PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!



  • @boomzilla said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    But the 1/4 cup will literally be printed on the wrapper so you can just cut at the line.

    ... only because I picked an example that happens to be easy to do by volume. Change the example to shortening or cream cheese and you actually need to measure.

    Before someone says it, I know both cream cheese and shortening are available in packages that are marked like butter. But, I prefer to buy the brand that I like rather than the one that's pre-measured. Same goes for butter - all big-brand supermarket butter comes in size-marked packages, but specialty brands and direct-from-the-farm butter don't.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    ... only because I picked an example that happens to be easy to do by volume.

    Yeah, well, that's not my fault.

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Change the example to shortening or cream cheese and you actually need to measure.

    It's not difficult with one of these:

    0_1461287426874_b2a3b93269490ebe_adjustable_measuring_cup_main.xxxlarge_1.jpg



  • @AyGeePlus said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    there's droplets on the container left over when you pour out

    @AyGeePlus said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Weight is weight, period.

    You know, those droplets affect you measuring by weight just as much as they affect someone measuring by volume.

    But... either way, overall, the amount of error is ridiculously small and nobody cares. As a matter of fact, unless you have a really expensive scale you probably can't even weigh the error.

    @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    So, let me recap: You were complaining that it's stupid to measure alcohol content by weight and then proceed to argue that ABV and ABW are amounting to the same thing.

    Specifically when it comes to how accurate they are. They are not the same thing when it comes to how simple they are. It's easier to measure things by volume than by weight, and you need less sophisticated tools to do it.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Specifically when it comes to how accurate they are. They are not the same thing when it comes to how simple they are. It's easier to measure things by volume than by weight, and you need less sophisticated tools to do it.

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams. You may now try to achieve a similar degree of accuracy with a volume based method.

    Don't expect me to hold my breath.



  • @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Change the example to shortening or cream cheese and you actually need to measure.
    Before someone says it, I know both cream cheese and shortening are available in packages that are marked like butter. But, I prefer to buy the brand that I like rather than the one that's pre-measured.

    Well, cream cheese is almost always in the marked packages (that I've seen). And both of them are soft enough that it's not by any means hard to just press them into a measuring cup if not.



  • @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams.

    1. that's precision, not accuracy
    2. you keep your chemistry set in the kitchen?
    3. am I not correct in thinking that scale probably cost about 10x more than a simple old set of measuring cups?
    4. my measuring cups don't require batteries


  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    that's precision, not accuracy

    If it's a half decent chem lab scale, it's probably both.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Well, cream cheese is almost always in the marked packages (that I've seen). And both of them are soft enough that it's not by any means hard to just press them into a measuring cup if not.

    You obviously haven't tried mixing by weight. Merely the fact that you don't have to dirty any measuring cups is enough to call it a better method.

    Also, don't bother picking on my examples, I'll just replace them with better ones. How about sour cream and mayonnaise? I've put both in cake (much to my daughter's shock and horror).



  • @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams.

    There are $30 kitchen scales that display to 0.01 gram. The one I have is repeatable down to about 0.02, and calibrated.


  • 🚽 Regular

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams.

    There are $30 kitchen scales that display to 0.01 gram. The one I have is repeatable down to about 0.02, and calibrated.

    I recently bought some scales and calibration weights on eBay that seem to be able to do 1 milligram repeatably. The scales cost a fraction of the calibrated weights, quite amazing really.

    Unfortunately when they arrived they had a load of leaflets for 'legal high' bulk powder with them. I'm probably on some sort of list now.



  • For some reason, I get a perverse thrill out of pretending to be a drug dealer while making chocolate lava cake for my daughter on a highly accurate pocket scale.

    Interestingly, the 100 gram capacity version I bought came with a bunch of shady recommendations, but the 500 gram one didn't.



  • @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams.

    There are $30 kitchen scales that display to 0.01 gram. The one I have is repeatable down to about 0.02, and calibrated.

    And there are $3 sets of measuring cups that'll do just as good a job.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    I'll weigh in (AHAHAAHAHAHAHAH).

    Dry
    Measuring baking ingredients by weight is more consistent, even if not more accurate.

    1 cup of flour != 1 cup of flour. Even if you scoop and sweep. Those two cups can differ in "actual amount of flour" by an order of magnitude.

    200 grams of flour ~= 200 grams of flour. It's close enough, and will get you a consistent measurement.

    If you make the same cake 100 times (and I have), doing it by weight will mean you'll have a higher percentage of cakes that "turn out right".

    Butter
    I do butter by weight. I even have the conversions written with Sharpie right on my scale (oz to cup to gram to tablespoon). Because yes, measuring 1/4 cup of butter is do-able with the cut-lines. But that requires

    • you to cut perfectly on the line
    • hoping the line is placed correctly.
    • that you need exactly 1/4 or 1/2 or 1 cup of butter.
    • that you haven't used any butter previously from that section
    • That the butter is soft enough to cut down a straight line. Try doing that with frozen butter.

    Plus I sometimes need a tablespoon. That's way easier to weigh. Or I'll be doing multiples of a recipe. What's 2.5 times 1/3 cup of butter? Now what's 2.5 times 75 grams? Much easier to measure out 187.5 grams than 5/6 of a cup of butter.

    PLUS PLUS I can substitute butter for margarine and still use the weight, even though sometimes margarine and butter take up different volume.

    And for chocolate, it's way easier to do by weight. I need 10 squares of chocolate. That's 10 oz. Let me measure that out in chocolate chips. Or chopped up Easter bunny.

    Both weight and volume have their uses. Weight tends to be more consistent and flexible.

    #red-boob



  • @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Plus I sometimes need a tablespoon. That's way easier to weigh. Or I'll be doing multiples of a recipe. What's 2.5 times 1/3 cup of butter? Now what's 2.5 times 75 grams? Much easier to measure out 187.5 grams than 5/6 of a cup of butter.

    It's even more relevant for scaling down. I have a dessert-for-one cake recipe that calls for 19 grams of sugar and 7.5 grams of flour.



  • @Lorne-Kates you do have to be really careful about flour, yes. Typically though recipes will call for something like "4-6 cups", which means you start with 4 and gradually add more until it has the right consistency. And yeah, there's a learning curve in actually figuring out what the right consistency looks/feels like. Humidity can also really affect flour, though, and it'll affect the weight as well as the volume. So no matter how carefully you measure the ingredients, there's always going to be some skill involved.

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    What's 2.5 times 1/3 cup of butter? Now what's 2.5 times 75 grams? Much easier to measure out 187.5 grams than 5/6 of a cup of butter.

    I actually think the fraction one is significantly easier to calculate. And you don't measure 5/6 cup of butter, you measure two 1/3 cups and one 1/6 cup (or you just eyeball the 1/3 cup at half full). Or... since a stick of butter is 1/2 cup, its 1 2/3 sticks of butter.

    Multiplying a recipe by 2.5 really isn't something that most people would ever try to do, though.

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    And for chocolate, it's way easier to do by weight. I need 10 squares of chocolate. That's 10 oz. Let me measure that out in chocolate chips. Or chopped up Easter bunny.

    Chocolate chips or chunks can be measured just fine in a measuring cup and it doesn't usually matter if that's off by a little bit.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams.

    There are $30 kitchen scales that display to 0.01 gram. The one I have is repeatable down to about 0.02, and calibrated.

    And there are $3 sets of measuring cups that'll do just as good a job.

    • Given that your bag of flour is consistently packed.
    • Or that the liquids you measured back to back don't have different surface tensions.
    • Or that the liquid you're measuring isn't so thick that you have to wait for it to settle
    • Or that the berries you measured are the same size, different size berries means larger gaps, means less berry

    That's an interesting problem. You use the same container every time and you end up with different amounts of berry.
    How did they solve that? Oh, yeah, they sell by weight.


    Fun fact, there are machines specifically for measuring eggs. The reason being is that you have to have the correct egg to sugar ratio. Larger egg means more sugar, if you want the taste to be the same.

    I wonder why they didn't measure eggs by volume?



  • @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Given that your bag of flour is consistently packed.

    That's why sifters were invented.

    Or that the liquids you measured back to back don't have different surface tensions.

    Doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.

    Or that the liquid you're measuring isn't so thick that you have to wait for it to settle

    Or you push it down with the flat side of a spatula.

    Or that the berries you measured are the same size, different size berries means larger gaps, means less berry

    Doesn't make enough difference to matter.

    Cooking isn't an exact science, hardly ever.

    Fun fact, there are machines specifically for measuring eggs. The reason being is that you have to have the correct egg to sugar ratio. Larger egg means more sugar, if you want the taste to be the same.

    That's why human cooks usually just get eggs from the supermarket that are pre-sorted by size.

    I wonder why they didn't measure eggs by volume?

    Because it's relatively easy to have the machine weigh something? We humans get a ton of information from our eyes without even trying. Machines can't see anything except through the sensors and switches we give them, and even if you put a camera on it, machine vision is a long way off from being more practical than just giving it a scale and programming it to weigh something.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    That's why sifters were invented.

    Why measure by weight, when you can add another step just to support measuring by volume.

    :facepalm:

    You're really going out of your way to support volume measurements when they don't make sense.

    Next time I go to the meat market, I'm just going to tell them to pack it into a jar with a spatula, instead of weighing the meat.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.

    You haven't used a dropper or syringe yet.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Or you push it down with the flat side of a spatula.

    MOAR STEPS!!!

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Doesn't make enough difference to matter.
    Cooking isn't an exact science, hardly ever.

    You hate recipes....

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    That's why human cooks usually just get eggs from the supermarket that are pre-sorted by size.

    That device came from an era where you'd also own chickens.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Because it's relatively easy to have the machine weigh something? We humans get a ton of information from our eyes without even trying. Machines can't see anything except through the sensors and switches we give them, and even if you put a camera on it, machine vision is a long way off from being more practical than just giving it a scale and programming it to weigh something.

    TDEMS

    A scale does exactly what you need it to. A scale doesn't have to have a camera attached to judge what the object is before measuring it.


    I'm done with this topic.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Multiplying a recipe by 2.5 really isn't something that most people would ever try to do, though.

    I've had to do that many times. I need to make a multiple of a recipe, but since it calls for eggs, I can't do a half egg. So I need to round up/down the entire recipe.



  • @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Why measure by weight, when you can add another step just to support measuring by volume.

    You're really going out of your way to support volume measurements when they don't make sense.

    Cheap. No batteries. Does the job well enough.

    You haven't used a dropper or syringe yet.

    Cooking? Nope.

    MOAR STEPS!!!

    Only takes a couple of seconds extra and you're about to use the spatula anyway to scrape it out of the measuring cup.

    You hate recipes....

    No, just hardly ever seen a recipe where 5-10% difference in ingredients makes a huge difference. Baking is about the only place where it matters that much, but once you get good at that you get a feel for how much is needed.

    A scale doesn't have to have a camera attached to judge what the object is before measuring it.

    Not that, I meant leave the scale out completely and put a camera in instead and have the machine try to do it visually. A human can do that easily. A machine not so much. So instead of trying to put eyes in the machine, you put a scale in and call it good.



  • @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    My scale in my chemistry lab weighs accurately to 0.001 grams.

    There are $30 kitchen scales that display to 0.01 gram. The one I have is repeatable down to about 0.02, and calibrated.

    Mine could probably do better than 1 mg if I bothered to use the box to protect the scale from moving air (for example. if I breathe in the general vicinity of the scale).



  • @asdf said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @dse said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    imagination

    Since when is that a bad thing? 😏

    Since it began to make people think for themselves.


  • BINNED

    @Rhywden said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    breathe in the general vicinity of the scale

    So ... you are a heavy breather?

    :rimshot:



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Cheap. No batteries. Does the job well enough.

    Scales have to have batteries?

    You kids and your digital...

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Cooking? Nope.

    Ok, great, I have. And it's a pain in the ass to measure by volume in a syringe.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Only takes a couple of seconds extra and you're about to use the spatula anyway to scrape it out of the measuring cup.

    Compared to throwing it in the bowl you'll be using anyway, as it sits on a scale?

    You've made a one step process into a four step one, because you don't like weight for raisins.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    No, just hardly ever seen a recipe where 5-10% difference in ingredients makes a huge difference. Baking is about the only place where it matters that much, but once you get good at that you get a feel for how much is needed.

    Don't we all love how consistent drive-through is....

    Can't wait for burger making robots...

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Not that, I meant leave the scale out completely and put a camera in instead and have the machine try to do it visually. A human can do that easily. A machine not so much. So instead of trying to put eyes in the machine, you put a scale in and call it good.

    TDEMS???

    You mean to say, we have the advantage of guesstimating volume, over a robot, therefore using weight is stupid?


    You've :moving_goal_post:

    We're arguing whether it is valid to use weight as a measurement for a brewery or a bottling company.

    Not whether it is easier to use weight or volume for household preparation.



  • @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Scales have to have batteries?

    Batteries or a power cord. The accurate ones, anyway. Unless you want to fiddle around with a bunch of little weights and aint nobody got time for that, really.

    Ok, great, I have. And it's a pain in the ass to measure by volume in a syringe.

    Can I ask what you were cooking? Meth?

    Don't we all love how consistent drive-through is....

    Oh come on. No actual cooking takes place in one of those. It's freezer to fryer to greasy paper sack.

    You mean to say, we have the advantage of guesstimating volume, over a robot, therefore using weight is stupid?

    No, I mean to say that it's really easy for us to accurately use a measuring cup to measure volume.

    We're arguing whether it is valid to use weight as a measurement for a brewery or a bottling company.

    No, we're arguing whether it is more valid to put ABW on a bottle that's destined for the consumer than it is to put ABV on it.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    No, I mean to say that it's really easy for us to accurately use a measuring cup to measure volume.

    But it's still harder than doing it by weight.

    Compare:

    1. Get out mixing bowl.
    2. Put sugar in measuring cup.
    3. Pour measured sugar into mixing bowl.
    4. Cut butter on line.
    5. Put butter in mixing bowl.
    6. Put vanilla into measuring spoon.
    7. Dump vanilla into mixing bowl.
    8. Crack eggs into mixing bowl.
    9. Put flour in measuring cup.
    10. Dump flour into mixing bowl.
    11. Wash bowl, two measuring cups, and measuring spoon.

    with...

    1. Get out mixing bowl, set on scale.
    2. Pour sugar into bowl until scale reads correctly. Zero scale.
    3. Put butter in mixing bowl until scale reads correctly. Zero scale.
    4. Put vanilla into mixing bowl until scale reads correctly. Zero scale.
    5. Crack eggs into mixing bowl. Zero scale.
    6. Pour flour into mixing bowl until scale reads correctly.
    7. Wash bowl.

    Doing it by weight makes the job easier (a little bit) and makes clean up easier (a little bit). You can argue all you want that doing it by volume isn't "that hard" or "isn't much harder", but the one thing that's undeniable is that it is easier to do it by weight.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    with...

    Dude. I agree it's easier, but if you're comparing number of steps, and you count measuring and dumping flour separately, it's only fair to count zeroing the scale as a separate step.



  • @blakeyrat said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @xaade Do you people lack the part of your brain that says, "wait, nobody cares about this boring shit, I better not post it."

    Mine just have a lag, so I go back there and delete it.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Get out mixing bowl.
    Put sugar in measuring cup.
    Pour measured sugar into mixing bowl.
    Cut butter on line.
    Put butter in mixing bowl.
    Put vanilla into measuring spoon.
    Dump vanilla into mixing bowl.
    Crack eggs into mixing bowl.
    Put flour in measuring cup.
    Dump flour into mixing bowl.
    Wash bowl, two measuring cups, and measuring spoon.

    I am tempted to check whether this is a valid CHEF program.



  • @Yamikuronue said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Dude. I agree it's easier, but if you're comparing number of steps, and you count measuring and dumping flour separately, it's only fair to count zeroing the scale as a separate step.

    It's optional anyways, you could always just add each ingredient until the reading goes up by the needed amount.


  • BINNED

    @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    weight for raisins.

    The only reason to weigh raisins is if you're making fruit-cake. Other wise if you need to weigh them, you're using too many. :)


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Jaime said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Pour flour into mixing bowl until scale reads correctly.
    Wash bowl.

    YOU FORGOT TO BAKE THE CAKE YOU ASSHOLE WHERE IS MY GODDAMN CAKE?

    @M_Adams said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    you're using too many

    Here's a quick flowchart.

    Are you using more than 0 raisins?

    If yes, CHOKE ON A ROTTEN TIT YOU USELESS FUCKER.

    If no, proceed.


  • BINNED

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Are you using more than 0 raisins?
    If yes, CHOKE ON A ROTTEN TIT YOU USELESS FUCKER.
    If no, proceed.

    +ij

    Merçi beaucoup! That made me snort my rum-n-some-coke! Best laugh today!



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Lorne-Kates you do have to be really careful about flour, yes. Typically though recipes will call for something like "4-6 cups", which means you start with 4 and gradually add more until it has the right consistency. And yeah, there's a learning curve in actually figuring out what the right consistency looks/feels like. Humidity can also really affect flour, though, and it'll affect the weight as well as the volume. So no matter how carefully you measure the ingredients, there's always going to be some skill involved.

    You are a shit baker, using shit recipes.

    Humidity doesn't 'really affect' flour, because I cover my dough while it's proofing because otherwise it gets a gross crust. Because why wouldn't I? Unless you mean while the flour is in the packaging, which is also stupid because WHAT THE FUCK ITS FLOUR KEEP IT DRY. The difference between 'way too stiff' and 'ugh, pancake batter, gotta knead for like an hour' is 20% in baker's measurements or about 30% of the total flour. Until the flour completely hydrates, it's hard to tell the difference. So yeah, you could start with four cups and keep adding more, kneading/mixing between additions. Unless you were trying to make a bun or muffin or biscuit, because then your bun would end up with the wrong consistency from gluten network formation. I bought a scale off the internet. It cost 3$.

    Ask lorne_kates how to set up an indiegogo.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    I wonder why they didn't measure eggs by volume?

    AIUI, professional cooks measure egg by shell-off weight as that is more consistent with large batches.



  • @Yamikuronue

    Well, if we're being really precise then, you have to add rinse and dry cup after each new ingredient. Or you end up with 5 different cups.

    Which is why the bowl on a scale still has the advantage.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    No, we're arguing whether it is more valid to put ABW on a bottle that's destined for the consumer than it is to put ABV on it.

    At which point, weight is more valid.

    The only arguments you have is a bartender mixing by volume because they have to serve more and crappier drinks, really fast.

    And a person baking a cake, where weight still wins.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Can I ask what you were cooking? Meth?

    Chicken.

    You inject....

    Unless you just really want dry breasts.

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    No, I mean to say that it's really easy for us to accurately use a measuring cup to measure volume.

    Again, easy != valid. More easy != more valid.



  • @Yamikuronue let's not forget add a little bit, check the scale. Add a little bit more, check the scale. Add more... etc. Or you add too much and then you have to go find a spoon to get some of it back out.

    @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Well, if we're being really precise then, you have to add rinse and dry cup after each new ingredient.

    Don't be ridiculous... it's all going in the same place anyway. You just use a rubber spatula to get most of the residue (which you'd need to do anyway to get the entire amount that you measured) and, unless you're leaving big globs of it in the cup, it won't significantly affect the measurement of the next ingredient.

    Or you end up with 5 different cups.

    The measuring cups usually come in different sizes, so there's more than one by default. Maybe you use a different one for wet ingredients as you use for dry ingredients (the one you use for dry ingredients can just be rinsed afterward and then it's basically clean). But we have these things here - "dishwashers" - have you ever heard of them? You just ... dump all your dirty dishes in, and some soap, and push a button and when it finishes, they're clean.

    I get the strong impression that because you've always done it this way and you consider yourself pretty good, you think that nobody else could possibly do a good job doing it any differently. It's kind of ridiculous really.



  • @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    @Yamikuronue Add more... etc. Or you add too much and then you have to go find a spoon to get some of it back out.

    Right, because that never happens with volume based measuring. :rolleyes:


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Measuring baking ingredients by weight is more consistent, even if not more accurate.

    Isn't that why so many recipes call for sifted flour?


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @xaade said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Chicken.
    You inject....
    Unless you just really want dry breasts.

    Inject? :/ No.

    Breasts are done at 165f. Dark meat at 181f.

    If you are cooking just the breasts, you can keep a close eye on the internal temp. The second it consistently hits 165, take them off the heat. This will be the best chicken you've ever had.

    If you are cooking a WHOLE chicken, you face that problem of all the parts of the whole chicken being in the same oven at the same time. You need to protect the breasts from some of the heat:

    • Create a foil "triangle" shield from a square of tin foil folded in half. Mould it to the shape of the chicken. Pre-lube it and put it aside.
    • Put the chicken into an extra, extra hot oven. Like close to 500f.
    • Turn the over back down to normal temp right away
    • Wait about 5-10 minutes. The breast skin will start to get browned. Slap the heat shield on.
    • Cook as normal

    Stick a thermie in the thickest part of the dark meat, and cook until it hits 181f. Your breast will be 165f. Perfect.

    You can also brine, but that's a different story.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @anotherusername said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Typically though recipes will call for something like "4-6 cups"

    I have literally never seen a recipe that calls for a range for flour. Ever.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    To try to get back on topic, does anyone know how much a spoonful of lovin' weighs?


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    a spoonful of lovin' weighs?

    Do your own damn dirty searches ... I'm not googling the average sperm weight


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Pre-lube it and put it aside.

    Instructions unclear, got dick stuck in oven.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    Are you using more than 0 raisins?
    If yes, CHOKE ON A ROTTEN TIT YOU USELESS FUCKER.

    +1


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    how much a spoonful of lovin' weighs

    Since all the search engines end up with sugar being 4g for a spoonful: I'm assuming sugar = lovin'.


  • FoxDev

    @M_Adams I'm pretty sure a spoonful of lovin' won't help the medicine go down though


  • BINNED



  • @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    lube

    :giggity:

    @Lorne-Kates said in PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS in UTAH!:

    I have literally never seen a recipe that calls for a range for flour. Ever.

    To be honest, it's probably not as common as I thought I remembered. But even so they'll say "approximately", or (most often) "knead on floured surface" until the consistency is correct -- which partially implies adding more flour as necessary to keep it from sticking to the surface. Although you do need to be careful to avoid adding too much flour and making the dough tough.


Log in to reply