getting good marks from his probation officer, who told him before the Supreme Court decision that she'd recommend his early release from probation this fall.

Now, he's not sure where he'll be in September. He's making the most of his time, enjoying family barbecues and card games in the park and showing his 4-year-old grandson the ropes.

"He's a worker, you know. Everything I do — he sit there and just watch and then he [asks], 'We washing the car?' Or, 'We taking the trash out?' Like, yeah, c'mon."

He's teaching his grandson how to mow the lawn and, as a treat, taking him to enjoy the boy's favorite food: the french fries at McDonald's.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles Unified School Board unanimously approved a policy Tuesday to limit student screen time starting in August.

The decision follows a board vote in the spring that required the district to create a policy to set up guardrails on the amount of time students should spend in front of a digital device.

District officials said that since May they’ve received feedback from nearly 19,000 members in the community. “Student focus and attention were the most frequently cited concerns, along with mental health and wellbeing, online safety, and privacy,” they said.

What does the policy change?

The changes include eliminating use of district-issued digital devices, like tablets and laptops, in the early years, from preschool through 1st grade. And for every other grade level, there will be daily or weekly maximum screen time limits:

• Preschool to 1st grade: 0 minutes (beginning August 2026)
• 2nd to 3rd grade: 20 minutes per day or 100 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 4th to 5th grade: 30 minutes per day or 150 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 6th to 8th grade: 60 minutes per subject, per week, including homework, not to exceed 360 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)
• 9th to 12th grade: 90 minutes per subject, per week, not to exceed 600 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)

The policy allows exceptions for subject areas that heavily rely on computers, like computer science, graphic design, and yearbook, and for district and state assessments. It also allows unrestricted use when necessary for students with disabilities.

Board Member Nick Melvoin proposed a successful amendment to reduce the screen time limits for several grades and break up the limitations by subject starting in middle school.

“[It’s] much harder for teachers in secondary to coordinate across five or six subjects,” Melvoin said in explaining the change.

The policy also:

• Bans elementary and middle school students from using devices during lunch or recess, except for school-approved work
• Blocks streaming services like YouTube and “non-approved gaming platforms”
• Allows parents to opt-out of their students taking home a district device
• Encourages laptop cart use for upper elementary school grades
• Will be updated annually 

Board Vice President Rocío Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

“Schools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,” Rivas said.

How much will this cost? 

The district says it’ll cost $4.25 million in one-time costs to buy laptop carts for elementary school classrooms, if each class opts in. And it’ll cost another $1 million annually for software that would track screen time and block content.

How is this different from the cellphone ban?

This policy is about school-issued devices, like laptops and iPads — not student cellphones.

During the pandemic, the district had moved to equip every student with a digital device in an effort to close digital equity gaps.

District officials noted that when adopting the policy, “caution is advised that efforts to close the digital divide for highest needs populations will be negatively impacted.”

Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

“I don’t want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,” Garcia said.

Board staff clarified the policy does not prevent students of any age from checking out a device for home use from their child’s school.

District analysts, however, also note research shows that device access alone doesn’t lead to better academic outcomes, but that it needs to be coupled with adult supervision and engagement.

“Because families vary widely in their ability to provide consistent supervision, unrestricted take-home devices raise equity concerns,” the district’s office of research and program evaluation wrote.

Some parents say the policy is not enough

Representatives for the parent advocacy group Schools Beyond Screens, which had advocated for the policy, say it’s a good step, but more needs to be done around artificial intelligence.

“We’re setting a new standard for the rest of the country,” said Lila Byock, who founded the group. “From Atlanta, to D.C., to Houston, they’re all trying to do what we’re doing here today.”

Byock and other LAUSD parents associated with Schools Beyond Screens called on the board to reduce the minute limits for students and to adopt a moratorium on AI use until there’s more guidance from the district’s ad hoc committee on the subject.

The Los Angeles City Council took a first step Tuesday to reinstate a law that bans new oil drilling and requires existing wells to be phased out over the next two decades.

The city’s first attempt to pass such a law was in 2022, but oil companies sued and the city had to repeal it. L.A. County has been going through a similar back-and-forth.

Now, with a new state law backing their authority, L.A. officials think they can cap the city’s more than 2,000 wells over the next 20 years — and end L.A.’s distinction as one of the largest urban oil fields in the nation.

“ In my district, we have hundreds of active wells, and our neighbors are ready to move into the next chapter,” District 5 Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said Tuesday at the council meeting approving the ordinance’s reintroduction. "We know the industry will continue to fight us at every turn.”

For more than 10 years, local groups have pushed for an end to oil drilling near homes, childcare centers, parks and schools.

“ Neighborhood oil drilling is fundamentally incompatible with protecting public health,” said Wendy Miranda with Esperanza Community Housing in Historic South-Central. "We carry this evidence in our bodies. We have experienced countless nosebleeds and headaches, asthma and even cancer.”

Research has shown living near oil infrastructure elevates the risk of such health issues.

In the city of L.A. alone, about 75% of active oil or gas wells are located within 1,700 feet of “sensitive locations,” such as homes and schools. About one-third of all L.A. County residents live less than 1 mile from an active drilling site.

The L.A. City Council will vote again later this summer to finalize its oil phaseout law.

In a document more than 100 pages long, lawyers representing oil companies vowed to fight the law again, saying it violates the companies’ private property and due process rights, among other things.

Culver City and Santa Barbara have passed similar ordinances.