Why is microsoft from Germany writing in English? Why donât they just post it on their main Account which actually has a primarely English-speaking audience?
The original post (not shown in the screenshot) is from PBS, thatâs why it says âAuthorâ by their name. If it was in English (likely) it makes sense to answer in English as well.
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
on 14 Jun 14:26
nextcollapse
To me arguing over which fruit belongs in which category is a prime example of people arguing over shadows in Platoâs cave. Not that itâs a waste of time or anything but sometimes people act like tomatoes wonât grow if you call them vegetables. Like at the end of the day itâs just humans developing a system to make sense of nature rather than discovering an inherent, pre-existing system.
Like at the end of the day itâs just humans developing a system to make sense of nature
The core of the matter is that we have multiple, mutually incompatible schemes sharing in part the same terminology. Biology is not cooking, both fields care about vastly different things thus the categorisation scheme is different, thatâs the end of it. Culinarily, tomatoes have too much umami to be fruit. Botanically peppermint is an aromatic, I recommend you not put any into your soffritto.
EDIT:
Tomato is also dominated by oxalic acid, not malic, citric, (typical fruit acids) or acetic (fermented/overripe). Oxalic acid is in parsley, chives, spinach, beans, lettuce, that kind of stuff. âItâs sourâ isnât sufficient to describe a taste profile, our tongues may not tell them apart but our noses definitely do.
I think it should be possible to break the culinary categorisation down to chemistry. That doesnât tell you anything about the âwhyâ but itâs definitely not random and definitely not all in our heads.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 15:44
nextcollapse
Oh, this is actually a perfect example of the arbitreity of mapping systems!
A looong time ago on reddit, I got into an argument with someone who was doing that thing where you confuse the map for the object itself. We were mostly talking about the chemistry table. But anyway, he just could not see how a change in motivation, that is what the map designer finds useful, could change how the map is arranged.
I mean, I donât think this would convince him: he would just say the culinary version isnât real. But still, I really like it.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 16:42
collapse
I mean thatâs a pretty big difference right?
Like, the periodic tables mapping isnât arbitrary or alternate.
Like you canât actually map the periodic a different way and itâs in a sense âself evidentâ in a way arbitrary mappings arenât.
The periodic table itself is a kind of proof of quantum theory, or at least, strong supporting evidence. While it can be displayed differently, actually couldnât be arranged differently and the things we know about physics hold true.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 17:04
nextcollapse
Ah, there he is!
Just kidding.
The extreme usefulness of the one periodic table as we know it is why this is so hard to talk about. Philosophically, it isnât any different: it is arranged by human values for human consumption. I think there is likely a strong reason that alien values would converge here, but that doesnât really affect its arbitreity. The elements donât have value unto themselves, they just are.
And there are plenty of different ways to arrange it. For one, if all you care about are the metals for some reason, you can arrange the nonmetals out of it completely. You could keep a linear, alphabetical list because whatever work youâre doing is derived from chemistry but does not actually care about atomic values.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 18:54
nextcollapse
yeah. you donât understand the periodic table. this is the same cliff that both post-modernists and fascists have pushed themselves off of.
You are mistaking relativity for subjectivity and the two things are not equal. Human experience is not the arbiter of truth, and you couldnât have picked a possibly worse example than the periodic table. To put a finer point on it: No. There arenât other ways to construct the periodic table. Its construction has nothing to do with human perception.
You shouldâve spend the time to go read about it before you use it as an example.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 19:22
collapse
Wow, there he is. Like, for real.
Itâs okay, man. You majored in some science field, you donât care much for philosophy; we donât have to be at each otherâs throats here. Iâm not questioning the validity of the periodic table, itâs simply a way of thinking about it.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 19:25
collapse
Dude I understand what you think you are saying and you are quite simply wrong. You donât understand what the periodic table is if you think it could be constructed in some other way or that itâs organization is arbitrary or subjective.
You are also wrong in the basic philosophy of it.
No wonder you got the piss taken out of your in that other place.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 19:58
collapse
It can be constructed in other ways. I gave you two of them. Those other presentations are not âless correct,â theyâre just less useful. It just so happens that the most useful, scientific depiction of the table to us is also the one that contains the most facts.
You are also wrong in the basic philosophy of it.
Keep in mind, this argument I had was several proxy-arguments downstream of whether or not transwomen are women. So, be aware of what waters youâre treading into.
Isnât the rejection of post-modernism like a very Jordan-Petersonâlike thing to do? Iâm pretty sure I heard him whining about it when he was also whining about jews cultural marxists.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 20:29
nextcollapse
Neither of the two constructions you listed would result in a periodic table. You donât know this because you donât actually know what a periodic table is. Try again.
To help you along, please explain to me: why the elements in the periodic table are ordered as they are? Or more readily, what determines the ordering of the periodic table? Iâll give you two huge hints, and a name to help you. Search the name Mendeleev, and orbital and proton.
Keep in mind, this argument I had was several proxy-arguments downstream of whether or not transwomen are women. So, be aware of what waters youâre treading into.
So your telling me that I need to be cautious of you derailing the conversation away from itâs original premise?
Isnât the rejection of post-modernism like a very Jordan-Petersonâlike thing to do?
And there we are.
No itâs a very Noam Chomskey thing to do. Jordon Peterson, like most fascists, draws largely on the principles of post-modernists. For all intents and purposes, he is one, in that he relies on the idea that truth and reality are relative to justify his arguments. I agree with Chomskey in his critiques of both post modernism and fascism, especially in their arbitrary use of language and sophistry to disguise the hollowness of their arguments.
That being said, iâll be keeping you to the premise and the periodic table for this discussion. It need not go further.
If the ordering of the periodic table were arbitrary, it couldnât be a periodic table. It is only a periodic table by this very reason. When ordering by orbital and atomic weight, Mendeleev not only came up with a diagram that effectively predicted all of the observable properties of the elements, but also predicted elements which were not yet known to human kind.
And therein lay the difference.
Imagine a person is coming up with a dictionary for English. And in a dream they came up with some alternative ordering. And in that alternative ordering, suddenly, they not only had a dictionary for English, but also Farsi, and Cantonese. Every language became interpretable through this reordering. In fact, the ordering even predicted languages that were not yet known to the person who developed the order. But the order stated that they should be there, or at least be possible. And when looked for in those places the languages were found. The ordering even gives the recipe for languages that donât exist.
This is the difference.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 21:14
collapse
Neither of the two constructions you listed would result in a periodic table.
I⊠didnât say that they would? If you change the map, itâs obviously a different map. Youâd call it âMetallicaâs table of metals,â or something.
So your telling me that I need to be cautious of you derailing the conversation away from itâs original premise?
No⊠I just donât think you realize how anti-intellectual youâre being.
iâll be keeping you to the premise and the periodic table for this discussion. It need not go further.
Okay, dad. But, you were the one who brought up fascists.
Very rude, by the way.
Uh, to anyone reading, I guess: Look up Jordan Petersonâs wikipedia. He is not a fan of whatever his meat-addled brain thinks Post Modernism is.
If the ordering of the periodic table were arbitrary, it couldnât be a periodic table.
It is arbitrarily a periodic table because the periodic table has utility. That utility is why we donât arrange them a different way. This isnât complicated.
If you want an example of different motivations: Do these periods tell you how beautiful each element is? Does beauty rise in each column and row? You might need a different map for that.
In fact, the ordering even predicted languages that were not yet known to the person who developed the order.
That would be very insightful. I would say we should arbitrarily prefer that ordering because of how useful it would be to us.
Or we could arbitrarily choose not to because just the one language is good enough, innit?
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 21:20
collapse
Im not being anti intellectual. I simply have no patience for frauds masquerading their metaphysics as philosophy.
In the end you canât argue the point on its merits and are just engaging in sophistry. So weâll come back to the first: you donât actually know what the periodic table of the elements is. You should stop pretending you have a point if you canât make make it.
If you donât understand the difference between metaphysics and philosophy, its probably best you did neither.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 21:51
collapse
Aw, donât be a sore loser.
I canât engage with your point on its merits because itâs not relevant to the argument that Iâm makingâitâs a complete non-sequitur.
You want me to prove that the periodic table doesnât predict undiscovered elements? What does that have to do with where people direct their effort and attention?
This is why the tomato fruit/vegetable example is so useful: itâs about what facts are useful to whom. It actually has nothing to do with the periodic table at all, that just happens to be a particularly prickly thorn for stem majors.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 22:18
collapse
You are delusional if you think you âwonâ anything.
The only thing you did was demonstrate that you are a vapid waste of time. You being in a self sucking circle jerk with yourself isnât philosophy.
You donât know what you are talking about when it comes to philosophy of science and are a waste of everyoneâs time, including your own.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 22:33
collapse
Christ, my man, do you need a time out? Are you late for a nap or something?
I promise you thereâs nothing at stake here; Iâm not âdismantlingâ chemistry. I agree itâs useful, itâs good stuff. Mendeleev did a good job.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 22:44
collapse
you havent âdoneâ anything here other than jerk yourself off.
Like, the periodic tables mapping isnât arbitrary or alternate.
Neither the biology nor culinary mappings are arbitrary, they have their rhyme and reason. Also biology would be the alternate one? Because the culinary definitions were definitely first.
Did you know that thereâs quite extreme disagreements on what metals are? Chemists will tell you one thing and not be particularly unified in their response around the topic of semimetals, while astrophysicists have a very simple definition of metals: Anything that has more protons than helium.
Who is right? This has nothing to do with metaphysics (Iâve read a bit down the thread) as in âwhat is beyond physics, god, and stuffâ, but how we interpret our (scientific) observations. Neither definition of metals is more correct than the other, theyâre both maps drawn by scientists caring about vastly different things. Neither side says that the other is wrong â they just donât care for it.
Back to the periodic table itself: Defining elements by protons has quite some predictive power but at the same time itâs a vast oversimplification of what actually goes on, ask any quantum chemist. It is rooted in quite hard science, but that doesnât make it ground reality. Actual reality is something we canât observe because to observe anything we first have to project it into our minds. All perception is modelling: Ask any neuroscientist. Or, for that matter, Plato.
I havenât but that sounds like a pie not a cake. A meal, not a dessert.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Jun 22:33
collapse
Well, not all pies are desserts for sure, but a tomato pie is, unless you deviate from the usual recipes.
Besides, you didnât say that a dessert has to be a cake.
Thereâs also tomato jams, compote, and you can do a tomato cake mind you, a tomato cake is really more like banana bread, where itâs a flavoring more than the star of the show.
Point is that tomatoes can definitely serve in the same role as âfruitâ, just like some things that are sweeter can be used in savory dishes.
Itâs about the preparation, not the ingredient. I mean, look at bacon jam. Not a dessert, but itâs a savory and sweet spread thatâs used in the same was as fruit based jams. Onion jam is in the same range (and, as a side note, thereâs also onion and tomato pie which is more of a savory dish than a dessert, despite being fairly sweet anyway).
From a culinary standpoint, there are few ingredients that are fully excluded from dessert territory by virtue of having strong savory taste. Thereâs also not many excluded from entrees purely because theyâre sweet. Itâs all a wonderful spectrum of sweet and savory
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 14 Jun 22:56
collapse
I want my bananas to be the star of the bread show.
But to be fair, I am a horny slut for bananas.
I should look up some tomato stuff; Iâve never even heard of these things.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
on 15 Jun 02:32
collapse
Banana bread may be the best baked good in human history.
I think it should be possible to break the culinary categorisation down to chemistry. That doesnât tell you anything about the âwhyâ but itâs definitely not random and definitely not all in our heads.
I agree with what you mean in kind of a broad-strokes way, but as individuals our subjective experiences of flavors can vary pretty wildly. Thereâs genetics, neurology, age, and habit/experience that influence our taste in terms of actually sensing the chemicals. Then thereâs what we see, taste, and smell just prior or during tasting that severely impact our interpretation of that chemical sense.
I totally agree. It is completely nonsense to say. In other languages it is different. I just know some Spanish, but they donât have a word for berries or nuts, it is all just fruit. (Forrest fruit for berries or dried fruit for nuts) but they donât call potatoes vegetables, but âtuberculoâ. Interesting difference, which i guess is because they have another climate and other plants.
I guess things can have multiple names, too. In German you would also say WaldfrĂŒchte (forest fruits) to mixed berries, but they are still Beeren (berries) as well. If you search for âpostre de bayasâ or âpastel de bayasâ many recipes pop up. And sure, Spanish is obviously a diverse language with the divide between Spanish from Spain and from Latin America.
Disclaimer: Iâm part of the scientific bubble so thatâs why I may here more terms that are botanical in Spanish ;)
Yeah, seems like youâre right about kurz. Itâs mostly just walnuts although you can find recipes where they say nueces and use pecans. Almendras seem to be classified as a separate thing from nuts, interesting. Wasnât aware of that before! Iâd just use the term ânuezâ like I would in German maybe thatâs why I never noticed :D
Technically, the pre-existing system could be evolutionary biology. Iâm just saying that in some cases, a little bit of pedantry is enjoyable. Itâs an acquired taste, maybe
The substance in strawberries which causes allergic reactions is the fra a 1 protein which gives strawberries their red color. White strawberries have less of this protein and may be tolerated by people with this allergy, depending on individual sensitivity.
Sorry if Iâm misunderstanding your post, but cashews are drupes, not nuts. I donât know whether all true nuts come from trees, but all the ones I can think of do.
I donât see why the apple from a cashew canât also be classified as an aggregate accessory fruit, like the red flesh of the strawberry, which would make the cashew pit an achene like the seeds of a strawberry.
(1) Achene. A small hard indehiscent fruit. The term is strictly only applied to those formed from one carpel, but is sometimes used for those formed from two carpels (e.g. the fruit of the Compositae). The latter is better termed a cypsela.
(2) Nut. This is similar to an achene, but is typically formed from two or three carpels (e.g. dock fruit).
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 14 Jun 23:38
collapse
Grazing in strawberry fields forever
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
on 14 Jun 22:23
nextcollapse
Ofc not, donât be silly.
Nuts have nipples (where do you think almond milk comes from? Kids today have prob never seen an almond on a farm & think almond milk grows in the stores!).
And if the seeds on the strawberries really are ânutsâ, then we should be able to milk them.
I see no flaw in my logic.
Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
on 15 Jun 00:16
nextcollapse
This thread gets dangerously close to r34 territory, and I do not know if I like that.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
on 15 Jun 01:49
collapse
The real problem these days is with intensive almond farming. Almond tastes better from free range almonds, with space to graze in peace and calm between the bushes.
Have you heard of âbitter almondsâ? Turns up in mystery novels. Itâs what you get from caged almonds raised on steroids.
I love it when activists save caged almonds & how their little faces light up when, for the first time in their nutty lives, they arent sucked on by a relentless machine.
threaded - newest
Strawberry seeds are designed by a malevolent god to stick perfectly in human front teeth.
They are made to stay a long time in hosts so that they can spread farther
Raspberry seeds make fun of strawberry seeds.
I have a chia seed from 1973 in the back of my mouth.
You celebrated 50 years together two years ago⊠Such a heartwarming story!
Keeps my mouth warm too
Why is microsoft from Germany writing in English? Why donât they just post it on their main Account which actually has a primarely English-speaking audience?
The original post (not shown in the screenshot) is from PBS, thatâs why it says âAuthorâ by their name. If it was in English (likely) it makes sense to answer in English as well.
Ok, the original post by PBS is just cropped out, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation
<img alt="" src="https://slrpnk.net/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smbc-comics.com%2Fcomics%2F20111228.gif">
You need to put an exclamation mark (!) before you insert the image, like this:
<img alt="" src="https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111228.gif">
Thanks. I donât comment much anymore.
strawberries are accessory fruits, not nuts.
âŠwhich is exactly what the third comment is saying
If you took all the seeds off a strawberry, itâd still be a strawberry. A bowl full of strawberry seeds is not a bowl of strawberries.
e: Theyâre actually not even nuts. Theyâre achenes.
But theyâre covered in nuts
Kinda like your mom last night
đđđ
<img alt="" src="https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/d16a14b8-1894-45b3-a285-0d39f9bf5dbb.png">
To me arguing over which fruit belongs in which category is a prime example of people arguing over shadows in Platoâs cave. Not that itâs a waste of time or anything but sometimes people act like tomatoes wonât grow if you call them vegetables. Like at the end of the day itâs just humans developing a system to make sense of nature rather than discovering an inherent, pre-existing system.
The core of the matter is that we have multiple, mutually incompatible schemes sharing in part the same terminology. Biology is not cooking, both fields care about vastly different things thus the categorisation scheme is different, thatâs the end of it. Culinarily, tomatoes have too much umami to be fruit. Botanically peppermint is an aromatic, I recommend you not put any into your soffritto.
EDIT:
Tomato is also dominated by oxalic acid, not malic, citric, (typical fruit acids) or acetic (fermented/overripe). Oxalic acid is in parsley, chives, spinach, beans, lettuce, that kind of stuff. âItâs sourâ isnât sufficient to describe a taste profile, our tongues may not tell them apart but our noses definitely do.
I think it should be possible to break the culinary categorisation down to chemistry. That doesnât tell you anything about the âwhyâ but itâs definitely not random and definitely not all in our heads.
Oh, this is actually a perfect example of the arbitreity of mapping systems!
A looong time ago on reddit, I got into an argument with someone who was doing that thing where you confuse the map for the object itself. We were mostly talking about the chemistry table. But anyway, he just could not see how a change in motivation, that is what the map designer finds useful, could change how the map is arranged.
I mean, I donât think this would convince him: he would just say the culinary version isnât real. But still, I really like it.
I mean thatâs a pretty big difference right?
Like, the periodic tables mapping isnât arbitrary or alternate.
Like you canât actually map the periodic a different way and itâs in a sense âself evidentâ in a way arbitrary mappings arenât.
The periodic table itself is a kind of proof of quantum theory, or at least, strong supporting evidence. While it can be displayed differently, actually couldnât be arranged differently and the things we know about physics hold true.
Ah, there he is!
Just kidding.
The extreme usefulness of the one periodic table as we know it is why this is so hard to talk about. Philosophically, it isnât any different: it is arranged by human values for human consumption. I think there is likely a strong reason that alien values would converge here, but that doesnât really affect its arbitreity. The elements donât have value unto themselves, they just are.
And there are plenty of different ways to arrange it. For one, if all you care about are the metals for some reason, you can arrange the nonmetals out of it completely. You could keep a linear, alphabetical list because whatever work youâre doing is derived from chemistry but does not actually care about atomic values.
yeah. you donât understand the periodic table. this is the same cliff that both post-modernists and fascists have pushed themselves off of.
You are mistaking relativity for subjectivity and the two things are not equal. Human experience is not the arbiter of truth, and you couldnât have picked a possibly worse example than the periodic table. To put a finer point on it: No. There arenât other ways to construct the periodic table. Its construction has nothing to do with human perception.
You shouldâve spend the time to go read about it before you use it as an example.
Wow, there he is. Like, for real.
Itâs okay, man. You majored in some science field, you donât care much for philosophy; we donât have to be at each otherâs throats here. Iâm not questioning the validity of the periodic table, itâs simply a way of thinking about it.
Dude I understand what you think you are saying and you are quite simply wrong. You donât understand what the periodic table is if you think it could be constructed in some other way or that itâs organization is arbitrary or subjective.
You are also wrong in the basic philosophy of it.
No wonder you got the piss taken out of your in that other place.
It can be constructed in other ways. I gave you two of them. Those other presentations are not âless correct,â theyâre just less useful. It just so happens that the most useful, scientific depiction of the table to us is also the one that contains the most facts.
Keep in mind, this argument I had was several proxy-arguments downstream of whether or not transwomen are women. So, be aware of what waters youâre treading into.
Isnât the rejection of post-modernism like a very Jordan-Petersonâlike thing to do? Iâm pretty sure I heard him whining about it when he was also whining about
jewscultural marxists.Neither of the two constructions you listed would result in a periodic table. You donât know this because you donât actually know what a periodic table is. Try again.
To help you along, please explain to me: why the elements in the periodic table are ordered as they are? Or more readily, what determines the ordering of the periodic table? Iâll give you two huge hints, and a name to help you. Search the name Mendeleev, and orbital and proton.
So your telling me that I need to be cautious of you derailing the conversation away from itâs original premise?
And there we are.
No itâs a very Noam Chomskey thing to do. Jordon Peterson, like most fascists, draws largely on the principles of post-modernists. For all intents and purposes, he is one, in that he relies on the idea that truth and reality are relative to justify his arguments. I agree with Chomskey in his critiques of both post modernism and fascism, especially in their arbitrary use of language and sophistry to disguise the hollowness of their arguments.
That being said, iâll be keeping you to the premise and the periodic table for this discussion. It need not go further.
If the ordering of the periodic table were arbitrary, it couldnât be a periodic table. It is only a periodic table by this very reason. When ordering by orbital and atomic weight, Mendeleev not only came up with a diagram that effectively predicted all of the observable properties of the elements, but also predicted elements which were not yet known to human kind.
And therein lay the difference.
Imagine a person is coming up with a dictionary for English. And in a dream they came up with some alternative ordering. And in that alternative ordering, suddenly, they not only had a dictionary for English, but also Farsi, and Cantonese. Every language became interpretable through this reordering. In fact, the ordering even predicted languages that were not yet known to the person who developed the order. But the order stated that they should be there, or at least be possible. And when looked for in those places the languages were found. The ordering even gives the recipe for languages that donât exist.
This is the difference.
I⊠didnât say that they would? If you change the map, itâs obviously a different map. Youâd call it âMetallicaâs table of metals,â or something.
No⊠I just donât think you realize how anti-intellectual youâre being.
Okay, dad. But, you were the one who brought up fascists.
Very rude, by the way.
Uh, to anyone reading, I guess: Look up Jordan Petersonâs wikipedia. He is not a fan of whatever his meat-addled brain thinks Post Modernism is.
It is arbitrarily a periodic table because the periodic table has utility. That utility is why we donât arrange them a different way. This isnât complicated.
If you want an example of different motivations: Do these periods tell you how beautiful each element is? Does beauty rise in each column and row? You might need a different map for that.
That would be very insightful. I would say we should arbitrarily prefer that ordering because of how useful it would be to us.
Or we could arbitrarily choose not to because just the one language is good enough, innit?
Im not being anti intellectual. I simply have no patience for frauds masquerading their metaphysics as philosophy.
In the end you canât argue the point on its merits and are just engaging in sophistry. So weâll come back to the first: you donât actually know what the periodic table of the elements is. You should stop pretending you have a point if you canât make make it.
If you donât understand the difference between metaphysics and philosophy, its probably best you did neither.
Aw, donât be a sore loser.
I canât engage with your point on its merits because itâs not relevant to the argument that Iâm makingâitâs a complete non-sequitur.
You want me to prove that the periodic table doesnât predict undiscovered elements? What does that have to do with where people direct their effort and attention?
This is why the tomato fruit/vegetable example is so useful: itâs about what facts are useful to whom. It actually has nothing to do with the periodic table at all, that just happens to be a particularly prickly thorn for stem majors.
You are delusional if you think you âwonâ anything.
The only thing you did was demonstrate that you are a vapid waste of time. You being in a self sucking circle jerk with yourself isnât philosophy.
You donât know what you are talking about when it comes to philosophy of science and are a waste of everyoneâs time, including your own.
Christ, my man, do you need a time out? Are you late for a nap or something?
I promise you thereâs nothing at stake here; Iâm not âdismantlingâ chemistry. I agree itâs useful, itâs good stuff. Mendeleev did a good job.
you havent âdoneâ anything here other than jerk yourself off.
Peterson is kinda the embodiment of post-modernism, that is, he does all his ideology building by questioning everything else into oblivion.
Of course, not knowing what heâs talking about is also something very Jordan-Peterson-like so that all tracks.
Hey, that guy is a troll and a pretty good one. Block and move on, youâre worth it
Neither the biology nor culinary mappings are arbitrary, they have their rhyme and reason. Also biology would be the alternate one? Because the culinary definitions were definitely first.
Did you know that thereâs quite extreme disagreements on what metals are? Chemists will tell you one thing and not be particularly unified in their response around the topic of semimetals, while astrophysicists have a very simple definition of metals: Anything that has more protons than helium.
Who is right? This has nothing to do with metaphysics (Iâve read a bit down the thread) as in âwhat is beyond physics, god, and stuffâ, but how we interpret our (scientific) observations. Neither definition of metals is more correct than the other, theyâre both maps drawn by scientists caring about vastly different things. Neither side says that the other is wrong â they just donât care for it.
Back to the periodic table itself: Defining elements by protons has quite some predictive power but at the same time itâs a vast oversimplification of what actually goes on, ask any quantum chemist. It is rooted in quite hard science, but that doesnât make it ground reality. Actual reality is something we canât observe because to observe anything we first have to project it into our minds. All perception is modelling: Ask any neuroscientist. Or, for that matter, Plato.
âBotanicallyâ âculinaryâ âterminologyâ âbiologyâ and then you say umami seriously. Which is entirely made up.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33580387/
You never had tomato pie? It would likely change your idea of what too much savoriness is.
I havenât but that sounds like a pie not a cake. A meal, not a dessert.
Well, not all pies are desserts for sure, but a tomato pie is, unless you deviate from the usual recipes.
Besides, you didnât say that a dessert has to be a cake.
Thereâs also tomato jams, compote, and you can do a tomato cake mind you, a tomato cake is really more like banana bread, where itâs a flavoring more than the star of the show.
Point is that tomatoes can definitely serve in the same role as âfruitâ, just like some things that are sweeter can be used in savory dishes.
Itâs about the preparation, not the ingredient. I mean, look at bacon jam. Not a dessert, but itâs a savory and sweet spread thatâs used in the same was as fruit based jams. Onion jam is in the same range (and, as a side note, thereâs also onion and tomato pie which is more of a savory dish than a dessert, despite being fairly sweet anyway).
From a culinary standpoint, there are few ingredients that are fully excluded from dessert territory by virtue of having strong savory taste. Thereâs also not many excluded from entrees purely because theyâre sweet. Itâs all a wonderful spectrum of sweet and savory
I want my bananas to be the star of the bread show.
But to be fair, I am a horny slut for bananas.
I should look up some tomato stuff; Iâve never even heard of these things.
Banana bread may be the best baked good in human history.
I agree with what you mean in kind of a broad-strokes way, but as individuals our subjective experiences of flavors can vary pretty wildly. Thereâs genetics, neurology, age, and habit/experience that influence our taste in terms of actually sensing the chemicals. Then thereâs what we see, taste, and smell just prior or during tasting that severely impact our interpretation of that chemical sense.
I totally agree. It is completely nonsense to say. In other languages it is different. I just know some Spanish, but they donât have a word for berries or nuts, it is all just fruit. (Forrest fruit for berries or dried fruit for nuts) but they donât call potatoes vegetables, but âtuberculoâ. Interesting difference, which i guess is because they have another climate and other plants.
We do just call it a vegetable in my language.
Bayas y nueces⊠Tubérculo is closer to the botanical definition because it is a tuber (storage organ) and not a fruit (like most vegetables). And I would think that tubérculo could be any tuber vegetable, not just papas/patatas. Things like ñame or otoe are called tubérculo también.
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that nuez would only refer to walnut. And that an almond would not be a nuez.
Is it a country specific thing because I usually see frutos del bosque in Spain?
I guess things can have multiple names, too. In German you would also say WaldfrĂŒchte (forest fruits) to mixed berries, but they are still Beeren (berries) as well. If you search for âpostre de bayasâ or âpastel de bayasâ many recipes pop up. And sure, Spanish is obviously a diverse language with the divide between Spanish from Spain and from Latin America.
Disclaimer: Iâm part of the scientific bubble so thatâs why I may here more terms that are botanical in Spanish ;)
What about nuez?
Yeah, seems like youâre right about kurz. Itâs mostly just walnuts although you can find recipes where they say nueces and use pecans. Almendras seem to be classified as a separate thing from nuts, interesting. Wasnât aware of that before! Iâd just use the term ânuezâ like I would in German maybe thatâs why I never noticed :D
Technically, the pre-existing system could be evolutionary biology. Iâm just saying that in some cases, a little bit of pedantry is enjoyable. Itâs an acquired taste, maybe
Is this why strawberries are common allergens? Like so much more common than other fruits?
No, this post is not even accurate.
The substance in strawberries which causes allergic reactions is the fra a 1 protein which gives strawberries their red color. White strawberries have less of this protein and may be tolerated by people with this allergy, depending on individual sensitivity.
www.sciencedirect.com/âŠ/S0963996917304209
Microsoft feigning innocence with cutesy trivia to distract us from their highly unethical business practices. Screw Microsoft. Use Linux đ§.
-âŻ-
âïž arscyni.cc: modernity â nature.
I want to fill a spoon with strawberry seeds and see how it tastes
You gotta shell them first.
Like cashews!
I thought nuts had to come from trees, though.
Like, peanuts arenât actually nuts.
Thereâs a legumes joke in there, but I dunno.
Peanuts claim to be nuts, but they arenât a legumtimate part of the taxonomy.
I dunno.
Honest attempt. 7.5/10.
Ah, my favorite flavor enhancing chemical:
Monosodium Legumtimate.
Sorry if Iâm misunderstanding your post, but cashews are drupes, not nuts. I donât know whether all true nuts come from trees, but all the ones I can think of do.
If strawberries are nuts, cashews are nuts. Itâs a seed that grows on the outside of an accessory fruit.
Obviously strawberries arenât nuts either but weâre playing pretty fast and loose with words and meanings.
The ânutâ from a cashew is the seed a stone fruit (like the center of a peach pit). The strawberry âseedâ is the entire fruit.
I donât see why the apple from a cashew canât also be classified as an aggregate accessory fruit, like the red flesh of the strawberry, which would make the cashew pit an achene like the seeds of a strawberry.
What is a tree?
Well damn, I guess strawberries can be trees and nuts.
This is nuts!
Achenes are not nuts.
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/âŠ/achene
courses.botany.wisc.edu/âŠ/LabWK03Fruitkey.html
Thank you! đ
Also, even if they were, it wouldnât make the strawberry a nut. It would make it covered in nuts.
It is strictly only applied to ones with one carpel, but is used anyway to refer to ones with two carpels? Thatâs not confusing at all
So what this nerd is saying is that we can milk a strawberry??
Before the tech gets there, letâs commission some âartâ on that subject?
(For real, the seeds being nuts is a stretch)
Strawberries do not have nipples. :(
Strawberry cows
<img alt="" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Strawberry_cow.jpg">
Grazing in strawberry fields forever
Ofc not, donât be silly.
Nuts have nipples (where do you think almond milk comes from? Kids today have prob never seen an almond on a farm & think almond milk grows in the stores!).
And if the seeds on the strawberries really are ânutsâ, then we should be able to milk them.
I see no flaw in my logic.
This thread gets dangerously close to r34 territory, and I do not know if I like that.
Well, unfortunately Iâm no artist & Iâm against AI (the system, not the tech as such), so no pics.
But yeah, definitely, can you imagine the number of nips on a single strawberry? And the satisfaction of each nut? The dripping milk?
âŠno, definitely not.
<img alt="" src="https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/2eba8f36-476c-464b-98e9-5da98955b074.png">
Also not an artist but got chu fam.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5c7149c7-e01d-4f2a-851c-b9ebb7e2fb18.jpeg">
The real problem these days is with intensive almond farming. Almond tastes better from free range almonds, with space to graze in peace and calm between the bushes.
Have you heard of âbitter almondsâ? Turns up in mystery novels. Itâs what you get from caged almonds raised on steroids.
I love it when activists save caged almonds & how their little faces light up when, for the first time in their nutty lives, they arent sucked on by a relentless machine.
If strawberries do not have nipples, then where does strawberry milk come from?
Strawberry nut flour - itâs gluten free!
While peanuts are not nuts, but legumes.
I hereby christen thee, pealegumes.
Like cashews?
Smelling roses has always reminded me of strawberries, although people think thatâs strange. Taste and smell are connected and this explains it.
Iâve heard every combination of â[food] is actually [plant part]â so any time anyone says this type of sentence, I just roll my eyes.
Cabbages are actually tree trunks
Raspberries are actually tubers
Wheat is actually a berry
And oranges are actually an eldritch, ante-dimensional horror perpetrated by intelligent, unseen beings
Also acorns are the progenitors of oranges.
Potatoes
too.
Yeah itâs just meaningless factoids to me now.
I wonder if people are allergic to strawberries are just allergic to the seeds then