Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«16 »
  • Post
  • Reply
SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


You know those plastic knife edge guard things? Anyone know a source for 'em longer than 12"?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Postin' my 12" cck in the product recommendation thread.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Dear naked vegans:

Please put on some clothes. Thanks in advance.

Yours etc.,

Everyone else

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

I made a bunch of marmalade and everyone told me to cut the peel finer.
What is your secret?
To cut the peel finer.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Note to all GWS regulars that aren't actually women: if I sent you a PM titled `My dilznick [56k warning]', I sent that by mistake and it was only a joke anyway. Please forward to your Mom.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Manuel Calavera posted:

Why haven't I ever gotten one of those then Sub? Well, other than I don't have PMs.
Because I'm human, sorry. So I sent your copy to mindphlux.

*quickly PMs pic of BBC to mindphlux despite being a white guy*
*claims it looks that way because of the camera and it was pinker irl*

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


He probably means Shimbo's The Japanese Kitchen. Or at least that's the one he recommended in the cookbook thread. I remember because ever since I ordered it, amazon's been recommending all kinds of weeaboo poo poo to me like anime buttplugs and pocky.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Phummus posted:

Is the whole tomato/acid is bad to cook in non-enameled iron just a suburban legend?
It's not an urban legend, but it's not like a dutch oven (or even its seasoning) is going to dissolve if you do a tomato sauce in it. I do it all the time. It's really only going to be an issue if that's all you ever do, and you never do any re-seasoning.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


GrAviTy84 posted:

What's the point of thermal capacitance for acidic sauces in a dutch oven?
Chili is the obvious one. It's a stew and so you'd prefer a dutch oven over a stock pot for it for the same reasons you would for any stew.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


GrAviTy84 posted:

and what reasons would that be? Only ones I've heard were and not
A cast iron dutch oven buffers heat better than an aluminium stock pot does, and is therefore better at maintaining an low, even temperature over a long period of time. The mechanics are something like the argument for a puddle machine over a conventional oven---the cast iron is good at conducting heat to the food being cooked, and its large thermal mass makes it inherently stable. In both cases this doesn't work unless you've got reasonably good control over the work cycle of your heat source (the electric heater in a puddle machine or the electric coil/gas element in a conventional oven or range), but no matter how well your heat source is instrumented, you're going to make it work less the more efficient you make the rest of the cooking system. This is the same reason a good crockpot will use a earthenware or cast iron pot, and for that matter why stews and braises work the way they do (that is, why you have a bunch of cooking liquid in those things you want to cook low and slow), and why so many other kinds of traditional slow cooking do things like burying the food (basically turning the ground into a giant earthenware radiator and heat reservoir). Same thing for the design of brick ovens, and things like autoclaves and kilns and modern forges and so on.

I can get into the fiddly thermodynamic horseshit involving heat capacity and conductivity if you really want, but I'm not sure how useful that would be here for building an intuitive feel for what's happening.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


GrAviTy84 posted:

I'm gonna call shenanigans. A good quality clad pan (with a copper or aluminum core) will conduct heat across the entire cooking surface, cast iron is more likely to develop hot spots since its conductivity is less than half that of aluminum and almost 1/4 that of copper.
And, as I said, the thermal conductivity is only part of the problem. A useful value for k for cast iron is somewhere around 55 or 60 W/m*degC, and aluminium is about 200. But just as thermal conductivity is only part of the overall problem, the thermal conductivity of the cooking vessel is only part of the thermal conductivity problem. If we look at Fourier's Law, we see that the heat transfer is directly proportional to the coefficient of thermal conductivity (k), the area of contact, and the temperature difference, and inversely proportional to the thickness through which the heat transfer is occurring. For transfer through two walls in series, this works out as:



As a simplifying assumption we're going to assume the geometrical factors are all 1. This will mean that we'd really have to re-write k into some goofy synthetic units, and this doesn't quite model what we're actually concerned about (a plane wall with a smooth thermal gradient across it works pretty well for the bottom of a skillet, but things are a lot more complicated in something like a stockpot or dutch oven, but gently caress modelling that in detail). We're also just looking at the thermal transfer between a wall of metal and a thickness of equal width in the other media (because we're assuming both are the same value, 1). Of course the food isn't going to be exactly as thick as the cooking vessel. But on the other hand we're just looking at the thermal transfer at a moment in time between the cooking vessel and the food. How well the heat is transferred within the food (that is, whether we're searing the surface or slowly cooking it all the way through) is a separate issue.

Anyway, beyond this, we've actually got to worry about two transfers. We've been talking about the transfer of heat from the cooking vessel to the food, but we also have to worry about the heat transfer between the cooking vessel and the environment. Since we seem to be implicitly accepting that we're simmering on a stovetop, we'll call the temperature of the environment 25 C and k for air 0.03, and the simmering food 100 C and we'll just the k for water, 0.60 (both still nominally in W/m*degC, with the caveats made earlier). Call the cooking vessel 250 degrees; this really doesn't make that much of a difference, as it's easy to see that the magnitude of what we're looking at is just going to vary directly with the increase in cooking vessel temperature, so if you think this is a silly number just calibrate accordingly.

For the cast iron to air transfer we end up with (200 - 25) / ((1/60) + (1/0.03)) which, unless I thumb-fingered something, is around 5.25 watts. For the cast iron to water (food) transfer, we get (200 - 100) / ((1/60 + (1/0.60)) = 59.4 watts.

For aluminium-air it's (200 - 25) / ((1/200) + (1/0.03)) = 5.25 watts (the only difference being at the fourth significant figure), and for aluminium-water it's (200 - 100) / ((1/200 + (1/0.60)) = 59.8 watts.

In other words there's less than a percent difference between the effective thermal transfer between equivalent food and equivalent cooking vessels if the only difference is that one is made of cast iron and one is made of aluminium.

So much for the thermal conductivity question. As I said earlier, we're also worried about the heat capacity. Fortunately, discussing this will take a lot less . The specific heat of aluminium is higher than cast iron, about double: 0.91 kJ/kg for aluminium and 0.46 kJ/kg for cast iron. But the density of aluminium is about a third of that of cast iron: 2700 kg/m3 for aluminium compared to 7500 kg/m3 for cast iron.

So if you've heated up two equivalent heating vessels one degree C each, then you've stored (0.91 * 2700) = 2460 kJ per cubic meter of material if it's a aluminium, and (0.46 * 7500) = 3450 kJ per cubic meter. This is a difference of 16.8% between the two.

So, in summary: the abilities of aluminium and cast iron cookware to transfer heat to food are roughly identical, but cast iron has a significantly greater ability to function as a thermal reservoir.

If you're arguing that if you can keep dumping heat into the cooking vessel (and otherwise control the environment around it) that they'll probably perform effectively identically, you're probably right. If this is not the case---if you're cooking using a conventional oven (I usually throw my dutch oven in my conventional oven, just because it heats up the kitchen less) then this will be useful in evening out temperature variations due to the oven's duty cycling. Wiggles talking about using a wood-fired stove is more or less the same thing---throwing wood on a stove and then having it burn down is another kind of duty cycle. You notice the same sort of thing in using a smoker or grill. Or a campfire. All places where you might expect to see a dutch oven.

I have spoken.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Steve Yun posted:

Speaking of crab... I was thinking about how many fake foods there are out there. Without even getting into genetically modified stuff, we have
Genetically modified foods are `fake'?

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


GrAviTy84 posted:

+1 for Dungeness Crab superiority. King crab is all about yield and not as much about flavor, dungeness delivers on both fronts.
Yeah. I like pretty much all shellfish (up yours, יהוה!), but I'll take a dungeness crab over a lobster pretty much any day of the week. Red king crabs are okay, nothing I'd turn my nose up at, but they're blander and sweeter than I really prefer.

What are those tiny little bite-sized Japanese crabs called? Those are pretty boss too.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


therattle posted:

Are you a Jewish?
No, I'm an atheist.

NosmoKing posted:

I could never be Jewish. Love pork and various bugs of the sea too much.

The idea that I could never again have a bacon cheeseburger with a chocolate milkshake and a side of crawfish poppers makes me sad.
How do you feel about your foreskin?

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


So a guy looks at his watch and he sees it isn't running. `Fine,' says the guy, `I'll just go into town and find a watchmaker to repair it'.

So he goes into town and looks around until he sees a shop with a clock in the window. He goes in and tells the shopkeeper, `My watch stopped working, and I'd like you to repair it'.

Shopkeeper tells him, `I can't repair any watches. I'm a mohel.'

`A mohel,' the guy says, `then what's with the clock in the window?'

`Mister,' says the mohel, `what would you put in the window?'

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Totally. I mean two wrongs don't make a right, but at least it's better than three wrongs, right? Or like twenty wrongs. I think twenty wrongs is about the historical average. Like with the I dunno like the Visigoths or something, which I think are pretty representative. So if you don't have like twenty, thirty wrongs I don't see what you're even loving complaining about. I mean unless they're rounding up your entire family and putting them in a death camp and burning down your house and killing your dog and raping your women then it's not that bad. Purely from a historical perspective. You can argue with me but you can't argue with history.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Yeah, your problems are different from mine. From this I conclude they're probably due to your not trying. Or possibly because you are of weak moral character. Because pretty much whenever I try something it works out and since everyone is in more or less the same situation as I am,

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

Surrender is always an option, submission as well. Refusing to act because you could be wrong is as damaging as doing something to spite someone who differs with your opinion.
You should watch out for that strain of intolerance, though.
No, I'm totally agreeing with you. Poor people just aren't trying. It's totally just a meritocracy. You look at your average Wall Street banker and compare him to your average fruit picker and it's pretty clear that the banker is just working literally a couple million times harder than the farm worker. I mean you'd have to be a fool not to see it.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

So what is the solution?
Not being a prick about other people's problems seems like a start.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


bunnielab posted:

Um, there are like millions of jobs that are super loving stressful, this is why it is called "work" and one has to be paid in order to do it. Where are these "everything is chill, just get it done when you can" factories you guys seem to know about?
`It's common, and therefore okay,' isn't really an argument.

Or is, I dunno, the civil rights situation in the deep South circa the start of the Twentieth Century okay, because it was so common and, hey, things could be worse since actual literal slavery was illegal?

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


bunnielab posted:

Ok, so how, in this specific situation, can you make things better while still letting a company offer near instantaneous shipping of so much stuff sold so cheaply?
gilded_age_arguments.txt

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

Remember, "fixing" things is how we got here in the first place.
More Gilded Age arguments. I'm curious, however, if your argument is that no workers today should be complaining because their conditions are better than they used to be, why you're putting `fixing' in scare quotes there.

I'm also none too sure about what that `here' refers to, as I find it seriously difficult to think up any line of argument that lays the blame for the current general economic situation on too much regulation (of all things), apart from purely empty reflexive jingoism. But that's probably too much of a derail for even this thread.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

There was no gilded age, though there was a time not too long ago where someone who worked was not taxed and regulated so much, and if you wanted to start a business you did not have to kiss some bureaucrat’s ring and pay-off the county commissioners.
Ah, the good old days when there were no child labour laws and a company could hire armed mercenaries to gun down labour organisers.

Rule .303 posted:

I have never said that workers should not complain or try to make conditions better, (FOUL! Strawman argument again!)
You said:

Rule .303 posted:

We have extraordinary conditions in these United States. Probably more freedom and choice than any other civilization in history. Despite that, many people can only complain and bellyache. If you cannot succeed right now in this society, you would be a goner in any other time and any other society.
I summarised that by saying `your argument is that no workers today should be complaining because their conditions are better than they used to be'. If you think this is a strawman, then your grasp on rhetoric is no better than your grasp on labour history.

And as interesting as your fantasies about setting up a business are, they don't seem particularly relevant to the subject. Which is either whether or not working conditions at order fulfilment companies is worthy of comment or, per my comments to which you were replying, how anyone could imagine that the current economic crises could be attributable to too much regulation.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

Working conditions are always worth discussing, but I have yet to see passing laws, regulations and policy statements actually make things better.
Do you consider the outlawing of slavery to have made things better?

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


wafflesnsegways posted:

Sorry, the correct answer was "yes."
That's the way I was leaning, but hey, maybe I'm just missing something. On the one hand I see that laws and regulations have ended slavery, ended child labour, prevented violence against labour organisers, and so on. On the other hand we have Rule .303's fantasy scenario in which it turns out laws and regulations can be kinda inconvenient.

I must be missing something. Being opposed to slavery is probably a strawman or something.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Rule .303 posted:

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
And then Nan-in put the Japanese guy to work for 14 hours without pay or a bathroom break. When the master complained, saying, `What the gently caress, Nan-in', Nan-in replied serenely, `Katsu!' and smacked him across the face. Katsu is Japanese for the invisible hand of the marketplace.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


I can't be the only one that first read that as `beer feltching'.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


This is a thread about education.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


scuz posted:

College is a sham to keep people out of the work force for 2-12 years and incur more loans for banks to cash in on all the while realizing that the only way to make big bucks is to sign on with the financial industry.

Discuss.

~some broke rear end in a top hat
Partially true. Universities have, in recent decades, become increasingly structured as overgrown vocational schools. In this form, the syllubi are almost universally ill-designed---too bloated for pure vocational training, too threadbare for creating students with the sort of broad body of knowledge associated with University learning in prior centuries. The single greatest motivator for this change is probably a greater reliance on standardised testing and a corresponding decline in the general rigour of such testing.

So universities generally have the effect of keeping students out of the work force longer than they'd be without university, but this is not the intent of the system. The greater debt burden is also an effect rather than a goal of the system, but one which is structurally perpetuated because of the implicit economic incentives. All of this applies to nonprofit universities; clearly this is indeed an intentional end of any for-profit university.

In all cases it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a case for higher education purely in terms of value for money; most degrees simply cost more than they should, and in (increasingly) many cases more than they're worth (in economic terms).

Next.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


I just measure out stock into portions as big as my cock, and then when I need to use some I just look at it and think man, I'm never going to use that much stock. Because drat that's like a lot of stock. I mean poo poo how did I even make that much stock, because all I've got is like a giant stockpot to make it in. And you know that stockpot you always use? It's bigger than that one by like a lot. So what I'm basically saying is it's a lot of stock. Because you see my cock is large.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Chicken Alfredo and raspberry lemonade. That's Italian!

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Iron Chef Ricola posted:

It just never gets tender, you end up with chewy grossness.

Use it as an aromatic that you plan on straining in a sauce/soup/stock.
Or make a sachet for your garni out of it.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


therattle posted:

Not well, but a bit. He is a very nice and decent man. We sell his library and have sold and exec produced his last four films, including Pina. I got to use said toilet when we went to see a fine cut of Pina in summer 2010, while he was finishing the edit. (Great film, by the way)
So why the gently caress isn't Im Lauf der Zeit/Kings of the Road (1976) available in North America?

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


therattle posted:

I could actually find that out for you quite easily if you like. It's definitely part of the library we sell. Do you have a multi-region DVD player?
Yeah, and I don't have any trouble ordering non-R1 DVDs and so on from overseas. It's just baffling that it isn't available in North America, especially since the other two films in the road trilogy are. As a result it's one of those films that nobody seems to know, despite it being one of the best films of the '70s.

Is it because of the guy taking a dump? I bet it's because of the guy taking a dump.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Happy Hat posted:

I don't know what a PBR is.
Charlie don't surf!

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


I always dig finding out which sex acts are and are not emotionally mature enough for GWS regulars.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Remember to say please and thank you when getting a blumpkin. A 15% gratuity is customary.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


mindphlux posted:

I really hope you're not implying that getting off by sticking your dick inbetween tits is a 'really emotionally mature' thing to do.
Well, it's definitely not a mark of taste and refinement like jizzing in her mouth or pooper.

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Kenning posted:

Who gives a gently caress where a dude sticks his dick as long as everyone involved is cool with it?
mindphlux

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.


Just titfucking, or is all frottage right out? Please rate from most to least emotionally mature: titfucking; lap dances; scissoring; foot jobs; sumata; bagpiping.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«16 »