Datasets:

JayHyeon

/

SHP_split_21

like 0

xk5y7o

askculinary_train

What kind of pan is this, and what is it for? I have tried googling different keywords but I just can't find it. I'm guessing it's to toast bread? Those aren't holes just sort of depressions or divets, they just look like holes because they are dirty. Pan in question.

ipd16ug

ipc2u49

This has been answered - it's a not very user friendly non-stick pan. Clean it using steel wool, an abrasive pad or chemicals. I don't agree with most other replies - they are in fact usable, just use more fat and leave the product to form a crust (it should let go after a gentle shake) before turning.

Isn’t it for roasting chestnuts? ETA- I stand corrected

bj7dz0

changemyview_train

CMV: Bernie Sanders is wrong about incarcerated persons being able to vote while in prison (after an adjudication of guilt). Bernie Sanders recently took the position that people who are presently incarcerated (after either pleading to a crime or conviction by trial) should be allowed to vote while in prison, because voting is a right, not a privilege. While I agree with the sentiment that voting is a right, so is freedom from confinement. In that sense, the government deprives a convict of that right when they are convicted. If a person decides to place themselves outside, or at odds with, our democracy, they should remain outside it until they have paid the price to re-enter it. Don’t get me wrong: the minute they are released from prison, their voting rights should be restored; but until then, I don’t think they should be able to vote.

em5wle1

em5vtm4

I want to come at this from two distinct angles. The first is on the direct merits of inmate voting, and the second is a constitutional principles issue. * **Inmate voting is good and banning voting serves none of the goals of legal punishment.** There should be a rational relationship between the deprivation of liberty and the crime of which one has been convicted. I don't think broadly banning people from voting serves any of the interests we normally consider in sentencing. For example, we generally consider: * Public safety, and preventing a dangerous offender from being a future public danger by locking them up. * Just deserts, and exacting retributive punishment for a socially destructive wrong. * Rehabilitation, and turning someone with persistent criminal habits into a productive member of society * Deterrence both of future crimes by the person convicted, as well as deterring crime among the public. I don't really think any of these are met for a voting ban. First, there's no public safety issue with voting. Voting is not a dangerous activity, and absentee mail ballots ensure prisoners can vote without any public safety risk - as they receive and send mail already. Second, except for certain election crimes, there's no relationship between a voting ban and retribution, and very few people feel severe suffering or punishment from being banned from voting. Third, rehabilitation is actively harmed by a voting ban, as voting (especially for people who did not have a history of civic participation pre-prison) can be a mechanism for getting people interested in civil society and civics in a productive way. It's probably not a huge factor, but I think it would help a little. Fourth, as with the retribution aspect, very few people are deterred from crime because they might lose their right to vote, as opposed to the deterrent effect of prison. Lastly, I'd point out that our closest peer country, Canada, allows inmates to vote with no real ill effects. * **In a democracy, the government should not be able to pick its voters.** Separate from the issues above, there is a good reason from a constitutional design perspective to allow even prisoners to vote: Simple voting rules are the best voting rules. A democracy should make it extremely clear at the constitutional level who can vote. And the easiest, and clearest rule is "every adult citizen." The US Constitution already provides a citizenship guarantee in the 14th amendment. But it does not provide that all citizens can vote, and indeed trying to stop disfavored groups of citizens (*cough* black people *cough*) from voting has been a staple of American politics since the civil war. These attempts are almost always done in bad faith as a means of securing illegitimate political power. A constitutional rule that is so clear and simple that there's no way around it is the best antidote to these shenanigans, and that would include prisoners.

What's the purpose of incarceration? Could you explain why losing the ability to vote moves us towards this purpose?

bj7dz0

changemyview_train

CMV: Bernie Sanders is wrong about incarcerated persons being able to vote while in prison (after an adjudication of guilt). Bernie Sanders recently took the position that people who are presently incarcerated (after either pleading to a crime or conviction by trial) should be allowed to vote while in prison, because voting is a right, not a privilege. While I agree with the sentiment that voting is a right, so is freedom from confinement. In that sense, the government deprives a convict of that right when they are convicted. If a person decides to place themselves outside, or at odds with, our democracy, they should remain outside it until they have paid the price to re-enter it. Don’t get me wrong: the minute they are released from prison, their voting rights should be restored; but until then, I don’t think they should be able to vote.

em5w4dt

em5wle1

Why should you lose the right to vote? I understand why one might lose that right if you had specifically been convicted of election fraud (and maybe voter fraud) just like it's reasonable to restrict firearm ownership for people convicted of violent crimes. But otherwise, what is the justification for removing the vote? It's not like they can vote to make crime legal.

I want to come at this from two distinct angles. The first is on the direct merits of inmate voting, and the second is a constitutional principles issue. * **Inmate voting is good and banning voting serves none of the goals of legal punishment.** There should be a rational relationship between the deprivation of liberty and the crime of which one has been convicted. I don't think broadly banning people from voting serves any of the interests we normally consider in sentencing. For example, we generally consider: * Public safety, and preventing a dangerous offender from being a future public danger by locking them up. * Just deserts, and exacting retributive punishment for a socially destructive wrong. * Rehabilitation, and turning someone with persistent criminal habits into a productive member of society * Deterrence both of future crimes by the person convicted, as well as deterring crime among the public. I don't really think any of these are met for a voting ban. First, there's no public safety issue with voting. Voting is not a dangerous activity, and absentee mail ballots ensure prisoners can vote without any public safety risk - as they receive and send mail already. Second, except for certain election crimes, there's no relationship between a voting ban and retribution, and very few people feel severe suffering or punishment from being banned from voting. Third, rehabilitation is actively harmed by a voting ban, as voting (especially for people who did not have a history of civic participation pre-prison) can be a mechanism for getting people interested in civil society and civics in a productive way. It's probably not a huge factor, but I think it would help a little. Fourth, as with the retribution aspect, very few people are deterred from crime because they might lose their right to vote, as opposed to the deterrent effect of prison. Lastly, I'd point out that our closest peer country, Canada, allows inmates to vote with no real ill effects. * **In a democracy, the government should not be able to pick its voters.** Separate from the issues above, there is a good reason from a constitutional design perspective to allow even prisoners to vote: Simple voting rules are the best voting rules. A democracy should make it extremely clear at the constitutional level who can vote. And the easiest, and clearest rule is "every adult citizen." The US Constitution already provides a citizenship guarantee in the 14th amendment. But it does not provide that all citizens can vote, and indeed trying to stop disfavored groups of citizens (*cough* black people *cough*) from voting has been a staple of American politics since the civil war. These attempts are almost always done in bad faith as a means of securing illegitimate political power. A constitutional rule that is so clear and simple that there's no way around it is the best antidote to these shenanigans, and that would include prisoners.

bj7dz0

changemyview_train

CMV: Bernie Sanders is wrong about incarcerated persons being able to vote while in prison (after an adjudication of guilt). Bernie Sanders recently took the position that people who are presently incarcerated (after either pleading to a crime or conviction by trial) should be allowed to vote while in prison, because voting is a right, not a privilege. While I agree with the sentiment that voting is a right, so is freedom from confinement. In that sense, the government deprives a convict of that right when they are convicted. If a person decides to place themselves outside, or at odds with, our democracy, they should remain outside it until they have paid the price to re-enter it. Don’t get me wrong: the minute they are released from prison, their voting rights should be restored; but until then, I don’t think they should be able to vote.

em5wle1

em5wbkt

I want to come at this from two distinct angles. The first is on the direct merits of inmate voting, and the second is a constitutional principles issue. * **Inmate voting is good and banning voting serves none of the goals of legal punishment.** There should be a rational relationship between the deprivation of liberty and the crime of which one has been convicted. I don't think broadly banning people from voting serves any of the interests we normally consider in sentencing. For example, we generally consider: * Public safety, and preventing a dangerous offender from being a future public danger by locking them up. * Just deserts, and exacting retributive punishment for a socially destructive wrong. * Rehabilitation, and turning someone with persistent criminal habits into a productive member of society * Deterrence both of future crimes by the person convicted, as well as deterring crime among the public. I don't really think any of these are met for a voting ban. First, there's no public safety issue with voting. Voting is not a dangerous activity, and absentee mail ballots ensure prisoners can vote without any public safety risk - as they receive and send mail already. Second, except for certain election crimes, there's no relationship between a voting ban and retribution, and very few people feel severe suffering or punishment from being banned from voting. Third, rehabilitation is actively harmed by a voting ban, as voting (especially for people who did not have a history of civic participation pre-prison) can be a mechanism for getting people interested in civil society and civics in a productive way. It's probably not a huge factor, but I think it would help a little. Fourth, as with the retribution aspect, very few people are deterred from crime because they might lose their right to vote, as opposed to the deterrent effect of prison. Lastly, I'd point out that our closest peer country, Canada, allows inmates to vote with no real ill effects. * **In a democracy, the government should not be able to pick its voters.** Separate from the issues above, there is a good reason from a constitutional design perspective to allow even prisoners to vote: Simple voting rules are the best voting rules. A democracy should make it extremely clear at the constitutional level who can vote. And the easiest, and clearest rule is "every adult citizen." The US Constitution already provides a citizenship guarantee in the 14th amendment. But it does not provide that all citizens can vote, and indeed trying to stop disfavored groups of citizens (*cough* black people *cough*) from voting has been a staple of American politics since the civil war. These attempts are almost always done in bad faith as a means of securing illegitimate political power. A constitutional rule that is so clear and simple that there's no way around it is the best antidote to these shenanigans, and that would include prisoners.

>If a person decides to place themselves outside, or at odds with, our democracy, they should remain outside it until they have paid the price to re-enter it. If rights are contingent on not being a criminal, why do half the rights in the Bill of Rights deal implicitly or explicitly with establishing the rights of criminals?

usau2z

askbaking_train

What nutella frosting would be best for a chocolate cake? Hello! I’m going to make a chocolate and nutella cake and I wonder what type of frosting you people would make/think I should make? Should I do buttercream with nutella and only nutella? Buttercream with nutella and melted chocolate? Buttercream with nutella and melted chocolate AND whipped cream? Or do only whipped cream with nutella? Idk, I can’t really decide. And I don’t want to make it with cream cheese and not something too complicated like swiss meringue since I’m not really that advanced yet!

i92da1i

i92b50m

When I have messed around with adding Nutella to recipes, I’ve found that the flavor can easily get lost. So, I don’t think you’ll want to add chocolate with it.

What about Nutella buttercream and then a chocolate ganache drizzle and a sprinkling of crushed hazelnuts?

usau2z

askbaking_train

What nutella frosting would be best for a chocolate cake? Hello! I’m going to make a chocolate and nutella cake and I wonder what type of frosting you people would make/think I should make? Should I do buttercream with nutella and only nutella? Buttercream with nutella and melted chocolate? Buttercream with nutella and melted chocolate AND whipped cream? Or do only whipped cream with nutella? Idk, I can’t really decide. And I don’t want to make it with cream cheese and not something too complicated like swiss meringue since I’m not really that advanced yet!

i92b50m

i945ucu

What about Nutella buttercream and then a chocolate ganache drizzle and a sprinkling of crushed hazelnuts?

Nutella Swiss meringue buttercream is my favorite, but if the smbc is too overwhelming for you I’d recommend a “mock meringue” buttercream! It’s super easy and way more foolproof than the Swiss meringue. You’re definitely still gonna need a stand mixer for this one: 45g carton pasteurized egg whites 225g powdered sugar 1 lb unsalted softened butter 1/2 cup nutella Just whip up the egg whites and powdered sugar until it’s medium peaks and add the butter gradually, then nutella last. Hope this helps!

usau2z

askbaking_train

What nutella frosting would be best for a chocolate cake? Hello! I’m going to make a chocolate and nutella cake and I wonder what type of frosting you people would make/think I should make? Should I do buttercream with nutella and only nutella? Buttercream with nutella and melted chocolate? Buttercream with nutella and melted chocolate AND whipped cream? Or do only whipped cream with nutella? Idk, I can’t really decide. And I don’t want to make it with cream cheese and not something too complicated like swiss meringue since I’m not really that advanced yet!

i93nz2h

i945ucu

Chocolate with the Nutella and add a teaspoon or two of good instant coffee granules... wonderful!!!

Nutella Swiss meringue buttercream is my favorite, but if the smbc is too overwhelming for you I’d recommend a “mock meringue” buttercream! It’s super easy and way more foolproof than the Swiss meringue. You’re definitely still gonna need a stand mixer for this one: 45g carton pasteurized egg whites 225g powdered sugar 1 lb unsalted softened butter 1/2 cup nutella Just whip up the egg whites and powdered sugar until it’s medium peaks and add the butter gradually, then nutella last. Hope this helps!

v0du0b

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] Is Wolverine stronger with or without the adamantium skeleton? Without the adamantium he has a seemingly unbeatable healing factor. On the other hand, indestructible skeleton and claws. Which makes him more consistently stronger?

iafzud6

iag2m1k

Depends on your definition of stronger; I’d argue he’s better off with it than not. Without the adamantium his healing factor kicks into overdrive, but it’s already strong enough to bring him back from most anything anyway. With it, getting him down to that point is considerably harder.

Physically he is stronger with the skeleton, since his bones without the adamantium are just bones, so lifting something heavy can still cause damage to those bones. With the adamantium, if his muscles can lift a thing, he can lift it; no worrying about stress fractures.

v0du0b

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] Is Wolverine stronger with or without the adamantium skeleton? Without the adamantium he has a seemingly unbeatable healing factor. On the other hand, indestructible skeleton and claws. Which makes him more consistently stronger?

iafx7f7

iag2m1k

In general I would say he is a stronger with the adamantium skeleton but there is likely situations where he would be stronger without the adamantium skeleton.

Physically he is stronger with the skeleton, since his bones without the adamantium are just bones, so lifting something heavy can still cause damage to those bones. With the adamantium, if his muscles can lift a thing, he can lift it; no worrying about stress fractures.

v0du0b

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] Is Wolverine stronger with or without the adamantium skeleton? Without the adamantium he has a seemingly unbeatable healing factor. On the other hand, indestructible skeleton and claws. Which makes him more consistently stronger?

iafzud6

iafx7f7

Depends on your definition of stronger; I’d argue he’s better off with it than not. Without the adamantium his healing factor kicks into overdrive, but it’s already strong enough to bring him back from most anything anyway. With it, getting him down to that point is considerably harder.

In general I would say he is a stronger with the adamantium skeleton but there is likely situations where he would be stronger without the adamantium skeleton.

9ugk6x

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] There are a lot of "good guy" billionaires: Prof. X, Emma Frost, Reed Richards, Tony Stark, and T'Challa. Has any of them ever started a fund/grant to pay street-level superheroes like Peter Parker a living wage (like $40k) so they can fight crime without living in poverty?

e943cka

e941qv6

Tony Stark kind of does via the Avengers. Even before he was publicly known as Iron Man it was widely publicized that Stark was bankrolling the Avengers by giving them a mansion and its mentioned when Tigra first joins that the Avengers are offered $52K a year though most refuse the salary. A lot of heroes are given reserve status, so Tigra and Falcon were getting cash from Stark. Spider-Man has a weird moral code where he doesn't want to be handed money (probably why he's poor as shit) but has been offered this wage by Stark before. Reed Richards is pretty big on the philanthropy scene but tbh he uses most of the money they get because he's building HUGE shit constantly. Professor X has a number of charitable organizations, but also runs a school/mutant rights group. T'Challa is mainly focused on his own country. The person other than Tony Stank who does the most like what you're proposing is Danny Rand who is a billionaire and co-founder of Heroes for Hire where he makes sure Luke gets a living wage.

Most of them have their own finances tied up in their own affairs. Emma and Xavier with their various mutant teams, Reed with the FF, Tony with the Avengers, and T'Challa with a whole country. That being said, a few heroes have been given Avengers Reserve Status as a means for the team to be paying poor heroes who otherwise wouldn't be able to continue fighting crime, D-Man notably.

9ugk6x

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] There are a lot of "good guy" billionaires: Prof. X, Emma Frost, Reed Richards, Tony Stark, and T'Challa. Has any of them ever started a fund/grant to pay street-level superheroes like Peter Parker a living wage (like $40k) so they can fight crime without living in poverty?

e94699n

e941qv6

I wouldn't call $40k much of a living wage in NYC. But honestly, a lot of it has to do with liabilities. Someone fronting the bill means they're tied to property damage, criminal charges, and a variety of other things that would only cause more issues. Not to mention the political backlash! I don't mean right vs left, I mean government as a whole not being cool with specific people taking the law into their own hands and having financial power with it. Oh and they'd have to do their taxes. Can't do that with a secret identity.

Most of them have their own finances tied up in their own affairs. Emma and Xavier with their various mutant teams, Reed with the FF, Tony with the Avengers, and T'Challa with a whole country. That being said, a few heroes have been given Avengers Reserve Status as a means for the team to be paying poor heroes who otherwise wouldn't be able to continue fighting crime, D-Man notably.

9ugk6x

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] There are a lot of "good guy" billionaires: Prof. X, Emma Frost, Reed Richards, Tony Stark, and T'Challa. Has any of them ever started a fund/grant to pay street-level superheroes like Peter Parker a living wage (like $40k) so they can fight crime without living in poverty?

e941qv6

e94evjn

Most of them have their own finances tied up in their own affairs. Emma and Xavier with their various mutant teams, Reed with the FF, Tony with the Avengers, and T'Challa with a whole country. That being said, a few heroes have been given Avengers Reserve Status as a means for the team to be paying poor heroes who otherwise wouldn't be able to continue fighting crime, D-Man notably.

Oh good, we're gonna start letting douchebro billionaires fund their own private army of vigilantes. Imagine if Elon Musk put forth a plan to fund violent teenagers in NYC so they wouldn't have to get a job in addition to beating up people Musk didn't like.

v1syxb

askbaking_train

Keeping cupcakes and swiss buttercream fresh for days? I am making cupcakes with swiss meringue buttercream for a wedding. The couple has requested that the cupcakes be delivered on Thursday evening. They will be served on Saturday afternoon (about 2 days later). Any tips to keep the cupcakes and swiss buttercream fresh? Will swiss buttercream keep for 2 days? Or should I switch the frosting? Should I request that the cupcakes be stored in the fridge?

iaouplh

iaoezla

Best to freeze them as the refrigerator will dry them out. Thaw on counter about 1-2 hours before service . I once managed a cupcake bakery and that was the standard advice for longish term storage. Good luck!

fridge. when i did my wedding cupcakes i baked them on wednesday, frosted them thursday, then served them saturday. they were fine being in the fridge. edit: in airtight containers, like big tupperwares.

v1syxb

askbaking_train

Keeping cupcakes and swiss buttercream fresh for days? I am making cupcakes with swiss meringue buttercream for a wedding. The couple has requested that the cupcakes be delivered on Thursday evening. They will be served on Saturday afternoon (about 2 days later). Any tips to keep the cupcakes and swiss buttercream fresh? Will swiss buttercream keep for 2 days? Or should I switch the frosting? Should I request that the cupcakes be stored in the fridge?

iaotgqr

iaouplh

I would recommend to the couple that they A) allow you to deliver day of or B) they iced cupcakes are stored in sealed boxes in a fridge to be pulled out an hour or two before serving them (depending on your climate). In controlled environments a couple days is ok for your cupcakes but personally I wouldn’t drop that early.

Best to freeze them as the refrigerator will dry them out. Thaw on counter about 1-2 hours before service . I once managed a cupcake bakery and that was the standard advice for longish term storage. Good luck!

v1syxb

askbaking_train

Keeping cupcakes and swiss buttercream fresh for days? I am making cupcakes with swiss meringue buttercream for a wedding. The couple has requested that the cupcakes be delivered on Thursday evening. They will be served on Saturday afternoon (about 2 days later). Any tips to keep the cupcakes and swiss buttercream fresh? Will swiss buttercream keep for 2 days? Or should I switch the frosting? Should I request that the cupcakes be stored in the fridge?

iaqs1b7

iaotgqr

Buttercream keeps very well, when stored in an airtight container, in the fridge for about a week or in the freezer for 3-4 months

I would recommend to the couple that they A) allow you to deliver day of or B) they iced cupcakes are stored in sealed boxes in a fridge to be pulled out an hour or two before serving them (depending on your climate). In controlled environments a couple days is ok for your cupcakes but personally I wouldn’t drop that early.

k1k6f0

asksciencefiction_train

[Lord of the Rings] Was Gandalf Ever in any ACTUAL Danger? The Fellowship of the Ring faced many trials and tribulations on their quest, and they all faced many perils from many foes, but was Gandalf ever in any danger of being killed? He isn't a human or a halfling or a dwarf or an elf, he is a Maiar spirit in the guise of an old man. Outside of the fight with the Balrog (where he was "*killed*" and subsequently resurrected), or a hypothetical direct confrontation with Sauron, was there ever really a chance for him to be killed permanently? Would Goblin arrows or Orc blades actually pose any sort of threat to him? Or does he just sort of play up the part to continue pretending he's an old, totally mortal man who knows magic?

gdox5uy

gdotz0t

After Gandalf is resurrected, he says to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas: >Indeed my friends, none of you have any weapon that could hurt me. Which suggests that indeed he is immune to conventional weapons. Oddly though, Saruman is killed with a knife.

Think of it like hes playing a very important escort mission in a game, his charges will likely die if he is "killed" because his respawn time will be awhile. I cant remember how long it is after he is killed by the Balrog and returned by the Valar as Gandalf the White, but its not an instant respawn.

k1k6f0

asksciencefiction_train

[Lord of the Rings] Was Gandalf Ever in any ACTUAL Danger? The Fellowship of the Ring faced many trials and tribulations on their quest, and they all faced many perils from many foes, but was Gandalf ever in any danger of being killed? He isn't a human or a halfling or a dwarf or an elf, he is a Maiar spirit in the guise of an old man. Outside of the fight with the Balrog (where he was "*killed*" and subsequently resurrected), or a hypothetical direct confrontation with Sauron, was there ever really a chance for him to be killed permanently? Would Goblin arrows or Orc blades actually pose any sort of threat to him? Or does he just sort of play up the part to continue pretending he's an old, totally mortal man who knows magic?

gdozczm

gdotz0t

Gandalf's old man body really would die if he were killed, but the immortal spirit form would live on. The only danger Gandalf was really in was the possibility of failing in his mission. Eru Illuvatar wouldn't be *mad* at Gandalf for that, but he would be disappointed.

Think of it like hes playing a very important escort mission in a game, his charges will likely die if he is "killed" because his respawn time will be awhile. I cant remember how long it is after he is killed by the Balrog and returned by the Valar as Gandalf the White, but its not an instant respawn.

k1k6f0

asksciencefiction_train

[Lord of the Rings] Was Gandalf Ever in any ACTUAL Danger? The Fellowship of the Ring faced many trials and tribulations on their quest, and they all faced many perils from many foes, but was Gandalf ever in any danger of being killed? He isn't a human or a halfling or a dwarf or an elf, he is a Maiar spirit in the guise of an old man. Outside of the fight with the Balrog (where he was "*killed*" and subsequently resurrected), or a hypothetical direct confrontation with Sauron, was there ever really a chance for him to be killed permanently? Would Goblin arrows or Orc blades actually pose any sort of threat to him? Or does he just sort of play up the part to continue pretending he's an old, totally mortal man who knows magic?

gdoz4gx

gdozczm

Yes. He had lived 3000 years in that body, he was more attached to his mortality than you are with yours. Also he has the limitations of man, he doesn't fully remember his life as mAiar, after 3000 years it's probably like a dream. Even existentially, he had no way of returning to valinor without Grace of the valar. Saruman didn't automatically return when he died. For all Gandalf knew, once he died his spirit would be abandoned on middle-earth.

Gandalf's old man body really would die if he were killed, but the immortal spirit form would live on. The only danger Gandalf was really in was the possibility of failing in his mission. Eru Illuvatar wouldn't be *mad* at Gandalf for that, but he would be disappointed.

mx8sgv

asksciencefiction_train

[Spider-Man] Do people get suspicious of Peter Parker being the only person who can take high quality photos of Spider-Man so often and in such precarious positions? Peter Parker's most iconic job is being a photographer for the Daily Bugle where he takes pictures of Spider-Man. I ask if this has ever come back to haunt him? Like, he's the only person who takes high quality photos of Spider-Man, from angles and positions that would be impossible for the average person to reach. And he is always able to find Spider-Man in action to take photos of despite how spontaneous or unlikely it would be to find Spider-Man in action. Do others get suspicious of Peter's consistent success here suspecting of him, at the very least, working with Spider-Man directly?

gvmos3e

gvmp27d

Yes. Peter's alibi is that he knows Spider-Man and gets tips from and that's why he get's such great photos. At one point when he owned a company Parker Industries, he used the Iron Man explanation that Spider-Man was his body guard. But this means that Peter still has a target on his nack as people who want to contact Spider-Man go after him.

Does anyone know he's taking the pictures? In the Sam Raimi films, J. J. Jameson risks his life to preserve Peter Parker's anonymity, so he's the only one who really can be suspicious of Peter Parker. And he doesn't seem to be, though I'm not sure why. I understand in the comics J. J. Jameson is really close with Peter and thinks of him like a son, so it's not surprising that he wouldn't consider that Peter Parker would secretly be Spider-Man. Also, you have to admit that if he were Spider-Man, he'd probably sell those pictures elsewhere. In the Sam Raimi films the Green Goblin was suspicious of J. J. Jameson having ties to Spider-Man. Which he did. He didn't realize it, if he talked it would have led the Green Goblin to Spider-Man's true identity all the same.

mx8sgv

asksciencefiction_train

[Spider-Man] Do people get suspicious of Peter Parker being the only person who can take high quality photos of Spider-Man so often and in such precarious positions? Peter Parker's most iconic job is being a photographer for the Daily Bugle where he takes pictures of Spider-Man. I ask if this has ever come back to haunt him? Like, he's the only person who takes high quality photos of Spider-Man, from angles and positions that would be impossible for the average person to reach. And he is always able to find Spider-Man in action to take photos of despite how spontaneous or unlikely it would be to find Spider-Man in action. Do others get suspicious of Peter's consistent success here suspecting of him, at the very least, working with Spider-Man directly?

gvmrlek

gvmwyyi

As others have said, Peter's excuse is that he's friends with Spider-Man, and Spidey tells him when and where he's going to be. The second thing is, other than the more conspiracy-minded Daily Bugle readers, nobody really cares who Spider-Man is. He's a local neighborhood superhero. He saves people, trolls supervillains, and tells dumb jokes. He isn't really that important. He isn't nearly as high profile as somebody like Superman would be.

Punisher actually confronted Parker about it once. Peter explained that Spider-Man gives him tips in exchange for a cut of his freelance fees. Given how shady the Bugle can be, this actually helped Peter's alibi. Punisher left him alone after that.

mx8sgv

asksciencefiction_train

[Spider-Man] Do people get suspicious of Peter Parker being the only person who can take high quality photos of Spider-Man so often and in such precarious positions? Peter Parker's most iconic job is being a photographer for the Daily Bugle where he takes pictures of Spider-Man. I ask if this has ever come back to haunt him? Like, he's the only person who takes high quality photos of Spider-Man, from angles and positions that would be impossible for the average person to reach. And he is always able to find Spider-Man in action to take photos of despite how spontaneous or unlikely it would be to find Spider-Man in action. Do others get suspicious of Peter's consistent success here suspecting of him, at the very least, working with Spider-Man directly?

gvno0hq

gvngzrz

how much does Parker even get for pics of SpiderMan? Is he eligible for health benefits or is he just defined as a "freelancer" by the Bugle?

If it were me, I'd assume Parker had an in with Spider-Man (which is what Parker's excuse is) and therefore, if I were a journo with a jealous streak, I'd probably go full pap and sneak around after Parker when he goes home from work, follow him, try to see where he meets the Webby Lad.

y8w9r7

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] What if Dumbledore amputated his arm? In Book 6 Dumbledore gets cursed by Gaunt's Ring. But the curse was contained in his hand. Couldn't he have removed his hand? Would that have saved his life?

it2u4eg

it25z6h

It's a magical curse, it doesn't have to give a F about infection vectors or whatnot, for all we know amputating the hand it was contained in would let the curse loose to kill him, or explode, or the disembodied hand would immediately strangle him, or kill the person doing the amputation before killing him. Tom may have been many things but he was certainly not someone to halfass a murder.

I feel it probably wasn't contained in his hands on the grounds that it was killing him rather then just withering his hand. There's a reason amputation has to be done fast for infections. Just because the rot is only *visible* in the hands doesn't mean it hasn't spread to the rest of the body: that is, after all, why a septic infection kills you. Even if the curse works the same way (and it seems a stretch to assume that a blood-borne infection and a mystic ring are that analogous), it's way too late. The curse has long spread beyond the initial entry point, and cutting off the limb will do nothing.

y8w9r7

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] What if Dumbledore amputated his arm? In Book 6 Dumbledore gets cursed by Gaunt's Ring. But the curse was contained in his hand. Couldn't he have removed his hand? Would that have saved his life?

it25i1g

it2u4eg

The curse's magic was throughout his body. The rot was being temporarily contained to the hand that wore the ring by Snape's intervention, but the progression of decay would've continued regardless of whether he removed the arm and probably done so more quickly if he had, it being no longer contained to one part.

It's a magical curse, it doesn't have to give a F about infection vectors or whatnot, for all we know amputating the hand it was contained in would let the curse loose to kill him, or explode, or the disembodied hand would immediately strangle him, or kill the person doing the amputation before killing him. Tom may have been many things but he was certainly not someone to halfass a murder.

y8w9r7

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] What if Dumbledore amputated his arm? In Book 6 Dumbledore gets cursed by Gaunt's Ring. But the curse was contained in his hand. Couldn't he have removed his hand? Would that have saved his life?

it25i1g

it25z6h

The curse's magic was throughout his body. The rot was being temporarily contained to the hand that wore the ring by Snape's intervention, but the progression of decay would've continued regardless of whether he removed the arm and probably done so more quickly if he had, it being no longer contained to one part.

I feel it probably wasn't contained in his hands on the grounds that it was killing him rather then just withering his hand. There's a reason amputation has to be done fast for infections. Just because the rot is only *visible* in the hands doesn't mean it hasn't spread to the rest of the body: that is, after all, why a septic infection kills you. Even if the curse works the same way (and it seems a stretch to assume that a blood-borne infection and a mystic ring are that analogous), it's way too late. The curse has long spread beyond the initial entry point, and cutting off the limb will do nothing.

8p0w6w

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] Why is Dumbledore insistent that they need to destroy all horcruxes first and kill Voldemort second, when they should be killing him first, then doing the horcrux detective work between then and his next resurrection?

e07iwi4

e07k8w0

Because Voldemort cannot die until all the horcruxes are destroyed.

Because Harry was the last Horcrux, and had to be struck down by Voldemort in order for Voldemort to be defeated once and for all. Also, the cynic in me wants to say that Dumbledore realized that children are easier to manipulate than adults. Harry was about 18 when he sacrificed himself at the Battle of Hogwarts. If he had been in his thirties instead, with a family and a job, he might have been a lot less willing to walk to his death.

8p0w6w

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] Why is Dumbledore insistent that they need to destroy all horcruxes first and kill Voldemort second, when they should be killing him first, then doing the horcrux detective work between then and his next resurrection?

e0868im

e08iw5d

So lets say Harry did kill him before the rest of horcruxes, Harry would not be able to find the horcruxes. Dumbledore knew about Harry's connection with Voldemort, he got to know him better in order to find them, also Harry was able find Deathly Hallows due to his visions. Voldemort can't be killed easily, he's the most powerful wizard after Dumbledore, even Dumbledore wasn't able to hold him off in OOP. So by destroying each horcrux one by one thus making him weaker it got easier for harry to kill him.

Because there wouldn't be a time between, or at least much of one. The first time Voldemort died was when he learned exactly how Horcrux immortality works; he didn't even know if it *would* work until then. This time? He knows how it works, and the first thing he did after his resurrection was tell all of his Death Eaters what happened and how it works (Minus the vulnerable Horcrux bit). The next time Voldemort dies they won't scatter while he lingers around trying to figure out WTF just happened, they'll be setting up the ritual to bring him back to life.

8p0w6w

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] Why is Dumbledore insistent that they need to destroy all horcruxes first and kill Voldemort second, when they should be killing him first, then doing the horcrux detective work between then and his next resurrection?

e08iw5d

e07iwi4

Because there wouldn't be a time between, or at least much of one. The first time Voldemort died was when he learned exactly how Horcrux immortality works; he didn't even know if it *would* work until then. This time? He knows how it works, and the first thing he did after his resurrection was tell all of his Death Eaters what happened and how it works (Minus the vulnerable Horcrux bit). The next time Voldemort dies they won't scatter while he lingers around trying to figure out WTF just happened, they'll be setting up the ritual to bring him back to life.

Because Voldemort cannot die until all the horcruxes are destroyed.

4f1m2j

asksciencefiction_train

[Star Wars] Would the empire have been more successful if they just hadn't bothered with the Death Stars? Pretty much the title.

d255r00

d255o9w

Without a doubt. They could have built and crewed thousands, if not millions, of Star Destroyers instead, which would have been much more effective at hunting down the Rebel fleet and bases. Additionally, an enormous fleet of Imperial ships doesn't have a single weak point that destroys them all - you have to do it the hard way, and the Rebellion simply would not have been up to that challenge. Politically, the Death Stars did inspire fear, but the fear had the opposite effect from what was intended. It pushed worlds towards the Rebellion by proving how dangerous and evil the Empire actually was.

How to keep the local systems in line, huh? After the senate is dissolved, only a demonstration of power will cause fear and keep the order! Likely the empire would have fallen into pieces (separatist efforts will destroy everthing the Emperor has worked for so hard). But your line of thought indicates that you question the Emperor's decisions... GUARDS! He is part of the Rebel Alliance! Escort this traitor to a single holding cell for questioning by Lord Vader.

4f1m2j

asksciencefiction_train

[Star Wars] Would the empire have been more successful if they just hadn't bothered with the Death Stars? Pretty much the title.

d25lhhj

d25zulk

No, they needed more death stars about, 58-76 would be resonable.

The empire would have been more successful if they'd focused on a sustainable leadership succession plan. Losing the death star didn't matter. Losing the emperor was everything.

4f1m2j

asksciencefiction_train

[Star Wars] Would the empire have been more successful if they just hadn't bothered with the Death Stars? Pretty much the title.

d25x0l8

d25zulk

The Tarkin Doctrine called for displaying overwhelming force in order to pacify occupied planets. The death star was the ultimate expression of this arms race. TL;DR: Sun's out guns out

The empire would have been more successful if they'd focused on a sustainable leadership succession plan. Losing the death star didn't matter. Losing the emperor was everything.

rxj9ov

askculinary_train

Cookies & cream ice cream with or wihtout eggs? Most recipes I saw don't use eggs in homemade cookies and cream ice cream. Is there a reason for this? I've always used eggs when making ice cream, and never made an eggless batch yet.

hriihas

hrio12o

There are certainly styles of ice cream that don't have eggs. There's no reason a cookie and cream can't have eggs. It's really personal preference.

Typically there are 2 styles of making ice cream: French and American. French ice cream base is a custard made with eggs while American ice cream base is just sugar, milk, and cream. Cookies and cream is traditionally an American flavor of ice cream which is why you most likely won't find it made in the french style. If you were to make a regular batch of vanilla ice cream with eggs, and add crushed cookies to it, it would be fine and probably richer in texture and flavor

rxj9ov

askculinary_train

Cookies & cream ice cream with or wihtout eggs? Most recipes I saw don't use eggs in homemade cookies and cream ice cream. Is there a reason for this? I've always used eggs when making ice cream, and never made an eggless batch yet.

hrimoul

hrio12o

Just fine a good vanilla recipe and crumble in cookies at the final churn.

Typically there are 2 styles of making ice cream: French and American. French ice cream base is a custard made with eggs while American ice cream base is just sugar, milk, and cream. Cookies and cream is traditionally an American flavor of ice cream which is why you most likely won't find it made in the french style. If you were to make a regular batch of vanilla ice cream with eggs, and add crushed cookies to it, it would be fine and probably richer in texture and flavor

rxj9ov

askculinary_train

Cookies & cream ice cream with or wihtout eggs? Most recipes I saw don't use eggs in homemade cookies and cream ice cream. Is there a reason for this? I've always used eggs when making ice cream, and never made an eggless batch yet.

hrimoul

hriwsag

Just fine a good vanilla recipe and crumble in cookies at the final churn.

Highly recommend this recipe: https://www.seriouseats.com/cookies-n-cream-ice-cream-recipe We made it recently and it's very rich but amazing. Also, r/icecreamery is a great sub for ice cream related questions!

a4kncu

changemyview_train

CMV: If there is a god, it cannot be good, all knowing and all powerful the way most religions see it. Especially abrahamic religions, most especially christianity. If there's no god, then there is nothing to argue about. World is what it is, however it happened. I'd argue it's not harder to believe it didn't need any god to create it, than believing some god has created itself and then whole universe. If there is a god he can't be good and omnipotent at the same time. Let's assume it's an abrahamic vision of god, a good being that cares about us. **1: There is no way to know what god wants, it doesn't say much explicitly. Most people can't or coudln't choose to follow the right path since belief. God could just skip moral obstacle course altogether or prove evidence that would shake any doubt, otherwise it's being cruel.** Humans were put here on a moral obstacle course while supreme being has not been clear enough in showing the right way or even evidence to prove it's existence. There are many religions and many ideas on how to be moral. Many people abuse religion for power yet god does not intervene. In short - we have no way of knowing which god is true, whether it is true at all, and what it wants exactly. There's no hard evidence, mostly interpretations and pretty much every priest or pastor has doubts. Free will does not depend on god being hidden. Half of the world's population or more doesn't even have chance of understanding and following the right religion, because they weren't born in the right country. People have been around way longer than "true religion" had time to spread, so lots of people just couldn't know anything at all. **2: A good, omnipotent god would stop suffering.** God is not stopping suffering. If he can't, it's not omnipotent. If he doesn't want, it's not good. Some suffering is a byproduct of free will, like wars. Unfortunately any crimes and atrocities have their roots in natural inequalities in a world full of scarcity and people not having equal chances. Developed countries are past many natural problems and a lot can be blamed on humans, but it hasn't always been like that - homo sapiens has been around for a looooong time. But what about illnesses? Actually good people die in pain because they have cancer. Children lose parents and are the real victims. Innocent people die of starvation. A few miracles here and there (assuming they're miracles) don't change the fact billions of other people suffer all across the world. Suffering created by humans doesn't absolve god from inaction too - victims are often completely blameless and shouldn't suffer for someone's right to free will. Suffering has no point. Good people of all religions suffer despite their beliefs. If god needs humans to suffer or doesn't want to end suffering then it is not good. If it simply can't, it's not omnipotent. **3: A good god would not create such flawed humans. We're human by design, so we shouldn't be judged eternally for being human.** How can humans be punished for acting the way they've been designed to? We have "bad" emotions ingrained into us because it's helped us survive. We can't even directly control them, we're bound to fail. I have heard people saying it's all about free will, but I don't think it is. I'd argue humans don't have as much choice as we think and any kind of urge is a limiting factor. Sometimes we have "good" urges to help others or ourselves, sometimes we have "Bad" urges like greed and anger, yet they're all urges we didn't ask for. If humans have those urges it's already limiting our free will. Wouldn't a good god remove urges to act immoraly?

ebfjkj7

ebfh8bn

Interesting concepts. Thank you. Here's my take on it: The idea of a God presupposes that a God is unknowable and unfathomable. If it were not either of those things then it would not be a God at all. The instant that rationalizations or “what-if’s” become involved, the discussion ceases to be of a God at all because we are inherently attempting to measure a thing that is immeasurable with any yardstick that we are capable of conceiving, because if it were then it wouldn’t be that thing. Because of this, concepts like cruelty or good and bad or flaws or happiness are fundamentally human ones and not God ones. We're talking about "our" concepts and applying them to an entity or idea that is completely removed from those concepts because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be a God at all. I can’t prove that there is a God. I get that. But I also think that I am fundamentally incapable of disproving it.

I don’t think a ‘good’ god would stop suffering. I think a ‘good’ god would give us the freedom to make decisions and the ability to live out our lives as we see fit. If that includes god then good. Also if god took away all of the suffering we would be immortal. So Idk what to tell you about your second point. Edit: words

a4kncu

changemyview_train

CMV: If there is a god, it cannot be good, all knowing and all powerful the way most religions see it. Especially abrahamic religions, most especially christianity. If there's no god, then there is nothing to argue about. World is what it is, however it happened. I'd argue it's not harder to believe it didn't need any god to create it, than believing some god has created itself and then whole universe. If there is a god he can't be good and omnipotent at the same time. Let's assume it's an abrahamic vision of god, a good being that cares about us. **1: There is no way to know what god wants, it doesn't say much explicitly. Most people can't or coudln't choose to follow the right path since belief. God could just skip moral obstacle course altogether or prove evidence that would shake any doubt, otherwise it's being cruel.** Humans were put here on a moral obstacle course while supreme being has not been clear enough in showing the right way or even evidence to prove it's existence. There are many religions and many ideas on how to be moral. Many people abuse religion for power yet god does not intervene. In short - we have no way of knowing which god is true, whether it is true at all, and what it wants exactly. There's no hard evidence, mostly interpretations and pretty much every priest or pastor has doubts. Free will does not depend on god being hidden. Half of the world's population or more doesn't even have chance of understanding and following the right religion, because they weren't born in the right country. People have been around way longer than "true religion" had time to spread, so lots of people just couldn't know anything at all. **2: A good, omnipotent god would stop suffering.** God is not stopping suffering. If he can't, it's not omnipotent. If he doesn't want, it's not good. Some suffering is a byproduct of free will, like wars. Unfortunately any crimes and atrocities have their roots in natural inequalities in a world full of scarcity and people not having equal chances. Developed countries are past many natural problems and a lot can be blamed on humans, but it hasn't always been like that - homo sapiens has been around for a looooong time. But what about illnesses? Actually good people die in pain because they have cancer. Children lose parents and are the real victims. Innocent people die of starvation. A few miracles here and there (assuming they're miracles) don't change the fact billions of other people suffer all across the world. Suffering created by humans doesn't absolve god from inaction too - victims are often completely blameless and shouldn't suffer for someone's right to free will. Suffering has no point. Good people of all religions suffer despite their beliefs. If god needs humans to suffer or doesn't want to end suffering then it is not good. If it simply can't, it's not omnipotent. **3: A good god would not create such flawed humans. We're human by design, so we shouldn't be judged eternally for being human.** How can humans be punished for acting the way they've been designed to? We have "bad" emotions ingrained into us because it's helped us survive. We can't even directly control them, we're bound to fail. I have heard people saying it's all about free will, but I don't think it is. I'd argue humans don't have as much choice as we think and any kind of urge is a limiting factor. Sometimes we have "good" urges to help others or ourselves, sometimes we have "Bad" urges like greed and anger, yet they're all urges we didn't ask for. If humans have those urges it's already limiting our free will. Wouldn't a good god remove urges to act immoraly?

ebfiie4

ebfjkj7

Scott Alexander has provided one possible answer that I find a bit more satisfactory than the common answers such as "God is good by definition". Basically, God creates as many universes that have more good than evil as possible. For every way you can think of in which God could have made our world better, he already had - but that better world is an entirely separate world from ours. The reason given as to why God won't just create a lot of completely and perfectly good universes is that any two universes that are completely the same are essentially just one universe - just as there cannot be two numbers 7 in the set of all integers, there cannot be two separate yet equal universes.

Interesting concepts. Thank you. Here's my take on it: The idea of a God presupposes that a God is unknowable and unfathomable. If it were not either of those things then it would not be a God at all. The instant that rationalizations or “what-if’s” become involved, the discussion ceases to be of a God at all because we are inherently attempting to measure a thing that is immeasurable with any yardstick that we are capable of conceiving, because if it were then it wouldn’t be that thing. Because of this, concepts like cruelty or good and bad or flaws or happiness are fundamentally human ones and not God ones. We're talking about "our" concepts and applying them to an entity or idea that is completely removed from those concepts because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be a God at all. I can’t prove that there is a God. I get that. But I also think that I am fundamentally incapable of disproving it.

a4kncu

changemyview_train

CMV: If there is a god, it cannot be good, all knowing and all powerful the way most religions see it. Especially abrahamic religions, most especially christianity. If there's no god, then there is nothing to argue about. World is what it is, however it happened. I'd argue it's not harder to believe it didn't need any god to create it, than believing some god has created itself and then whole universe. If there is a god he can't be good and omnipotent at the same time. Let's assume it's an abrahamic vision of god, a good being that cares about us. **1: There is no way to know what god wants, it doesn't say much explicitly. Most people can't or coudln't choose to follow the right path since belief. God could just skip moral obstacle course altogether or prove evidence that would shake any doubt, otherwise it's being cruel.** Humans were put here on a moral obstacle course while supreme being has not been clear enough in showing the right way or even evidence to prove it's existence. There are many religions and many ideas on how to be moral. Many people abuse religion for power yet god does not intervene. In short - we have no way of knowing which god is true, whether it is true at all, and what it wants exactly. There's no hard evidence, mostly interpretations and pretty much every priest or pastor has doubts. Free will does not depend on god being hidden. Half of the world's population or more doesn't even have chance of understanding and following the right religion, because they weren't born in the right country. People have been around way longer than "true religion" had time to spread, so lots of people just couldn't know anything at all. **2: A good, omnipotent god would stop suffering.** God is not stopping suffering. If he can't, it's not omnipotent. If he doesn't want, it's not good. Some suffering is a byproduct of free will, like wars. Unfortunately any crimes and atrocities have their roots in natural inequalities in a world full of scarcity and people not having equal chances. Developed countries are past many natural problems and a lot can be blamed on humans, but it hasn't always been like that - homo sapiens has been around for a looooong time. But what about illnesses? Actually good people die in pain because they have cancer. Children lose parents and are the real victims. Innocent people die of starvation. A few miracles here and there (assuming they're miracles) don't change the fact billions of other people suffer all across the world. Suffering created by humans doesn't absolve god from inaction too - victims are often completely blameless and shouldn't suffer for someone's right to free will. Suffering has no point. Good people of all religions suffer despite their beliefs. If god needs humans to suffer or doesn't want to end suffering then it is not good. If it simply can't, it's not omnipotent. **3: A good god would not create such flawed humans. We're human by design, so we shouldn't be judged eternally for being human.** How can humans be punished for acting the way they've been designed to? We have "bad" emotions ingrained into us because it's helped us survive. We can't even directly control them, we're bound to fail. I have heard people saying it's all about free will, but I don't think it is. I'd argue humans don't have as much choice as we think and any kind of urge is a limiting factor. Sometimes we have "good" urges to help others or ourselves, sometimes we have "Bad" urges like greed and anger, yet they're all urges we didn't ask for. If humans have those urges it's already limiting our free will. Wouldn't a good god remove urges to act immoraly?

ebfjkj7

ebfi9al

Interesting concepts. Thank you. Here's my take on it: The idea of a God presupposes that a God is unknowable and unfathomable. If it were not either of those things then it would not be a God at all. The instant that rationalizations or “what-if’s” become involved, the discussion ceases to be of a God at all because we are inherently attempting to measure a thing that is immeasurable with any yardstick that we are capable of conceiving, because if it were then it wouldn’t be that thing. Because of this, concepts like cruelty or good and bad or flaws or happiness are fundamentally human ones and not God ones. We're talking about "our" concepts and applying them to an entity or idea that is completely removed from those concepts because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be a God at all. I can’t prove that there is a God. I get that. But I also think that I am fundamentally incapable of disproving it.

The idea that an omnipotent god must stop all suffering to be moral I find kinda ridiculous. I mean the only way it can be moral to stop all suffering is if it's both immoral to have agency and its immoral to learn. Nearly all personal learning comes from some form of suffering. On the point of agency the only way for him to stop us from doing horrible things to each other is if he literally micromanaged every decision ever. They're would never be any growth for any of us because we could never actually choose anything. And personally I find the idea of a god that doesn't let you choose to be highly immoral.

m2xbz6

askculinary_train

Is "real" buttermilk the same as store brought buttermilk and if not, what do I need to do to change one into the other? When I cook a recipe that calls for buttermilk I usually just grab a few tubs from my supermarket. Today I've made butter (stand mixers with a metal paddle make this a dream) and have about half a litre of buttermilk left over. After tasting my homemade buttermilk, it tastes pretty much like semi-skimmed milk and doesn't seem to have the acidity of store brought buttermilk. If I was to use my new home made stuff in place of the store brought stuff will it work the same, or do I need to do something to make it more acidic? Not sure if it makes a difference, but this butter is made from organic raw unpasteurised jersey double (thick) cream, so it's as unadulterated as can be.

gqlpsyy

gqlpwmn

If the cream was suuuuper fresh, or refrigerated, the microbial flora wouldn’t have had much of a chance to work their magic. For the culture to get going it needs to sit out to ferment for a good day or two before it’s churned. Based on my experiences, I’d guess that using the storebought stuff would serve you better than trying to tweak the current batch of homemade stuff.

Buttermilk is fermented which is what gives it it’s acidic and tangy flavor. Traditionally when churning butter, the milk was left out for a while for the cream and milk to separate to help with the churning process. Leaving it out like that also resulted in fermentation though. So the leftover milk from the process was already fermented and tangy and resulted in what we know as buttermilk Assuming you didn’t leave your cream sitting out for a couple days before churning it though, it didn’t ferment at all. So your leftover milk really is just skimmed milk like you’re saying and not buttermilk. These days leaving the milk out to separate isn’t a necessary step to make butter, so buttermilk isn’t really made as that traditional byproduct of the churning process anymore. The stuff you buy in the store is usually just milk with some live cultures added to it to cause the same type of fermentation but in a controlled and safe manner. I wouldn’t really recommend trying to make your own buttermilk by leaving it out on the counter though due to food safety concerns. If you’d still specifically like to use your leftovers as buttermilk, you can add a little lemon juice or vinegar to it to increase the acidity and get similar flavor results for cooking. EDIT: as others have rightly pointed out, there are definitely ways to make your own cultured/fermented dairy products at home. I just don’t personally know enough on the processes myself to give any sound advice. But feel free to check out others’ comments and do your own research if you’re interested in it!

m2xbz6

askculinary_train

Is "real" buttermilk the same as store brought buttermilk and if not, what do I need to do to change one into the other? When I cook a recipe that calls for buttermilk I usually just grab a few tubs from my supermarket. Today I've made butter (stand mixers with a metal paddle make this a dream) and have about half a litre of buttermilk left over. After tasting my homemade buttermilk, it tastes pretty much like semi-skimmed milk and doesn't seem to have the acidity of store brought buttermilk. If I was to use my new home made stuff in place of the store brought stuff will it work the same, or do I need to do something to make it more acidic? Not sure if it makes a difference, but this butter is made from organic raw unpasteurised jersey double (thick) cream, so it's as unadulterated as can be.

gqlpsyy

gqlt3hh

If the cream was suuuuper fresh, or refrigerated, the microbial flora wouldn’t have had much of a chance to work their magic. For the culture to get going it needs to sit out to ferment for a good day or two before it’s churned. Based on my experiences, I’d guess that using the storebought stuff would serve you better than trying to tweak the current batch of homemade stuff.

Store bought buttermilk is just cultured/fermented milk. Since your cream was unpasteurized, simply leaving the buttermilk at room temp to ferment might result in a good product. Might also taste awful, or make you sick. All depends on what's living in there. You could try adding a small amount of cultured dairy (e.g. yogurt) to nudge the fermentation towards a more favorable result, but no guarantee that will work either.

m2xbz6

askculinary_train

Is "real" buttermilk the same as store brought buttermilk and if not, what do I need to do to change one into the other? When I cook a recipe that calls for buttermilk I usually just grab a few tubs from my supermarket. Today I've made butter (stand mixers with a metal paddle make this a dream) and have about half a litre of buttermilk left over. After tasting my homemade buttermilk, it tastes pretty much like semi-skimmed milk and doesn't seem to have the acidity of store brought buttermilk. If I was to use my new home made stuff in place of the store brought stuff will it work the same, or do I need to do something to make it more acidic? Not sure if it makes a difference, but this butter is made from organic raw unpasteurised jersey double (thick) cream, so it's as unadulterated as can be.

gqlt3hh

gqlsiej

Store bought buttermilk is just cultured/fermented milk. Since your cream was unpasteurized, simply leaving the buttermilk at room temp to ferment might result in a good product. Might also taste awful, or make you sick. All depends on what's living in there. You could try adding a small amount of cultured dairy (e.g. yogurt) to nudge the fermentation towards a more favorable result, but no guarantee that will work either.

Check out this video, which explains it very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-kO8zHNiQw

dvs33x

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old: How did old forts actually "protect" a strategic area? Couldn't the enemy just go around them or stay out of range? I've visited quite a few colonial era and revolution era forts in my life. They're always surprisingly small and would have only housed a small group of men. The largest one I've seen would have housed a couple hundred. I was told that some blockhouses close to where I live were used to protect a small settlement from native american raids. How can small little forts or blockhouses protect from raids or stop armies from passing through? Surely the indians could have gone around this big house. How could an army come up to a fort and not just go around it if there's only 100 men inside? **tl;dr** - I understand the purpose of a fort and it's location, but I don't understand how it does what it does.

f7ef6cw

f7eievc

Think of a fort as a base of operations. Defense of an area relies on being supplied with weapons, food, and a secure area to hold a defensive position in the event of appearance of a greater threat. Forts can be set up to have cannon firing positions on important water pathways. Even an early simple wooden palisade structure can provide protection and a defensive position. They were not designed to be inpenetrable, or to prevent the movement of standing armies.

They don’t just stay inside the fort. They do patrols, security, protect supply lines. They may even had camps outside the walls. You could be only looking at 1/4 the remaining fort. A small fort could easily protect 20 miles or so of land.

dvs33x

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old: How did old forts actually "protect" a strategic area? Couldn't the enemy just go around them or stay out of range? I've visited quite a few colonial era and revolution era forts in my life. They're always surprisingly small and would have only housed a small group of men. The largest one I've seen would have housed a couple hundred. I was told that some blockhouses close to where I live were used to protect a small settlement from native american raids. How can small little forts or blockhouses protect from raids or stop armies from passing through? Surely the indians could have gone around this big house. How could an army come up to a fort and not just go around it if there's only 100 men inside? **tl;dr** - I understand the purpose of a fort and it's location, but I don't understand how it does what it does.

f7eerhn

f7eievc

Forts are generally placed in strategic locations like a harbor entrance, along a navigable river, overlooking a valley, or guarding a city. They would have cannons that let them engage enemies from quite a distance You could just evade the fort and the soldiers inside, but then they'll just sit back and shell you while you try to take the city. You need to deal with the troops and their cannons before you can secure the area they're guarding Forts and natural terrain were often used to force troops to approach from a certain area. If I've got tons of forts around the harbor then you can't land troops in there, and the rocky cliffs mean you can't land nearby so you'll have to land a ways down and then funnel across a narrow strip of land to get to the forts. Oh, and the forts already have their cannons dialed in to hit that little strip of land so have fun with that! Most early cities were set up in defensible spots so that the fort could cover the only approaches. You can't go around the blockhouse if the other side is a mountain or fast river

They don’t just stay inside the fort. They do patrols, security, protect supply lines. They may even had camps outside the walls. You could be only looking at 1/4 the remaining fort. A small fort could easily protect 20 miles or so of land.

dvs33x

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old: How did old forts actually "protect" a strategic area? Couldn't the enemy just go around them or stay out of range? I've visited quite a few colonial era and revolution era forts in my life. They're always surprisingly small and would have only housed a small group of men. The largest one I've seen would have housed a couple hundred. I was told that some blockhouses close to where I live were used to protect a small settlement from native american raids. How can small little forts or blockhouses protect from raids or stop armies from passing through? Surely the indians could have gone around this big house. How could an army come up to a fort and not just go around it if there's only 100 men inside? **tl;dr** - I understand the purpose of a fort and it's location, but I don't understand how it does what it does.

f7ef6cw

f7eerhn

Think of a fort as a base of operations. Defense of an area relies on being supplied with weapons, food, and a secure area to hold a defensive position in the event of appearance of a greater threat. Forts can be set up to have cannon firing positions on important water pathways. Even an early simple wooden palisade structure can provide protection and a defensive position. They were not designed to be inpenetrable, or to prevent the movement of standing armies.

Forts are generally placed in strategic locations like a harbor entrance, along a navigable river, overlooking a valley, or guarding a city. They would have cannons that let them engage enemies from quite a distance You could just evade the fort and the soldiers inside, but then they'll just sit back and shell you while you try to take the city. You need to deal with the troops and their cannons before you can secure the area they're guarding Forts and natural terrain were often used to force troops to approach from a certain area. If I've got tons of forts around the harbor then you can't land troops in there, and the rocky cliffs mean you can't land nearby so you'll have to land a ways down and then funnel across a narrow strip of land to get to the forts. Oh, and the forts already have their cannons dialed in to hit that little strip of land so have fun with that! Most early cities were set up in defensible spots so that the fort could cover the only approaches. You can't go around the blockhouse if the other side is a mountain or fast river

t6dp9n

asksciencefiction_train

[Star wars] what’s the difference between a Sith and a Lord. Why do some people call Anakin Lord Vader while others Darth Vader.

hzat9ie

hzcdmh4

Darth just means Lord of the Sith anyway.

Just because I'd like to share, I'd like to elaborate on how this applies to Sith of SWTOR, during the Cold War. So all Sith, when addressed by Imperials will be refered to as "My Lord", very deferential. That's not to say that all Sith outrank Imperials, your higher ranking Imperials will be allowed to direct Sith, but it's always at the pleasure of the Sith or their Master most likely. At the bottom rung you have Acolytes, Sith in training. In the Cold War Sith began allowing anyone, even Slaves, to train as Sith as an interesting tangent. An Acolyte who ~~survives their trials and fellow Acolytes~~ is selected to be the Apprentice of a more senior Lord will become their Apprentice. Once a Sith reaches a certain level of prestige and experience, they will formally be conferred the Title of Lord. Darth is reserved only for the most powerful and influential Sith. Twelve of those will be the Sith who rule the Dark Council. Those Sith have to be Darths, but they also have the power to bestow the title on those who they deem fit. The general rule of Sith of this era is that respec, station and power are very closely linked.

t6dp9n

asksciencefiction_train

[Star wars] what’s the difference between a Sith and a Lord. Why do some people call Anakin Lord Vader while others Darth Vader.

hzcdmh4

hzbhkm4

Just because I'd like to share, I'd like to elaborate on how this applies to Sith of SWTOR, during the Cold War. So all Sith, when addressed by Imperials will be refered to as "My Lord", very deferential. That's not to say that all Sith outrank Imperials, your higher ranking Imperials will be allowed to direct Sith, but it's always at the pleasure of the Sith or their Master most likely. At the bottom rung you have Acolytes, Sith in training. In the Cold War Sith began allowing anyone, even Slaves, to train as Sith as an interesting tangent. An Acolyte who ~~survives their trials and fellow Acolytes~~ is selected to be the Apprentice of a more senior Lord will become their Apprentice. Once a Sith reaches a certain level of prestige and experience, they will formally be conferred the Title of Lord. Darth is reserved only for the most powerful and influential Sith. Twelve of those will be the Sith who rule the Dark Council. Those Sith have to be Darths, but they also have the power to bestow the title on those who they deem fit. The general rule of Sith of this era is that respec, station and power are very closely linked.

"Darth" is Sith for "Lord."

t6dp9n

asksciencefiction_train

[Star wars] what’s the difference between a Sith and a Lord. Why do some people call Anakin Lord Vader while others Darth Vader.

hzbpvs6

hzcdmh4

In universe Darth Vader was referred to as Lord Vader because of his high position and his connection to the emperor. Something like Star Wars equivalent of being knighted (many Imperials with a few exceptions didn’t know Vader is a Sith Lord)

Just because I'd like to share, I'd like to elaborate on how this applies to Sith of SWTOR, during the Cold War. So all Sith, when addressed by Imperials will be refered to as "My Lord", very deferential. That's not to say that all Sith outrank Imperials, your higher ranking Imperials will be allowed to direct Sith, but it's always at the pleasure of the Sith or their Master most likely. At the bottom rung you have Acolytes, Sith in training. In the Cold War Sith began allowing anyone, even Slaves, to train as Sith as an interesting tangent. An Acolyte who ~~survives their trials and fellow Acolytes~~ is selected to be the Apprentice of a more senior Lord will become their Apprentice. Once a Sith reaches a certain level of prestige and experience, they will formally be conferred the Title of Lord. Darth is reserved only for the most powerful and influential Sith. Twelve of those will be the Sith who rule the Dark Council. Those Sith have to be Darths, but they also have the power to bestow the title on those who they deem fit. The general rule of Sith of this era is that respec, station and power are very closely linked.

x4gn2j

legaladvice_train

My boss fired me as soon as I brought up Him stealing our wages. It was basically the end of my shift and i was slightly argumentative about a menial task that was supposed to happen. There was some slight bickering back and forth and then I brought up that he was stealing from us and he told me that I can't do that and that I need to leave. It's Minnesota so technically he can fire me for any reason he wants almost. But there has to be something illegal about that and if so what do I do? I'm sorry if this isn't the place for this but I feel like I can win a case here.

imvddk9

imva5zz

You file for unemployment. If you can prove that he owes you wages, file a wage claim with the state.

Did you keep records of everything? Dates and times worked and not paid?

x4gn2j

legaladvice_train

My boss fired me as soon as I brought up Him stealing our wages. It was basically the end of my shift and i was slightly argumentative about a menial task that was supposed to happen. There was some slight bickering back and forth and then I brought up that he was stealing from us and he told me that I can't do that and that I need to leave. It's Minnesota so technically he can fire me for any reason he wants almost. But there has to be something illegal about that and if so what do I do? I'm sorry if this isn't the place for this but I feel like I can win a case here.

imva5zz

imvjeaz

Did you keep records of everything? Dates and times worked and not paid?

>then I brought up that he was stealing from us and he told me that I can't do that and that I need to leave. What words did you use more or less exactly? How was he stealing from you? You may have a claim for wrongful termination depending on the specific facts of what you said to him. It's illegal in Minnesota for an employer for fire an employee in retaliation for reporting a violation of law to the employer. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/181.932 *Subdivision 1.Prohibited action. An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:* *(1) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any federal or state law or common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official;*

x4gn2j

legaladvice_train

My boss fired me as soon as I brought up Him stealing our wages. It was basically the end of my shift and i was slightly argumentative about a menial task that was supposed to happen. There was some slight bickering back and forth and then I brought up that he was stealing from us and he told me that I can't do that and that I need to leave. It's Minnesota so technically he can fire me for any reason he wants almost. But there has to be something illegal about that and if so what do I do? I'm sorry if this isn't the place for this but I feel like I can win a case here.

imy1n4d

imx3hr2

What do you mean by "stealing our wages"?

MN residence (worked in HR) report to the MN Department of Labor, file a wage claim woth them. You also need to bring up the firing and if ypu can prove it, it could be retaliation for the wage complaint and they could get in serious trouble for it.

aicbx5

askbaking_train

Millionaire's shortbread with white chocolate? I want to make some millionaire's shortbread - but I like the aesthetics of a white chocolate top better than milk chocolate. Will it affect the taste too dearly?

eemte4m

eemrn76

White chocolate is sweeter than milk or dark and doesn’t actually taste like chocolate at all so yes it will affect the taste. Also you won’t have that lovely contrast in color that you get with the dark chocolate (I’ve never seen it with milk, but dark gives a lovely shiny dark top). All that being said, if you like white chocolate and don’t mind very sweet give it a go. Personally I would try dark and white chocolate with a feathered design, that would be very pretty without changing the flavor much from the original.

I would assume so since white chocolate has no cocoa in it, and is also a manufactured ‘chocolate’. Most white chocolate, to me, tastes plastic-y and artificial.

aicbx5

askbaking_train

Millionaire's shortbread with white chocolate? I want to make some millionaire's shortbread - but I like the aesthetics of a white chocolate top better than milk chocolate. Will it affect the taste too dearly?

eemwvxh

eemrn76

As others have said white chocolate contains no cocoa solids. Good white chocolate does however contain plenty cocoa butter. In exceptional white chocolate that coca butter has not been entirely clarified, leaving a more yellow colour and a stronger taste. The taste will of course still be significantly different than dark chocolate or even milk chocolate. White chocolate will always lack the bitterness and rich deep earth and fruit notes that the cocoa solids impart. A good white chocolate will taste floral, maybe even a bit citrusy. It will have a distinct creamy and buttery taste and mouthfeel. Often it is flavoured with vanilla, which (especially with cheaper brands) might be the overwhelming flavour note. White chocolate is a bit more finicky to work with than dark chocolate or milk chocolate. When heated too high it can easily separate, forming a curdled, unappetizing mass. Consequently, be very careful when melting white chocolate. Ideally, you should look into how to correctly temper it (which is really recommended for any type of chocolate). An idea you might want to experiment with is adding some cocoa powder to the shortbread dough to make cocoa shortbread. Simply start by substitute about 10% by weight of the flour for cocoa powder, adjusting if necessary.

I would assume so since white chocolate has no cocoa in it, and is also a manufactured ‘chocolate’. Most white chocolate, to me, tastes plastic-y and artificial.

aicbx5

askbaking_train

Millionaire's shortbread with white chocolate? I want to make some millionaire's shortbread - but I like the aesthetics of a white chocolate top better than milk chocolate. Will it affect the taste too dearly?

eemwvxh

eemu7n6

As others have said white chocolate contains no cocoa solids. Good white chocolate does however contain plenty cocoa butter. In exceptional white chocolate that coca butter has not been entirely clarified, leaving a more yellow colour and a stronger taste. The taste will of course still be significantly different than dark chocolate or even milk chocolate. White chocolate will always lack the bitterness and rich deep earth and fruit notes that the cocoa solids impart. A good white chocolate will taste floral, maybe even a bit citrusy. It will have a distinct creamy and buttery taste and mouthfeel. Often it is flavoured with vanilla, which (especially with cheaper brands) might be the overwhelming flavour note. White chocolate is a bit more finicky to work with than dark chocolate or milk chocolate. When heated too high it can easily separate, forming a curdled, unappetizing mass. Consequently, be very careful when melting white chocolate. Ideally, you should look into how to correctly temper it (which is really recommended for any type of chocolate). An idea you might want to experiment with is adding some cocoa powder to the shortbread dough to make cocoa shortbread. Simply start by substitute about 10% by weight of the flour for cocoa powder, adjusting if necessary.

I would go for it! White chocolate has a much milder taste compared to milk but you may need something on top to cut the richness, unless rich is what you’re going for :)

wtpx1h

asksciencefiction_train

[MCU] Was the original Captain America's shield as strong as the one he got later from Black Panther? Given that Howard Stark had probably never worked vibranium before is it possible that he may have not been able to produce an optimum strength shield??

il5p6tp

il5ihtf

The double wrist mounted ones? They’re both Vibranium, no reason to assume one is better than the other. The Wakandan shields are better offensively, but caps shield is larger and can bounce. He’d probably prefer his own.

when did he get 1 from black panther?

wtpx1h

asksciencefiction_train

[MCU] Was the original Captain America's shield as strong as the one he got later from Black Panther? Given that Howard Stark had probably never worked vibranium before is it possible that he may have not been able to produce an optimum strength shield??

il5sgnb

il5ihtf

Yes. They were both made of pure vibranium. The bonus for the original Shield is that he can toss it around.

when did he get 1 from black panther?

wtpx1h

asksciencefiction_train

[MCU] Was the original Captain America's shield as strong as the one he got later from Black Panther? Given that Howard Stark had probably never worked vibranium before is it possible that he may have not been able to produce an optimum strength shield??

il5ihtf

il684nc

when did he get 1 from black panther?

Really depends. They're made of the same stuff, but the thin ones he used in Infinity War would *not* be good storming Nazi Areas, where they all have automatic weapons. So it's really more situational than anything.

zvzfzp

legaladvice_train

A former employer I no longer work for is using my name and image to publish articles that I didn’t write. What can I do? I worked for about a year for an online gaming and technology website as a writer and editor and cut ties with them back in 2016 as I made a career switch. As I’m applying for jobs, I googled my name and discovered that over the past 5 years, the owner has written and published articles attributed to my name and using my profile picture. English is his second language, and the quality of these articles is nowhere near what I would put my name and face on. I’m worried about potential clients googling my name and seeing trash that I “wrote” that I, in actuality, had nothing to do with. Do I have any legal recourse here? I emailed him and asked him to take all the articles down, but if I don’t hear from him what are the next steps?

j1tfjev

j1tb5do

You believe the owner for the website maybe based out of Romania, correct? Turns out the Romanian courts have ruled that online impersonation is a crime in 2021. You could start by sending a Cease and Desist letter, and request the previous publications have your information removed from them.

Not a lawyer but I am a writer. There is a strong chance he is logged in using your credentials or you shared one account. He may have done this without realizing; not sure if this is something to take into consideration with regards to legal action. Obviously, if this is the case, he is not the most observant and he still should have noticed…but it may not be intentional. What if you sent a certified/signature required letter asking for removal or for him to change the author’s byline to his own for each article first? With confirmation from the carrier, you will be able to establish he received your request and he is more likely to read it and hopefully compelled to resolve this the easy way. If he does not take action, it strengthens your case if you do take the legal road.

zvzfzp

legaladvice_train

A former employer I no longer work for is using my name and image to publish articles that I didn’t write. What can I do? I worked for about a year for an online gaming and technology website as a writer and editor and cut ties with them back in 2016 as I made a career switch. As I’m applying for jobs, I googled my name and discovered that over the past 5 years, the owner has written and published articles attributed to my name and using my profile picture. English is his second language, and the quality of these articles is nowhere near what I would put my name and face on. I’m worried about potential clients googling my name and seeing trash that I “wrote” that I, in actuality, had nothing to do with. Do I have any legal recourse here? I emailed him and asked him to take all the articles down, but if I don’t hear from him what are the next steps?

j1tfjev

j1t8kmw

You believe the owner for the website maybe based out of Romania, correct? Turns out the Romanian courts have ruled that online impersonation is a crime in 2021. You could start by sending a Cease and Desist letter, and request the previous publications have your information removed from them.

I am not a lawyer. You don't need to have a lawyer to send a Cease and Desist, but it's a good idea to get one anyway. You could be entitled to any money they earned as a result of the work they posted as you, or work you may have lost due to their poor quality, but you will definitely need a lawyer and you'll have to be able to prove the damages. Make sure you take screenshots of everything before they have a chance to take it down.

zvzfzp

legaladvice_train

A former employer I no longer work for is using my name and image to publish articles that I didn’t write. What can I do? I worked for about a year for an online gaming and technology website as a writer and editor and cut ties with them back in 2016 as I made a career switch. As I’m applying for jobs, I googled my name and discovered that over the past 5 years, the owner has written and published articles attributed to my name and using my profile picture. English is his second language, and the quality of these articles is nowhere near what I would put my name and face on. I’m worried about potential clients googling my name and seeing trash that I “wrote” that I, in actuality, had nothing to do with. Do I have any legal recourse here? I emailed him and asked him to take all the articles down, but if I don’t hear from him what are the next steps?

j1tb5do

j1t8kmw

Not a lawyer but I am a writer. There is a strong chance he is logged in using your credentials or you shared one account. He may have done this without realizing; not sure if this is something to take into consideration with regards to legal action. Obviously, if this is the case, he is not the most observant and he still should have noticed…but it may not be intentional. What if you sent a certified/signature required letter asking for removal or for him to change the author’s byline to his own for each article first? With confirmation from the carrier, you will be able to establish he received your request and he is more likely to read it and hopefully compelled to resolve this the easy way. If he does not take action, it strengthens your case if you do take the legal road.

I am not a lawyer. You don't need to have a lawyer to send a Cease and Desist, but it's a good idea to get one anyway. You could be entitled to any money they earned as a result of the work they posted as you, or work you may have lost due to their poor quality, but you will definitely need a lawyer and you'll have to be able to prove the damages. Make sure you take screenshots of everything before they have a chance to take it down.

fhku1u

askbaking_train

Help baking bread with Guinness in it. So this was posted in Breadit the other day, and I want to personalize it (I don't have a starter), but I have a few questions first. This is the recipe in question that I want to personalize. I have access to FWSY, but could I make it with the overnight 50% whole wheat bread with biga? I'm also curious how the Guinness would react with the yeast. I don't have a sourdough, so how could I recreate this loaf for the 50% whole wheat with biga? Can I make the biga out of Guinness? Or should I make the biga out of water, then use Guinness for the rest of the water? Any help is appreciated. If this isn't clear, I will do my best to clarify!

fkcriaz

fkbu5wv

My instinct would be to use water for the preferment, and wait till the final mix to add the guinness, in order to delay adding ingredients that could inhibit or affect the fermentation (here, alcohol) to as late as possible in the process. To put it another way, you're adding guiness for its flavour, not its fermentation properties, so it should be added late in the process, similar to how olives, nuts etc. are folded in late rather than just mixed into the dough at the beginning. But I haven't done the experiment, so take with a grain of salt ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

Oh wow, now I want to make this too, except I just want a yeast loaf. Guinness is awesome in chocolate cake, and I'm surprised I never thought of it in bread!

fhku1u

askbaking_train

Help baking bread with Guinness in it. So this was posted in Breadit the other day, and I want to personalize it (I don't have a starter), but I have a few questions first. This is the recipe in question that I want to personalize. I have access to FWSY, but could I make it with the overnight 50% whole wheat bread with biga? I'm also curious how the Guinness would react with the yeast. I don't have a sourdough, so how could I recreate this loaf for the 50% whole wheat with biga? Can I make the biga out of Guinness? Or should I make the biga out of water, then use Guinness for the rest of the water? Any help is appreciated. If this isn't clear, I will do my best to clarify!

fkbq72j

fkcriaz

Wat is biga??

My instinct would be to use water for the preferment, and wait till the final mix to add the guinness, in order to delay adding ingredients that could inhibit or affect the fermentation (here, alcohol) to as late as possible in the process. To put it another way, you're adding guiness for its flavour, not its fermentation properties, so it should be added late in the process, similar to how olives, nuts etc. are folded in late rather than just mixed into the dough at the beginning. But I haven't done the experiment, so take with a grain of salt ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯

fhku1u

askbaking_train

Help baking bread with Guinness in it. So this was posted in Breadit the other day, and I want to personalize it (I don't have a starter), but I have a few questions first. This is the recipe in question that I want to personalize. I have access to FWSY, but could I make it with the overnight 50% whole wheat bread with biga? I'm also curious how the Guinness would react with the yeast. I don't have a sourdough, so how could I recreate this loaf for the 50% whole wheat with biga? Can I make the biga out of Guinness? Or should I make the biga out of water, then use Guinness for the rest of the water? Any help is appreciated. If this isn't clear, I will do my best to clarify!

fkbu5wv

fkbq72j

Oh wow, now I want to make this too, except I just want a yeast loaf. Guinness is awesome in chocolate cake, and I'm surprised I never thought of it in bread!

Wat is biga??

n38vnq

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] The main Marvel Comics universe is Earth-616. The MCU universe is Earth-199999. Our universe (where superheroes only exist in movies and comics) is Earth-1218. What is Earth-1?

gwoanm2

gwo9ugu

Earth-001 is where Morlun and his ilk come from. It's sort of like the middle of a vast web. https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Earth-001 For some more popular destinations in the Marvel Multiverse: * Earth 691 (the Martians from HG Wells' War of the Worlds manage to conquer Earth; after their liberation, Earthlings begin to aggressively explore space, and a thousand years in the future astronaut Vance Astro forms the Guardians of the Galaxy) * Earth 712 (home of the Squadron Supreme, who are basically a more misguided Justice League) * Earth 928 (Marvel 2099; unspecified cataclysm killed most heroes, leading to cyberpunk dystopia where heroes are only just beginning to return) * Earth 982 (MC2; world where the Marvel heroes finally got to retire and pass the torch on to their kids. Home of Peter Parker's daughter, the Amazing Spider Girl) * Earth 1610 (Ultimate Universe, where everything is less retro and more depressing, and people are jerks) * Earth 2149 (planet blighted by zombie apocalypse) * Earth 78411 (prehistoric world where dinosaurs coexist with cavemen; home of Moon Boy and Devil Dinosaur)

Earth-001 is the Loomworld, home of the Web of Destiny and Fate, and also home to the Inheritors, the totemic vampires like Morlun who tried to devour all of the Spider-people in the multiverse.

n38vnq

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] The main Marvel Comics universe is Earth-616. The MCU universe is Earth-199999. Our universe (where superheroes only exist in movies and comics) is Earth-1218. What is Earth-1?

gwoanm2

gwo9uzl

Earth-001 is where Morlun and his ilk come from. It's sort of like the middle of a vast web. https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Earth-001 For some more popular destinations in the Marvel Multiverse: * Earth 691 (the Martians from HG Wells' War of the Worlds manage to conquer Earth; after their liberation, Earthlings begin to aggressively explore space, and a thousand years in the future astronaut Vance Astro forms the Guardians of the Galaxy) * Earth 712 (home of the Squadron Supreme, who are basically a more misguided Justice League) * Earth 928 (Marvel 2099; unspecified cataclysm killed most heroes, leading to cyberpunk dystopia where heroes are only just beginning to return) * Earth 982 (MC2; world where the Marvel heroes finally got to retire and pass the torch on to their kids. Home of Peter Parker's daughter, the Amazing Spider Girl) * Earth 1610 (Ultimate Universe, where everything is less retro and more depressing, and people are jerks) * Earth 2149 (planet blighted by zombie apocalypse) * Earth 78411 (prehistoric world where dinosaurs coexist with cavemen; home of Moon Boy and Devil Dinosaur)

If you’re referring to Earth-001, then it is the home of the Totem Hunters and the Master Weaver. Earth-001 also contains the Web of Life and Destiny, which serves as a map of the Multiverse and is maintained by the arachnid deities known as the Spider-Totems.

n38vnq

asksciencefiction_train

[Marvel] The main Marvel Comics universe is Earth-616. The MCU universe is Earth-199999. Our universe (where superheroes only exist in movies and comics) is Earth-1218. What is Earth-1?

gwob5n3

gwp7gcu

Earth 001 contains the nexus of the web of life and destiny and was the home of the Inheritors a group of Spider-man villains that travel the multiverse and have filled earth-001 with various landmarks stolen from conquered realities.

I have to ask what Earth-42069 is.

4xsye2

legaladvice_train

[NSW Australia] Emancipated adult wanting to stop contact from abusive family Hi Everyone Background: More than twelve years ago, I was legally emancipated at the age of 12 due to abuse in my family. My two brothers and I were taken away from my sole-carer father by the Department of Community Services when I was 9 due to alcoholism, extreme physical and mental abuse and neglect. We were then given to our mother who retained full custody of us (and me until I turned 12). During this time my older brother raped and sexually assaulted me regularly for three years and my mother knew and saw it was happening and allowed it (and sometimes encouraged it) to happen. My younger brother also used to abuse me at the encouragement of my mother and older brother. I was also constantly not given access to food in the attempt to starve me, and was physically abused also, causing a broken arm. I tried to commit suicide at 12 and this is where the story with them finishes. I legally was emancipated, the police assisted me in getting an AVO out for all three of them (and at the time we had an AVO against our father). All three AVO's are now long expired. Since that age, I have moved around a lot because for some reason, my mother or my older brother kept being able to locate me and show up at the house and try to contact me for fun and to guilt me. I have also changed my private mobile number many times also. I have moved more than 25 times since I was 12 in very different locations - usually more than 45 minutes to two hours away from the previous location. They used to also show up at my work and laugh at me when I was in high school, causing me to get a manager and ask them to leave because of the AVO. I legally changed (all of) my names and appearance to hide and get away from them and am a silent elector (name not on electoral role) and have hidden my life, job and have no online presence under my name - I only have one Facebook which does not have my name or my picture and is set to all high privacy settings, and has a limited amount of close friends. I also regularly change the link in the address bar in case they have that. Every few years somehow either my mother or one of my brothers gets my (private) phone number, email or Facebook (which I have now deleted). I cannot create a Linkedin account for my job due to this fear of them finding it. I have continuously for the past few years searched for their names on social media and online to ensure they haven't created more new accounts to contact me and have blocked ones I find on a regular basis. At one point my mother found out a new bank account when I was 19 and transferred $5,000 to it with "love mum" description on it, which I got the bank to return. I have no contacts or people I know from that age or that would know them, yet I still get contact from them, even just sometimes "I know you are there" or "Not good at hiding are you?" and sometimes "your mother loves you". I also now live in another state to them in NSW (as I moved to avoid them). Is there a way I can stop them from contacting me at all, even just a cease and desist? It causes me undue stress and anxiety as I have done all I can do in my power to disappear, as well as continuous therapy. They are not being threatening but the words usually are there to taunt me. I spoke to the police and gave all the paperwork and evidence I have (including personal references who can confirm the amount of energy I have put into going into hiding) and they say there isn't anything they can do as they aren't being threatening.

d6ia5bp

d6i5yad

Someone is feeding them info. One of your very close friends. Tell them a story. Tell them a terrible or awesome tale, it really doesn't matter which. Change one detail of the story for each person. For example, happily tell all of your friends that you are getting married. Tell one that your partner's name is Christina/Chris. To another, their name is Mary/Mark. To another, James/Lucy. Whatever. Keep EXACT track as to who you told what name. Write it down right after you have that conversation. Then just wait...and see how long it takes for dear mom to contact you and say "When are we going to get the wedding invite?" To which you can say "What? I'm getting married?" Say nothing else than that. Extract info. Either you'll get the informant's name, or you'll get the false name who will out the informant anyway.

Have you only changed your name once? If yes this is likely how they are finding you, your name and some general information would be enough for a PI. I'm not sure about Aus but in some countries you can petition the court to change your name and seal the records. You'd also want a new social security number(or aus equivalent). If I was you I'd contact support groups for domestic violence, these groups normally have experience in helping victims disappear and hide when the legal system fails them. If all else fails maybe consider emigration, disappearing to another country might be enough and let you start fresh.

4xsye2

legaladvice_train

[NSW Australia] Emancipated adult wanting to stop contact from abusive family Hi Everyone Background: More than twelve years ago, I was legally emancipated at the age of 12 due to abuse in my family. My two brothers and I were taken away from my sole-carer father by the Department of Community Services when I was 9 due to alcoholism, extreme physical and mental abuse and neglect. We were then given to our mother who retained full custody of us (and me until I turned 12). During this time my older brother raped and sexually assaulted me regularly for three years and my mother knew and saw it was happening and allowed it (and sometimes encouraged it) to happen. My younger brother also used to abuse me at the encouragement of my mother and older brother. I was also constantly not given access to food in the attempt to starve me, and was physically abused also, causing a broken arm. I tried to commit suicide at 12 and this is where the story with them finishes. I legally was emancipated, the police assisted me in getting an AVO out for all three of them (and at the time we had an AVO against our father). All three AVO's are now long expired. Since that age, I have moved around a lot because for some reason, my mother or my older brother kept being able to locate me and show up at the house and try to contact me for fun and to guilt me. I have also changed my private mobile number many times also. I have moved more than 25 times since I was 12 in very different locations - usually more than 45 minutes to two hours away from the previous location. They used to also show up at my work and laugh at me when I was in high school, causing me to get a manager and ask them to leave because of the AVO. I legally changed (all of) my names and appearance to hide and get away from them and am a silent elector (name not on electoral role) and have hidden my life, job and have no online presence under my name - I only have one Facebook which does not have my name or my picture and is set to all high privacy settings, and has a limited amount of close friends. I also regularly change the link in the address bar in case they have that. Every few years somehow either my mother or one of my brothers gets my (private) phone number, email or Facebook (which I have now deleted). I cannot create a Linkedin account for my job due to this fear of them finding it. I have continuously for the past few years searched for their names on social media and online to ensure they haven't created more new accounts to contact me and have blocked ones I find on a regular basis. At one point my mother found out a new bank account when I was 19 and transferred $5,000 to it with "love mum" description on it, which I got the bank to return. I have no contacts or people I know from that age or that would know them, yet I still get contact from them, even just sometimes "I know you are there" or "Not good at hiding are you?" and sometimes "your mother loves you". I also now live in another state to them in NSW (as I moved to avoid them). Is there a way I can stop them from contacting me at all, even just a cease and desist? It causes me undue stress and anxiety as I have done all I can do in my power to disappear, as well as continuous therapy. They are not being threatening but the words usually are there to taunt me. I spoke to the police and gave all the paperwork and evidence I have (including personal references who can confirm the amount of energy I have put into going into hiding) and they say there isn't anything they can do as they aren't being threatening.

d6i7r88

d6ia5bp

Do you still have an AVO? I'm ignorant regarding there kinds of matters but I'm getting the impression that their actions may constitute harassment and/or stalking.

Someone is feeding them info. One of your very close friends. Tell them a story. Tell them a terrible or awesome tale, it really doesn't matter which. Change one detail of the story for each person. For example, happily tell all of your friends that you are getting married. Tell one that your partner's name is Christina/Chris. To another, their name is Mary/Mark. To another, James/Lucy. Whatever. Keep EXACT track as to who you told what name. Write it down right after you have that conversation. Then just wait...and see how long it takes for dear mom to contact you and say "When are we going to get the wedding invite?" To which you can say "What? I'm getting married?" Say nothing else than that. Extract info. Either you'll get the informant's name, or you'll get the false name who will out the informant anyway.

4xsye2

legaladvice_train

[NSW Australia] Emancipated adult wanting to stop contact from abusive family Hi Everyone Background: More than twelve years ago, I was legally emancipated at the age of 12 due to abuse in my family. My two brothers and I were taken away from my sole-carer father by the Department of Community Services when I was 9 due to alcoholism, extreme physical and mental abuse and neglect. We were then given to our mother who retained full custody of us (and me until I turned 12). During this time my older brother raped and sexually assaulted me regularly for three years and my mother knew and saw it was happening and allowed it (and sometimes encouraged it) to happen. My younger brother also used to abuse me at the encouragement of my mother and older brother. I was also constantly not given access to food in the attempt to starve me, and was physically abused also, causing a broken arm. I tried to commit suicide at 12 and this is where the story with them finishes. I legally was emancipated, the police assisted me in getting an AVO out for all three of them (and at the time we had an AVO against our father). All three AVO's are now long expired. Since that age, I have moved around a lot because for some reason, my mother or my older brother kept being able to locate me and show up at the house and try to contact me for fun and to guilt me. I have also changed my private mobile number many times also. I have moved more than 25 times since I was 12 in very different locations - usually more than 45 minutes to two hours away from the previous location. They used to also show up at my work and laugh at me when I was in high school, causing me to get a manager and ask them to leave because of the AVO. I legally changed (all of) my names and appearance to hide and get away from them and am a silent elector (name not on electoral role) and have hidden my life, job and have no online presence under my name - I only have one Facebook which does not have my name or my picture and is set to all high privacy settings, and has a limited amount of close friends. I also regularly change the link in the address bar in case they have that. Every few years somehow either my mother or one of my brothers gets my (private) phone number, email or Facebook (which I have now deleted). I cannot create a Linkedin account for my job due to this fear of them finding it. I have continuously for the past few years searched for their names on social media and online to ensure they haven't created more new accounts to contact me and have blocked ones I find on a regular basis. At one point my mother found out a new bank account when I was 19 and transferred $5,000 to it with "love mum" description on it, which I got the bank to return. I have no contacts or people I know from that age or that would know them, yet I still get contact from them, even just sometimes "I know you are there" or "Not good at hiding are you?" and sometimes "your mother loves you". I also now live in another state to them in NSW (as I moved to avoid them). Is there a way I can stop them from contacting me at all, even just a cease and desist? It causes me undue stress and anxiety as I have done all I can do in my power to disappear, as well as continuous therapy. They are not being threatening but the words usually are there to taunt me. I spoke to the police and gave all the paperwork and evidence I have (including personal references who can confirm the amount of energy I have put into going into hiding) and they say there isn't anything they can do as they aren't being threatening.

d6iahus

d6i7r88

If they find you or contact you again then you should file a report for stalking with your local NSW Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officer and take out another Apprehended Violence Order which either the Police or LegalAid NSW can help you file. Your family will then know your current name, address and whereabouts, which I know you want to avoid. However their actions to date may already have passed the point where Police will want to prosecute and even if that's not the case they will be in breach of the new order if they contact you again.

Do you still have an AVO? I'm ignorant regarding there kinds of matters but I'm getting the impression that their actions may constitute harassment and/or stalking.

xvyid5

askbaking_train

Enriching your cookies or similar baked snacks with Multi-Vitamin Powder (Whey, for example) I had this idea of making my boys cookies that would cover their daily nutritional needs, keep their stomachs satisfied throughout their hours in college and give them an energy boost. I was wondering if it was best to mix it with the dough or a specific ingredient (for example, melting chocolate and adding a multi-vitamin powder to that to later either freeze and make chocolate chips or use it once it's cool enough to cover regular cookies with), which way would be best? I appreciate any help anyone may offer and if you have done anything similar and have more suggestions, please I'd love to hear them.

ir5ajaa

ir4brje

Multi vitamin powder shouldn’t need a high percentage to get what’s needed. I would be more concerned about the cooking process and what vitamins would be degraded and essentially useless. If you put all this effort in to find out you are just cooking out your functional ingredients that would be sad

why not try looking up recipes specifically for this? there are loads of recipes out there for protein bars and energy balls and smoothies and things that i’m sure you could find or easily add your powders to — i think subbing out ingredients or adding them to bakes is quite a bit trickier.

xvyid5

askbaking_train

Enriching your cookies or similar baked snacks with Multi-Vitamin Powder (Whey, for example) I had this idea of making my boys cookies that would cover their daily nutritional needs, keep their stomachs satisfied throughout their hours in college and give them an energy boost. I was wondering if it was best to mix it with the dough or a specific ingredient (for example, melting chocolate and adding a multi-vitamin powder to that to later either freeze and make chocolate chips or use it once it's cool enough to cover regular cookies with), which way would be best? I appreciate any help anyone may offer and if you have done anything similar and have more suggestions, please I'd love to hear them.

ir5ajaa

ir45ar9

Multi vitamin powder shouldn’t need a high percentage to get what’s needed. I would be more concerned about the cooking process and what vitamins would be degraded and essentially useless. If you put all this effort in to find out you are just cooking out your functional ingredients that would be sad

For basic cookies you can generally swap around 10% of the flour weight. But the exact ratio you'd have to play with: for cocoa powder, for example, you can replace 1 Tbsp. of flour for 2 Tbsp. cocoa powder. (Sorry, don't have my notes handy for by-weight subs... maybe others can help). It depends on the protein, fat, starch content of the dry ingredients, and also its chemical makeup. Cocoa powder for example is acidic (not dutch-processed cocoa powder!) which can change the rising process if you're using chemical leaveners. That said, you might find better luck looking at meal prep recipes that incorporate such powders. Keto diets, weightlifting diets, etc that target home cooking for protein/energy bars. Some of them can get pretty dressed up and sweet (though usually not with refined sugar, but things like maple syrup, molasses, dried fruit, etc). Plenty to include chocolate, too.

xvyid5

askbaking_train

Enriching your cookies or similar baked snacks with Multi-Vitamin Powder (Whey, for example) I had this idea of making my boys cookies that would cover their daily nutritional needs, keep their stomachs satisfied throughout their hours in college and give them an energy boost. I was wondering if it was best to mix it with the dough or a specific ingredient (for example, melting chocolate and adding a multi-vitamin powder to that to later either freeze and make chocolate chips or use it once it's cool enough to cover regular cookies with), which way would be best? I appreciate any help anyone may offer and if you have done anything similar and have more suggestions, please I'd love to hear them.

ir45ar9

ir4brje

For basic cookies you can generally swap around 10% of the flour weight. But the exact ratio you'd have to play with: for cocoa powder, for example, you can replace 1 Tbsp. of flour for 2 Tbsp. cocoa powder. (Sorry, don't have my notes handy for by-weight subs... maybe others can help). It depends on the protein, fat, starch content of the dry ingredients, and also its chemical makeup. Cocoa powder for example is acidic (not dutch-processed cocoa powder!) which can change the rising process if you're using chemical leaveners. That said, you might find better luck looking at meal prep recipes that incorporate such powders. Keto diets, weightlifting diets, etc that target home cooking for protein/energy bars. Some of them can get pretty dressed up and sweet (though usually not with refined sugar, but things like maple syrup, molasses, dried fruit, etc). Plenty to include chocolate, too.

why not try looking up recipes specifically for this? there are loads of recipes out there for protein bars and energy balls and smoothies and things that i’m sure you could find or easily add your powders to — i think subbing out ingredients or adding them to bakes is quite a bit trickier.

w25nel

askbaking_train

Reducing Sugar, what else do I need to change? As per the title, I want to reduce the sugar in a cake I’m making. Currently the recipe contains: - 180g unsalted butter, softened - 480g sugar - 6 large eggs - 200g cold buttermilk - 100g vegetable oil - 12g tsp vanilla extract - 375g ap flour - 12g baking powder - 6g salt It was way too sweet. I want to reduce the sugar to maybe about 300g. What else do I need to change if I do that? Thanks everyone.

igoivue

igp3qch

Oh yeah, that’s the amount of sugar you would typically expect to see in a chocolate cake but not a vanilla buttermilk one. Reduce the sugar to the weight of the flour and you should be fine. Just keep in mind the reduction of sugar will also result in a reduction of moistness but also an increase in structural integrity, so if moistness is important to you then you can replace a couple of the eggs with egg yolks or replace some of the buttermilk with sour cream.

I would start at a 25% reduction, so down to 360g. Reducing the sugar in a cake further than that can cause some structural issues. It also has a ton of eggs (seriously, where did this recipe come from?). Lowering it much more could result in egg cake.

w25nel

askbaking_train

Reducing Sugar, what else do I need to change? As per the title, I want to reduce the sugar in a cake I’m making. Currently the recipe contains: - 180g unsalted butter, softened - 480g sugar - 6 large eggs - 200g cold buttermilk - 100g vegetable oil - 12g tsp vanilla extract - 375g ap flour - 12g baking powder - 6g salt It was way too sweet. I want to reduce the sugar to maybe about 300g. What else do I need to change if I do that? Thanks everyone.

igp3qch

igo98pf

I would start at a 25% reduction, so down to 360g. Reducing the sugar in a cake further than that can cause some structural issues. It also has a ton of eggs (seriously, where did this recipe come from?). Lowering it much more could result in egg cake.

I think you'd be fine just reducing the sugar.

w25nel

askbaking_train

Reducing Sugar, what else do I need to change? As per the title, I want to reduce the sugar in a cake I’m making. Currently the recipe contains: - 180g unsalted butter, softened - 480g sugar - 6 large eggs - 200g cold buttermilk - 100g vegetable oil - 12g tsp vanilla extract - 375g ap flour - 12g baking powder - 6g salt It was way too sweet. I want to reduce the sugar to maybe about 300g. What else do I need to change if I do that? Thanks everyone.

igo98pf

igoivue

I think you'd be fine just reducing the sugar.

Oh yeah, that’s the amount of sugar you would typically expect to see in a chocolate cake but not a vanilla buttermilk one. Reduce the sugar to the weight of the flour and you should be fine. Just keep in mind the reduction of sugar will also result in a reduction of moistness but also an increase in structural integrity, so if moistness is important to you then you can replace a couple of the eggs with egg yolks or replace some of the buttermilk with sour cream.

2yxbw2

askculinary_train

KitchenAid Stand Mixer Maintenance Question Please let me know if this would be a more appropriate question for /r/DIY or some other sub. I have a KitchenAid Artisan mixer that is due for some maintenance. I want to clean and re-grease the transmission, and while I have the case open, replace a speed switch that has lost a knob. There is a retaining pin holding the snout into the rest of the planetary gearbox that I cannot remove. I have tried tapping it out fairly aggressively with a mallet and a smaller pin, but it won't budge. I don't have immediate access to an arbor press, so I'm kind of at a loss as to how best to proceed. Has anyone here encountered a similar problem and come up with a clever solution? Thanks in advance!

cpdvk2m

cpdu9xr

The pin in my KitchenAid manages to wiggle free during normal use, and in trying to return it to the correct location I have found the manoeuvre requires a specific angle of lift - in my case approximately 30 degrees from horizontal. There is no key so I am not sure why this is the case, but possibly try a few different angles while applying force to the pin?

Pics leading up to and including your problem/question!

2yxbw2

askculinary_train

KitchenAid Stand Mixer Maintenance Question Please let me know if this would be a more appropriate question for /r/DIY or some other sub. I have a KitchenAid Artisan mixer that is due for some maintenance. I want to clean and re-grease the transmission, and while I have the case open, replace a speed switch that has lost a knob. There is a retaining pin holding the snout into the rest of the planetary gearbox that I cannot remove. I have tried tapping it out fairly aggressively with a mallet and a smaller pin, but it won't budge. I don't have immediate access to an arbor press, so I'm kind of at a loss as to how best to proceed. Has anyone here encountered a similar problem and come up with a clever solution? Thanks in advance!

cpdtd1y

cpdvk2m

Perhaps try with an actual punch?-- I don't blame you for not having them around, I don't have a set either. I tend to think a properly sized punch would get the job done. You could also try and hose it down with some penetrating oil first.

The pin in my KitchenAid manages to wiggle free during normal use, and in trying to return it to the correct location I have found the manoeuvre requires a specific angle of lift - in my case approximately 30 degrees from horizontal. There is no key so I am not sure why this is the case, but possibly try a few different angles while applying force to the pin?

2yxbw2

askculinary_train

KitchenAid Stand Mixer Maintenance Question Please let me know if this would be a more appropriate question for /r/DIY or some other sub. I have a KitchenAid Artisan mixer that is due for some maintenance. I want to clean and re-grease the transmission, and while I have the case open, replace a speed switch that has lost a knob. There is a retaining pin holding the snout into the rest of the planetary gearbox that I cannot remove. I have tried tapping it out fairly aggressively with a mallet and a smaller pin, but it won't budge. I don't have immediate access to an arbor press, so I'm kind of at a loss as to how best to proceed. Has anyone here encountered a similar problem and come up with a clever solution? Thanks in advance!

cpdtd1y

cpdu9xr

Perhaps try with an actual punch?-- I don't blame you for not having them around, I don't have a set either. I tend to think a properly sized punch would get the job done. You could also try and hose it down with some penetrating oil first.

Pics leading up to and including your problem/question!

e7ohlh

legaladvice_train

A clothing company I used to work for is now sending me a cease and desist letter for using designs they rejected (MI) So I used to work for a clothing company, and I submitted several designs to them they rejected and never used. I have since quit, and started using the designs I made myself they didn’t use. Recently they have contacted me threatening with a cease and desist. This is what my employment contract stated about non-compete/confidentiality. > Each party (on its behalf and on behalf of its subcontractors, employees or representatives, or agents of any kind) agrees to hold and treat all confidential information of the other party, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, sales figures, employee and customer information and any other information that the receiving party reasonably should know is confidential as confidential, and protect the information with the same degree of care as each party uses to protect its own confidential information. > The parties intend that, to the extent the deliverables or a portion of the deliverables qualify as a “work made for hire,” within the definition of Section 101 of the Copyright Act of the United States (17 U.S.C. § 101), it will be so deemed a work made for hire. > Confidential Information does not include any information that at the time of the disclosure or thereafter is lawfully obtained from publicly available sources generally known by the public (other than as a result of a disclosure by the receiving party or its representatives). None of the designs were made on company time or on company computers. The designs I’m currently using were designs they asked for when I started as a “baseline” for my work. They said if they liked them, they’d consider using them, but they never expressed interest in them. What can I do?

fa2n4bb

fa5yim2

I was able to use Lawyers for the Arts when I had some copyright issues at the dawn of the internet. There is something similar in Michigan - it’s worth a phone call to see if they can help. https://vlany.org/national-directory-of-volunteer-lawyers-for-the-arts/

*The designs I’m currently using were designs they asked for when I started as a “baseline” for my work. They said if they liked them, they’d consider using them, but they never expressed interest in them.* ​ This is the line I'm having trouble with. Were you already hired and were specifically requested for this work? If so, this likely means they commissioned it from you and they don't *have* to use it but it does belong to them. Or is this *portfolio* work that they wanted to see to make sure you actually could do the job *before* offering you a permanent position? That will make a difference.

e7ohlh

legaladvice_train

A clothing company I used to work for is now sending me a cease and desist letter for using designs they rejected (MI) So I used to work for a clothing company, and I submitted several designs to them they rejected and never used. I have since quit, and started using the designs I made myself they didn’t use. Recently they have contacted me threatening with a cease and desist. This is what my employment contract stated about non-compete/confidentiality. > Each party (on its behalf and on behalf of its subcontractors, employees or representatives, or agents of any kind) agrees to hold and treat all confidential information of the other party, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, sales figures, employee and customer information and any other information that the receiving party reasonably should know is confidential as confidential, and protect the information with the same degree of care as each party uses to protect its own confidential information. > The parties intend that, to the extent the deliverables or a portion of the deliverables qualify as a “work made for hire,” within the definition of Section 101 of the Copyright Act of the United States (17 U.S.C. § 101), it will be so deemed a work made for hire. > Confidential Information does not include any information that at the time of the disclosure or thereafter is lawfully obtained from publicly available sources generally known by the public (other than as a result of a disclosure by the receiving party or its representatives). None of the designs were made on company time or on company computers. The designs I’m currently using were designs they asked for when I started as a “baseline” for my work. They said if they liked them, they’d consider using them, but they never expressed interest in them. What can I do?

fa5yim2

fa2hiiz

*The designs I’m currently using were designs they asked for when I started as a “baseline” for my work. They said if they liked them, they’d consider using them, but they never expressed interest in them.* ​ This is the line I'm having trouble with. Were you already hired and were specifically requested for this work? If so, this likely means they commissioned it from you and they don't *have* to use it but it does belong to them. Or is this *portfolio* work that they wanted to see to make sure you actually could do the job *before* offering you a permanent position? That will make a difference.

Was submitting the designs like a resume? Or is it your job to submit designs?

e7ohlh

legaladvice_train

A clothing company I used to work for is now sending me a cease and desist letter for using designs they rejected (MI) So I used to work for a clothing company, and I submitted several designs to them they rejected and never used. I have since quit, and started using the designs I made myself they didn’t use. Recently they have contacted me threatening with a cease and desist. This is what my employment contract stated about non-compete/confidentiality. > Each party (on its behalf and on behalf of its subcontractors, employees or representatives, or agents of any kind) agrees to hold and treat all confidential information of the other party, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, sales figures, employee and customer information and any other information that the receiving party reasonably should know is confidential as confidential, and protect the information with the same degree of care as each party uses to protect its own confidential information. > The parties intend that, to the extent the deliverables or a portion of the deliverables qualify as a “work made for hire,” within the definition of Section 101 of the Copyright Act of the United States (17 U.S.C. § 101), it will be so deemed a work made for hire. > Confidential Information does not include any information that at the time of the disclosure or thereafter is lawfully obtained from publicly available sources generally known by the public (other than as a result of a disclosure by the receiving party or its representatives). None of the designs were made on company time or on company computers. The designs I’m currently using were designs they asked for when I started as a “baseline” for my work. They said if they liked them, they’d consider using them, but they never expressed interest in them. What can I do?

fa2hiiz

fa2n4bb

Was submitting the designs like a resume? Or is it your job to submit designs?

I was able to use Lawyers for the Arts when I had some copyright issues at the dawn of the internet. There is something similar in Michigan - it’s worth a phone call to see if they can help. https://vlany.org/national-directory-of-volunteer-lawyers-for-the-arts/

ctrewx

changemyview_train

CMV: r/gendercritical is not a feminist sub and is, instead, a hate speech sub that misuses the word feminist. Feminism aims for equality, by definition. That being said, subs like r/gendercritical misuses the word and instead engages in hate speech against men. They talk about men as horrible and ignore issues such as male suicide blaming it on me fragility yet being bullies which is a part of what causes male suicide rates to be so high. The sub is a misandrist sub pretending to be feminist to try to hide that they are man haters. On top of that they are transphobic and while feminism doesn't include equality for all genders by definition, it's definitely another thing to note when considering how r/gendercritical is a hate speech sub that is no in support of feminism at all.

exn1h63

exmzlsq

Just to clarify, are you trying to assert that TERFs in general are not feminists? Or is your criticism specific to /r/gendercritical and not applicable to TERFs in general?

Feminism is simply activism that is related to women. While equality is the most common rallying cry, it is not the only one. Under 3rd wave feminism each person is able to define feminism as they so choose so GenderCritical could be feminist according to a select view.

ctrewx

changemyview_train

CMV: r/gendercritical is not a feminist sub and is, instead, a hate speech sub that misuses the word feminist. Feminism aims for equality, by definition. That being said, subs like r/gendercritical misuses the word and instead engages in hate speech against men. They talk about men as horrible and ignore issues such as male suicide blaming it on me fragility yet being bullies which is a part of what causes male suicide rates to be so high. The sub is a misandrist sub pretending to be feminist to try to hide that they are man haters. On top of that they are transphobic and while feminism doesn't include equality for all genders by definition, it's definitely another thing to note when considering how r/gendercritical is a hate speech sub that is no in support of feminism at all.

exnyddl

exmzlsq

I am a guy, and I don't consider myself a feminist, but I sympathize to a certain degree with the views that are commonly posted on /r/GenderCritical, because unlike the other feminist communities that focus on non-issues like gender pay gap or pronouns, they actually point out real problems. Like the tendency among many men to see themselves as entitled to women's bodies and affection, and become violent when they are refused. Or the the fact men commit all mass shootings, the overwhelming amount of violent crime and sexual assaults, they start all the wars, and so on. So you might say they hate men, but when they do they do it for justified reasons. For most part. I do agree there might be some users that suffer of depression or other mental issues and use men as scapegoats for their own failures in life, in a similar fashion incels do with women, but I do not think they are the dominant voice there.

Feminism is simply activism that is related to women. While equality is the most common rallying cry, it is not the only one. Under 3rd wave feminism each person is able to define feminism as they so choose so GenderCritical could be feminist according to a select view.

ctrewx

changemyview_train

CMV: r/gendercritical is not a feminist sub and is, instead, a hate speech sub that misuses the word feminist. Feminism aims for equality, by definition. That being said, subs like r/gendercritical misuses the word and instead engages in hate speech against men. They talk about men as horrible and ignore issues such as male suicide blaming it on me fragility yet being bullies which is a part of what causes male suicide rates to be so high. The sub is a misandrist sub pretending to be feminist to try to hide that they are man haters. On top of that they are transphobic and while feminism doesn't include equality for all genders by definition, it's definitely another thing to note when considering how r/gendercritical is a hate speech sub that is no in support of feminism at all.

exqalht

exnyncl

I see a lot of comments referencing dictionary definitions, and you've given deltas based on those, but I'm going to take a different tack here. I don't find dictionary definitions of something like feminism to be particularly useful when you get into these sort of disputes/ disagreements. What's more useful to understanding the issues places like this sub bring up is to understand feminism as a philosophy and a philosophical approach that has a history and disagreements within it. For example, the broad term "liberalism" contains tons of different thinkers from Locke to Rawls and many others. They disagree on a lot of core things, even something as foundational as what "freedom" means. One liberal thinker might argue that freedom includes certain positive rights (like health care) guaranteed by the government. Others view that as antithetical to freedom. That doesn't mean one is "really liberal" and the other isn't. They're both within the liberal tradition, they both use the liberal framework, they just have differences in the conclusions they draw from that philosophical approach. "Gender critical" feminists or TERFs are still operating within a broad feminist framework by using, for example, gender as a critical lens to examine power relations between people. They just do so in a harmful and ignorant way that leads to hateful and discriminatory policy positions. Being feminist does not guarantee good philosophy- there can be feminists that advocate harmful positions just as there can be liberals that do so. And frankly it's not particularly useful to try to claim they're not really feminists rather than arguing why their claims and culture are harmful on their own merits. You don't need to remove them from the "feminist" box to disagree with them as a feminist.

>Feminism aims for equality, by definition. Democracy is the rule of the people. Yet the democratic Republic of North corea is all but democratic. People can claim a definition, and label themselves as such while it isn't true. We also have the problem of definitions made about groups in power. I wouldn't trust the definition of communism given by a dictionary in the 1950s, be it in the USSR or the USA. I wouldn't trust the catholic churches definition of itself or of what Christianity is, as they would likely forget to mentions details like the protection of Nazis and pedophiles, and would probably not be completely fair in their representation of the legitimacy of the other kind of Christianity like orthodoxy or protestantism. Now, feminism has influence over almost every major governments, with many government having explicit bodies similar to our French "secretariat a l'égalité homme femme" which is dedicated only to women's issues, and people like Obama wearing a "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt. Feminism has a huge influence over the UN, which regularly invite feminist speakers, and publish feminist documents, and over the academia where it has several departments dedicated to feminist studies. It also has a huge influence over the media with plenty of journals propagating their talking points. Despite all that, only a small portion of the people call themselves feminists. So here's the question : why should I trust a dictionary definition of feminism? After all, a dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. And a dictionary can be influenced by the power structures in place. And feminism has a huge influence over those power structures. So, you might decide to use feminism to be synonymous with gender equality. My question would then be : how accurate is your definition? After all, all definitions are flawed, as they are supposed to capture what people understand of a word, but what each person understand of a word is highly dependent on their experiences, etc, and à definition can never capture the nuances of everyone's understanding, and once a definition is set, it changes as languages evolve, and looses accuracy. So how do you determine that your definition is accurate? Me, I would do like I do for North korea : actions speak louder than words. What are the actions made by the feminist organizations and governmental bodies? Of course, you could not care about whether your definition is accurate or not. But in that case, why should I care about what you think feminism is or isn't, and what is or isn't feminist, as it would be completely useless for me to communicate anything of substance. So, would you be willing to examine with me if you are accurate when you say "feminism by definition aims for equality"?

wezklc

askbaking_train

Accidentally bought sweetened applesauce instead of unsweetened to use in cupcakes? Should I reduce the sugar in the recipe? The Best Vegan Chocolate Cupcakes - Nora Cooks It calls for 3/4 cup sugar and 1/3 cup unsweetened applesauce, but I got sweetened by accident.

iir6fhl

iir6j6a

Google says there's about 20-25g of sugar per cup of unsweetened applesauce. So although you should reduce the sugar it shouldn't be to the total in the applesauce but rather the difference from unsweetened to sweetened. It's also a subjective taste thing as always.

You can, but there’s not that much difference. I wouldn’t bother.

wezklc

askbaking_train

Accidentally bought sweetened applesauce instead of unsweetened to use in cupcakes? Should I reduce the sugar in the recipe? The Best Vegan Chocolate Cupcakes - Nora Cooks It calls for 3/4 cup sugar and 1/3 cup unsweetened applesauce, but I got sweetened by accident.

iir6j6a

iir66cx

You can, but there’s not that much difference. I wouldn’t bother.

I'd look at how much sugar is in the Apple sauce and reduce the sugar accordingly.

wezklc

askbaking_train

Accidentally bought sweetened applesauce instead of unsweetened to use in cupcakes? Should I reduce the sugar in the recipe? The Best Vegan Chocolate Cupcakes - Nora Cooks It calls for 3/4 cup sugar and 1/3 cup unsweetened applesauce, but I got sweetened by accident.

iir6fhl

iir66cx

Google says there's about 20-25g of sugar per cup of unsweetened applesauce. So although you should reduce the sugar it shouldn't be to the total in the applesauce but rather the difference from unsweetened to sweetened. It's also a subjective taste thing as always.

I'd look at how much sugar is in the Apple sauce and reduce the sugar accordingly.

v39u0g

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old why is white rice cheaper than brown rice if it's the processed form of latter?

iawxy42

iawxzmq

1. A practical factor: White rice has been stripped of the bran and germ of the rice seed. The bran and germ of the rice seed both contain oils which can oxidize and go rancid over time. This means that white rice can be stored for years longer than brown rice without going bad, and it can be stored under less strictly controlled conditions. This makes white rice easier to work with. This in turn reduces the costs of storage, and reduces losses from spoilage. 2. An economic factor: Commodities cost "whatever the market will bear". People are willing to pay more for brown rice and expect it to cost more. Brown rice is assumed to be healthier and "more natural" than white rice, and this gives it positive associations in the minds of some consumers. Brown rice is thought of as "better for you", and so people expect it to be sold at a premium for being a better product. Sellers are more than happy to sell it for a premium, because that increases their profit margins on a product that already costs more to handle.

White rice is just brown rice with the bran removed. The bran has oil in it which can be extracted to form another product, rice bran oil. By splitting the cost of production between two products a lower price can be provided for the white rice. Another factor is that the oil in the bran means that brown rice can spoil more easily than white rice. Shorter shelf life and more costly transportation means brown rice pushes brown rice to be more expensive.

v39u0g

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old why is white rice cheaper than brown rice if it's the processed form of latter?

iaxax5n

iax76ie

Why is puffed rice so god damned expensive compared to dry rice? It's a shelf stable high volume commodity product. You are adding one massive industrial process onto a sting of 5, it should add pennies per pound. Double the price is fine, but not a full order of magnitude 1000+% increase at retail. Cereal is about the cheapest food on earth, until it's breakfast cereals. It's 10x more work to turn grains into bread with 1/10th the shelf life with a much smaller margin. It's life if roasted peanuts were .99c & salted roasted peanuts were $9.99

Not sure if it's the case with rice, but for a lot of products the 'raw' form is more expensive than processed because you've got to use the higher quality stuff. It's most obvious with fruits and vegetables; all the stuff you buy in the shop will be a nice neat shape, fairly clean, and free from bruises and gouges. None of that matters if it's going to be chopped up and hidden in other food, so even though there's a processing cost it still works out cheaper. That processing also hides any imperfections in taste/texture, and can often be tweaked to provide a consistent taste by mixing different batches.

v39u0g

explainlikeimfive_train

Explain like I'm five years old why is white rice cheaper than brown rice if it's the processed form of latter?

iaxiniw

iax76ie

I think most people covered the best answers. One possible thing is also that the economies of scale work better when processing white rice as it is much more popular. If something is sold more, the cost of producing it will go down. In comparison, processing of brown rice is rarer due to lower demand, meaning it is not as efficient to do so.

Not sure if it's the case with rice, but for a lot of products the 'raw' form is more expensive than processed because you've got to use the higher quality stuff. It's most obvious with fruits and vegetables; all the stuff you buy in the shop will be a nice neat shape, fairly clean, and free from bruises and gouges. None of that matters if it's going to be chopped up and hidden in other food, so even though there's a processing cost it still works out cheaper. That processing also hides any imperfections in taste/texture, and can often be tweaked to provide a consistent taste by mixing different batches.

juw1i0

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] How did the wizarding world react to the moon landing in 1969? Did they care, was it no big deal, have they been to the moon? Are there wizards on the moon!?!

gcg4g8y

gcg7j53

My headcannon is the wizarding world has no idea that we **literally** landed on the moon, and they would be impressed that the muggles would have the ability to do so without magic had they believed they did in the first place

Wizards, being extremely racist, refuse to find the very real accomplishments of muggles to be noteworthy, regardless of objective difficulty or breadth of achievement. They probably even held sometimes conflicting notions that it was both fake and not worth doing to begin with.

juw1i0

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] How did the wizarding world react to the moon landing in 1969? Did they care, was it no big deal, have they been to the moon? Are there wizards on the moon!?!

gcghowp

gcgkol2

\(from a fanfiction\) > And Harry raced back up the stairs and shoved the staircase back into the trunk with his heel, and, panting, turned the pages of the book until he found the picture he wanted to show to Draco. > The one with the white, dry, cratered land, and the suited people, and the blue-white globe hanging over it all. > That picture. > The picture, if only one picture in all the world were to survive. > "That," Harry said, his voice trembling because he couldn't quite keep the pride out, "is what the Earth looks like from the Moon." > > Draco slowly leaned over. There was a strange expression on his young face. "If that's a real picture, why isn't it moving?" > > Moving? Oh. "Muggles can do moving pictures but they need a bigger box to show it, they can't fit them onto single book pages yet." > > Draco's finger moved to one of the suits. "What are those?" His voice starting to waver. > > "Those are human beings. They are wearing suits that cover their whole bodies to give them air, because there is no air on the Moon." > > "That's impossible," Draco whispered. There was terror in his eyes, and utter confusion. "No Muggle could ever do that. How..." > > Harry took back the book, flipped the pages until he found what he saw. "This is a rocket going up. The fire pushes it higher and higher, until it gets to the Moon." Flipped pages again. "This is a rocket on the ground. That tiny speck next to it is a person." Draco gasped. "Going to the Moon cost the equivalent of... probably around a thousand million Galleons." Draco choked. "And it took the efforts of... probably more people than live in all of magical Britain." And when they arrived, they left a plaque that said, 'We came in peace, for all mankind.' Though you're not yet ready to hear those words, Draco Malfoy... > > "You're telling the truth," Draco said slowly. "You wouldn't fake a whole book just for this - and I can hear it in your voice. But... but..."

We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harppon, For they ain't no whales So we tell tall tales And sing our whaling tune.

juw1i0

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] How did the wizarding world react to the moon landing in 1969? Did they care, was it no big deal, have they been to the moon? Are there wizards on the moon!?!

gcghowp

gcgrw4d

\(from a fanfiction\) > And Harry raced back up the stairs and shoved the staircase back into the trunk with his heel, and, panting, turned the pages of the book until he found the picture he wanted to show to Draco. > The one with the white, dry, cratered land, and the suited people, and the blue-white globe hanging over it all. > That picture. > The picture, if only one picture in all the world were to survive. > "That," Harry said, his voice trembling because he couldn't quite keep the pride out, "is what the Earth looks like from the Moon." > > Draco slowly leaned over. There was a strange expression on his young face. "If that's a real picture, why isn't it moving?" > > Moving? Oh. "Muggles can do moving pictures but they need a bigger box to show it, they can't fit them onto single book pages yet." > > Draco's finger moved to one of the suits. "What are those?" His voice starting to waver. > > "Those are human beings. They are wearing suits that cover their whole bodies to give them air, because there is no air on the Moon." > > "That's impossible," Draco whispered. There was terror in his eyes, and utter confusion. "No Muggle could ever do that. How..." > > Harry took back the book, flipped the pages until he found what he saw. "This is a rocket going up. The fire pushes it higher and higher, until it gets to the Moon." Flipped pages again. "This is a rocket on the ground. That tiny speck next to it is a person." Draco gasped. "Going to the Moon cost the equivalent of... probably around a thousand million Galleons." Draco choked. "And it took the efforts of... probably more people than live in all of magical Britain." And when they arrived, they left a plaque that said, 'We came in peace, for all mankind.' Though you're not yet ready to hear those words, Draco Malfoy... > > "You're telling the truth," Draco said slowly. "You wouldn't fake a whole book just for this - and I can hear it in your voice. But... but..."

British society appears to be extremely backwards and traditionalist. The Americans we see 50 years earlier in the movies while not using modern technology are somewhat learned. Most Americans wizards are aware and partied when it happened. Several learned and smart wizards in the whole world keep abreast of the developinngs of the nomaj world. There was some data regarding a polish wizard that had reached the moon safely. It was on some old cards and I've seen it before. Remember that apparition has a distance limit regarding power. Portkeys are not easy and other methods still require personal power. Any point from earth to any other is at most 12,750 km away. The moon is 300,000 km away . Special magics has to be designed.

lo0rec

askbaking_train

In Bravetart devils food choco cake. Slight baking soda after taste. Not enough acid to neutralize all BS? Can I reduce it a little? I made this Bravetart chocolate devils food cake today with very different technique (for me) and it was really easy and had a beautiful fine and moist crumb and great chocolate flavor BUT slight baking soda aftertaste which I dislike (of course)... what acid wasn’t being neutralized? Maybe my brown sugar or my chocolate were lighter than she used. So can I just slightly reduce the quantity (she calls for 1TB) of baking soda to fix? Also calls for 6 eggs (+ 3 yolks!)-thinking maybe plenty of leavening there? Thoughts? TIA!

go3y1t3

go4etb2

I am only an amateur baker, but can't you add a little bit of cream of tartar? It should neutralise any excess baking soda, from my understanding since together they make baking powder

I’ve made this cake a hundred times without issue. I always make it with black tea instead of coffee. My sister has made it several times with coffee. This cake never fails. Are you sure you did everything correctly? Do you weigh your ingredients?

lo0rec

askbaking_train

In Bravetart devils food choco cake. Slight baking soda after taste. Not enough acid to neutralize all BS? Can I reduce it a little? I made this Bravetart chocolate devils food cake today with very different technique (for me) and it was really easy and had a beautiful fine and moist crumb and great chocolate flavor BUT slight baking soda aftertaste which I dislike (of course)... what acid wasn’t being neutralized? Maybe my brown sugar or my chocolate were lighter than she used. So can I just slightly reduce the quantity (she calls for 1TB) of baking soda to fix? Also calls for 6 eggs (+ 3 yolks!)-thinking maybe plenty of leavening there? Thoughts? TIA!

go3y1t3

go4p9d9

I am only an amateur baker, but can't you add a little bit of cream of tartar? It should neutralise any excess baking soda, from my understanding since together they make baking powder

I haven't tried this recipe, but I just might for fun, however, usually if you can taste 1 ingredient *(like baking soda, salt, sugar, spices)* it means that it wasn't incorporated into the mix well enough. When you sift the flour and baking soda into a bowl and before adding it to the other wet ingredients, take a whisk and stir it really well *(like a full minute)*. This will incorporate the baking soda into the flour evenly. A good way to determine if your combining technique is good is to watch what happens when you add a dark-colored spice, like cinnamon, into white flour. This enables you to tell if you have clumps or streaks. It also gives you a good idea of how long it takes to combine the dry ingredients.

lo0rec

askbaking_train

In Bravetart devils food choco cake. Slight baking soda after taste. Not enough acid to neutralize all BS? Can I reduce it a little? I made this Bravetart chocolate devils food cake today with very different technique (for me) and it was really easy and had a beautiful fine and moist crumb and great chocolate flavor BUT slight baking soda aftertaste which I dislike (of course)... what acid wasn’t being neutralized? Maybe my brown sugar or my chocolate were lighter than she used. So can I just slightly reduce the quantity (she calls for 1TB) of baking soda to fix? Also calls for 6 eggs (+ 3 yolks!)-thinking maybe plenty of leavening there? Thoughts? TIA!

go4khco

go4p9d9

I wonder if it was the cocoa powder you used? Natural and Dutch have different flavors and react with baking soda in different ways when used to bake. I am an amateur baker, but had a similar issue with some chocolate cookies I had a few months ago.

I haven't tried this recipe, but I just might for fun, however, usually if you can taste 1 ingredient *(like baking soda, salt, sugar, spices)* it means that it wasn't incorporated into the mix well enough. When you sift the flour and baking soda into a bowl and before adding it to the other wet ingredients, take a whisk and stir it really well *(like a full minute)*. This will incorporate the baking soda into the flour evenly. A good way to determine if your combining technique is good is to watch what happens when you add a dark-colored spice, like cinnamon, into white flour. This enables you to tell if you have clumps or streaks. It also gives you a good idea of how long it takes to combine the dry ingredients.

ukr7uf

askbaking_train

banana bread made last night ended up being a biiiit undercooked in the middle, am i able to throw it in the oven for a few minutes or should i just leave it? it’s not horrible or anything and a cake tester had come out clean when i took it out last night. i’ve already had a couple slices and just now had one that had a part of it a little mushy in the middle. i don’t think it would be dangerous to eat or anything I’m just curious if there’s a way for me to fix it and not ruin the whole loaf

i7r217o

i7r2wwc

It’ll still taste gummy even after re-toasting because the structure of the banana bread has already set. It won’t really change much except be a bit crisper

The problem with trying to finish baking something after it has cooled is that in order for it to finish baking, the whole thing has to come up to temp before it will continue baking. So while the inside will finish eventually, the part that is already done will dry out quite a bit and the bottom will most likely burn. You're better off just cutting it into thin slices and put it in a frying pan.

ukr7uf

askbaking_train

banana bread made last night ended up being a biiiit undercooked in the middle, am i able to throw it in the oven for a few minutes or should i just leave it? it’s not horrible or anything and a cake tester had come out clean when i took it out last night. i’ve already had a couple slices and just now had one that had a part of it a little mushy in the middle. i don’t think it would be dangerous to eat or anything I’m just curious if there’s a way for me to fix it and not ruin the whole loaf

i7r43mq

i7r217o

You can try to slice it up and make french toast in a pan. This way you can sear the uncooked part. I think it would taste pretty delicious actually. Hope it helps.

It’ll still taste gummy even after re-toasting because the structure of the banana bread has already set. It won’t really change much except be a bit crisper

ukr7uf

askbaking_train

banana bread made last night ended up being a biiiit undercooked in the middle, am i able to throw it in the oven for a few minutes or should i just leave it? it’s not horrible or anything and a cake tester had come out clean when i took it out last night. i’ve already had a couple slices and just now had one that had a part of it a little mushy in the middle. i don’t think it would be dangerous to eat or anything I’m just curious if there’s a way for me to fix it and not ruin the whole loaf

i7r217o

i7saq3w

It’ll still taste gummy even after re-toasting because the structure of the banana bread has already set. It won’t really change much except be a bit crisper

Last time this happened to me, I cubed it up, dried it out in the oven, and then made bread pudding with it. It was real good!

5cz4xc

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] What form would a boggart take if your fear was something massive such as an army The army is just an example of something large, I know I wouldn't be scared of a miniature army if it was just made smaller like the moon was for Lupin

da0ptq9

da0ic3t

Boggarts aren't always successful at what they do, and (such as the case of Lupin) they will sometimes misunderstand the context of the fear. A weak boggart may well attempt a miniature army, a stronger one may realise that you are scared of soldiers and will impersonate a couple of full size ones rushing at you.

Addition: What form does it take if your fears are abstract? I.e, failure, loneliness, etc?

5cz4xc

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] What form would a boggart take if your fear was something massive such as an army The army is just an example of something large, I know I wouldn't be scared of a miniature army if it was just made smaller like the moon was for Lupin

da0okkv

da0ptq9

I always wondered at this too because as a kid my biggest fear was tornados. I also wracked my little brain to figure out a way I would make one funny but I never did figure it out. My friend posed another good question about them. What if your biggest fear is a boggart? Would it just freak out?

Boggarts aren't always successful at what they do, and (such as the case of Lupin) they will sometimes misunderstand the context of the fear. A weak boggart may well attempt a miniature army, a stronger one may realise that you are scared of soldiers and will impersonate a couple of full size ones rushing at you.

5cz4xc

asksciencefiction_train

[Harry Potter] What form would a boggart take if your fear was something massive such as an army The army is just an example of something large, I know I wouldn't be scared of a miniature army if it was just made smaller like the moon was for Lupin

da0okkv

da0ic3t

I always wondered at this too because as a kid my biggest fear was tornados. I also wracked my little brain to figure out a way I would make one funny but I never did figure it out. My friend posed another good question about them. What if your biggest fear is a boggart? Would it just freak out?

Addition: What form does it take if your fears are abstract? I.e, failure, loneliness, etc?