yeah and yet everyone knows that a fruit salad made with dandelion fluff would taste awful maybe words have different meanings in different contexts? also why would something being a leaf or a stalk exclude it from being a vegetable sometimes terms can fit inside other terms
Vegetables is a word. A word used to classify food. Therefore, even if it is contradicted by a scientific term, it doesn't change the culinary term. Something can be a vegetable and a leaf. A vegetable and a flower. Duh. Cmon now
Vegetable is a scientific word, it is defined as any part of a plant that is eaten by humans. All fruits are technically vegetables, the differentiation between them otherwise is non scientific sunjective culinary definitions.
Or to put it in less provocative and more true language "fish is a paraphyletic group". Not to be confused with paraphylettuce, which is a nonexistent vegetable.
That's like saying motor vehicles don't exist. That's a car, that's a truck, that's a bus. We use words to describe groups of things, just because a more specific term exists doesn't mean the general term doesn't.
But cars, trucks, and buses are all devices that transport goods or people and run on some type of motor. Hence, motor vehicle. What makes a squash a vegetable? Some people just decided that we should consider it one despite being a fruit.
I mean, the definition of a vegetable is a plant or part of a plant that is used as food. So... yeah, pretty much EVERYTHING that isn't meat is a vegetable. Celery, grape, strawberry, anything that is PART of a plant is a vegetable based on that definition. So all fruits are vegetables but not all vegetables are fruits sort of thing.
Also, while "vegetable" is a culinary term, "fruit" is both a culinary and a scientific term. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is a fruit and a pineapple isn't. Culinarily speaking, it's the opposite.
Yes. All herbs, fruits, nuts, tubers, leaves, etc. are scientifically classified as vegetables because the term vegetable just means any vegetation that is eaten.
Yeah, that annoyed the heck out of me. "That's not a vegetable, that's a stalk! That's not a vegetable, that's a leaf!" Dude, you're just naming PARTS of plants. You don't see ME going up to vegans & saying, "This isn't meat, it's a chuck roast!"
Thats the point these botanically different things are considered the same thing culinary. Its like a shark, starfish, eel, jellyfish are all fish. It works Colloquially, but not biologically where nuance is required
Well, most people don't group starfish & jellyfish in with fish . . . but they DO include sharks, hagfish, & lampreys, which is largely where the problem lies, because the smallest group that contains all "fish" also includes almost ALL other vertebrates. Just as the smallest group that contains all "vegetables" contains all fruits, because what we call a "fruit" is really the fruiting body OF a vegetable. Now, do *mushrooms* count as vegetables, that's another problem.
But that goes with what the women was saying. I mean her "anger" was obviously hammed up for the comedy. There are words that dont do a good job describing things and others that do better.
Yes, the woman is technically correct--but ONLY technically, and anyone who tries to make her point without making that distinction is being deliberately facetious, if not outright dishonest. I *was* willing to give her the benefit of the doubt--I'm sure she had more to say than just a 90-second clip--until she got to the "That's not a vegetable, that's a tuber" part. Girl, it's BOTH, and you KNOW it. Stop dicking with semantics just to sound smart.
Dropout is pure quality over quantity entertainment, I have no need for hundreds of channels of barrel-bottom schlock when I know these guys can consistently deliver bangers directly into my sensory organs
I've recently come to think that if you oppose financially supporting something on moral grounds, pirating it still helps them. Instead of pirating the Hogwarts game, go buy Celeste to support great game devs. Instead of pirating Photoshop, learn Inkscape or Krita to reduce Adobe's monopoly. Even if you like the convenience of streaming music, you should occasionally buy something from an indie musician so they can pay their rent (Spotify hardly pays them).
I don't really like their app and I'm wondering if I buy a membership to their YouTube channel whether I will still have to see ads on the members only videos (they upload all episodes there I believe)
If you like goofy and adult comedy, definitely. If you like nerd stuff, definitely. If you like roleplay games, definitely. If you like more than one of the above options, there’s more than you’ll ever finish
they have a bunch of different shows and there's usually a couple different shows with weekly or bi weekly episodes coming out, plus the dnd episodes are like hours per episode. and the rewatchability is high imo
If you're unsure (I was), youtube has a few episodes for free. I recommend the Fantasy High and any Game Changer episode. $5 is the best value. Also, the back catalog is great
Ive been getting my money's worth since subbing in February. I think it's like 60$ for a yearly sub? Wish their videos would remember where i left off though, hard to watch a 2hr dnd video in one sitting at work.
It's a common answer but if you're on browser, try clearing your cache. Usually works for me, at least for a while. For the TV app I have to click OK on my remote and make sure the clock is increasing because otherwise if I try to scrub forward or backward it will just go back to where I originally started.
I'm on fire fox mobile and it gives me a "You don't have permission to watch this video" after like an hour and refresh doesn't help. I gotta to back to the menu and re-select the episode. Im mostly watching the game shows rn and just letting the dnd shows play sound only when im working like a podcast but still
I do believe I downvoted you for that!! I recall doing that to someone? Were you that very someone? Mayhaps! But also, people are idiots: myself included in that lot.
Because they do exist they aren't a firm scientific grouping. But neither are snacks so the whole point is incredibly stupid from a scientific perspective.
She literally contradicts herself at the end of her presentation. Vegetables do exist, everything mentioned in the clip, aside from maybe dandelion fluff, is more or less considered a vegetable. But cucumbers are technically a fruit you say? Yes, and they are also considered vegetables. Both are technically true - in much the same way people like you can be considered both an intellectual, and an idiotic smart-ass. It all depends on context.
Even the phrase "scientifically, vegetables do not exist," is false, because people can scientifically study linguistics, and the term and concept of 'vegetables' does exist in linguistics. "Vegetables are not a categorization in the science of botany" is a different concept than vegetables not existing in all of science, and even then that wouldn't mean they didn't exist, it would just mean you don't know how words work.
More correctly, when it comes to fish, there is no taxonomical definition that doesn't also include ALL vertebrates, whether we consider them "fish" or not
When I go fishing, I go to catch fish. I don't care for specific classification. Saying "fish don't exist" is on the level of "I'm reading a book about the Dust Bowl, and since it doesn't mention lasers, that means lasers aren't real."
Vegetables do totally exist though. The "Scientific definition," or lack thereof, is meaningful in a Scientific context, but other contexts exist. The culinary context makes sense for daily use, and also for stuff like taxes, because you want to tax desserts more than staple foods. It would be like claiming that houseplants don't exist, just because they're not their own order or something. Thus, vegetables do exist, you just don't get invited to parties.
Vegetables generally tend to signify the vegetative portions of the plant, which could include the root, stalk, leaf, and flower. Tomato is only considered a vegetable because of Congress wanting school pizza to be in the vegetable food group.
I agree. Likewise, if we are going to subdivide “vegetables” then let’s go after fruit too. Berries, aggregate fruits, multiple fruits, dry fruits like drupes, legumes, cereal grains, capsulate fruits, and nuts. Though to be fair, fruits are taxonomically encapsulated in those descriptions where vegetable is *shrug* a plant in general?
The word means the general category that most of that stuff is in. It's like saying that trucks don't exist because a ranger or F-150 is actually a ford and a raptor or tacoma is actually a toyota.
Pork and beef do not exist, only Sus scrofa domesticus and Bos taurus exist because pork and beef are only used in the culinary sense. Food does not exist because it is not scientifically categorized? Of course salad exis
Out of context, "vegetables do not exist" is false and something an insane person would say. "Scientifically, vegetables do not exist." Is true, but vegetables do exist as a culinary category.
Chef here. I appreciate the word exists for culinary purposes-some dishes have so many tubers, leafs, roots, fruits and seeds that naming stuff would be difficult and understand it to be a word to mean an umbrella term in the same way that animals is used. So while we may only eat the root of a carrot and the leaf of a lettuce, they are both colectively, vegetation.
Beef and plant stew sounds gross. So does beef and vegetation. And beef with roots, bulbs, stalks, and tubers stew is too long.
Yes, indeed, botanically speaking all fruits are vegetables. The differentiation between them for classification otherwise is a subjective culinary definition, not an objective botanical or scientific defenition.
I guess wat I really hate is when people point out a Tomato is a fruit. Like, sure but so is a cucumber. Why is the tomato seen as so special when all fruit are vegetables anyway and loads of vegetables are fruits.
Part of it is the history it has with a supreme court ruling in 1892 when the taxation of imported vegetables was introduced. The decision was to err towarss the common understanding, not the botannical.
"because you can define any song by the style of music it is."
How can you define it by the style of MUSIC it is if MUSIC doesn't exist? You can't argue something doesn't exist if you have to use the word in the explanation.
Except composition itself can refer to more than one medium, where music composition has its own category, and music is still used as a term. How would you define a song by performance? That sounds more like you're going off the visual, not the audio. If you are going off of the audio, you're back to the style of music.
you can take the same lyrics and melody and even sometimes the same chords and notes and depending on how you perform that, it could be a country song or death metal, nothing to do with visuals. And yes, "composition" can be used to refer to a novel or a painting, but the use of the word "song" earlier in the sentence means we're refering to the composition of the song, because that's how language works.
That's probably an apt comparison actually. Similarly to "vegetable", "music" as a generic term is difficult to precisely and objectively define, and while virtually everyone has an intuitive sense of what is and isn't music, there isn't really a precise place to draw the line.
The definition that I memorized in middle school band was "music is the art of combining sound and tone together in a suitable manner that is pleasant to one's ear"
Fish as polyphyletic groupings exist, it's just that if you made fish monophyletic, you would have to include all derived vertebrates and conservative Christians get angry about that idea
Vegetables absolutely exist. It's part of a different system of classification, as noted, a culinary one. This is like arguing Fahrenheit doesn't exist, just because it's a shitty unit of measure.
Reality shows don’t exist. Science tells us it’s just a tv show without professional actors. Or writers. The camera crew generally ain’t that great either.
Its pointing to the fact that Vegetable being a culinary term is more a subject than objective term. You have seeds, fruits, tubers, all under this term, even though they are very different things botanically. What they only have in common is that we humans deemed them edible. If a word is too broad or too esoteric it ends up meaningless. For instance everyone has their own definition of "spiritual." If everyone interpretes one word a million ways then what does it mean?
Yeah and also fruit has a scientific definition and a culinary definition, so it's not wrong to say tomato isn't a fruit when you're talking about cooking, OKAY, DEMETRIUS FROM STARDEW VALLEY? fuck you, something not following a specific scientific definition doesn't make it factually inaccurate.
I agree with your first point, but not the second. I think a more apt example is claiming Fish don't exist (or we are all fish) according to cladists because of how they categorize evolutionary trees. So by a specific categorization they don't, but by any other they do. But as another person said it's a game show, I imagine they are given a prompt and have to roll with it, honestly it's an exercise I have done a bunch for skill building
A better example is monkey. Monkey is a terrible term that is essentially all primates EXCEPT: members of strepsirrhini, tarsiers and hominidae (or hominini depending on who you talk to).
But farenheight has a definition. its a scale based on the movement of mercury at different temperatures. Where 0 is the temperature a solution of salt water freezes. 32 is the temperature normal water freezes. And can be easily and accurately reproduced at scale. There is no official definition of what a vegetable is. Its generally assumed to be all edible plant parts that are non fruits. But then is bamboo a vegetable? What abt cane sugar or seaweed?
It’s more like arguing “water isn’t wet” because you’re using some hyperspecific definition of “wet” that does not include things composed of liquids, contrary to nearly every English dictionary.
That's assuming you have to set it to some Fahrenheit temperature and then convert it. Cooking at 175C or 180 aren't going to meaningfully change things.
0 = really cold 100= very hot … this part of the human experience is hardly subjective. Celsius is how water feels. Kelvin is how an atom feels. Fahrenheit is how a human feels. Why not be open to ideas instead of just finding a way to shoot it down. Don’t be so joyless.
I gotta say, I've heard this assertion before and it has to be about the inane 'argument' in support of the Fahrenheit system that I've ever heard. If you seriously think you can feel the difference between 22 degrees Centigrade and 21 degrees without any external measuring technique then I'm afraid you're living in a fantasy world.
I think "exist" here is being used in the sense of metaphysical realism, as in "exists independently of being thought of or experienced". In other words vegetables are a social construct and not a thing existing in objective reality.
Then define what it is. As she started, a fruit has a defined "box" that all fruits fit in. The culinary definition of a vegetable is basically "these things, because I said so". Why tomato and not an orange? They are nearly identical in form.
Botanically, the definition of a vegetable is any part of a plant that isn't part of its reproduction derived from a flower. Fruits are the mature ovary of a plant, thus they are not considered vegetables. Strictly speaking, both tomatoes and oranges are berries.
The culinary definition is the edible part of a plant. "Vegetable" is a categorical macro term; leaves, stem, roots, tubers, bulbs, and flowers. It also includes fungi, despite those being completely different entities on every scale.
The first three are berries, while peas are considered an aggregate fruit, botanically speaking. The pea pod itself is the fruit, while what we commonly consider as "peas" - the little green balls - are seeds. They can also be classified as legumes.
In the video she was using botanical definitions for the parts of the plants, and I have no issue with that. As for the culinary definition you gave- cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers etc aren't vegetables then. They are not leaves, stem, roots, tubers, bulbs or flowers.
Cucumbers, tomatoes, and peppers are berries, botanically speaking. In culinary terms, they get folded under the "flower" category, as they are the result of a flower's single ovary. Berries paradoxically are considered vegetables, fruits, or neither - simply and erroneously "berries" - simultaneously depending on what purpose they traditionally serve in a dish. The general rule of thumb is that sweet/sour/tart = fruit or berry, bitter/savory/"earthy" = vegetable.
First of all, Fahrenheit isn't imperial, it's metric. It counts in base ten, whereas every imperial measurement system uses some other fucked up system (fuck off cups). Secondly, Fahrenheit is great for telling people it's hot "it's 100 out", objectively, hot. We understand 100 as a big number. But it's dreadful for telling someone it's cold "bit cold today, it's 40".
most things which there might be an argument for celsius are better measured by kelvin, with the singular exception of actually measuring water temperature at 1 atmospheric pressure
Fahrenheitt gives a range of 462 units to the same scale of 140 in Celcius. It is a much better system for daily human use with the parts of general life. If you want to use celcius you might as well just use Kelvin and ditch Celcius alltogether. Basing 0-100 on water's state changes doesnt benefit the layman as well as the range that 0-212 does. Also Fahrenheit was developed with the human body temperature in mind, and before Celcius at that. Beyond all of that, they ARE effectively comprable >
They are both arbitrarily set, but C is set to external factors which i think is alot easier to consider, its 0 so water starts freezing/thawing, saying its 68 degrees so its colder than the human body in fahrenheit makes no sense,
If simply more units make it better, why not a thousand? Or, ooo, a million? This is essentially the spinal tap argument: Fahrenheit is good because it goes to 11. Kelvin goes far too cold, and unnecessarily, for everyday use, has 3 digits for average temps. 0 being the freezing point of water benefits laymen exceedingly anywhere that gets freezing weather, for travel safety, knowing how weather may effect plants, personal safety, etc.
in ease of use and the only real dividing factor is familiarity. 20°C doesn't mean anything to me off-hand but I know exactly what 68°F feels like without thinking.
Originally based on the temperature that a specific brine mixture maintained itself, the freezing temp of water was set at 32°F shortly after the initial forming of the scale with boiling exactly 180° above it for easy fractional scaling.
the advantage of most metric scales is subunits are powers of 10 - which doesn't apply to temperature as no one ever uses centidegrees. the advantage of celsius is "water freezes at 0 and boils at 100" which is not an issue that ever comes up in day-to-day life. water boils a minute after i push the button on the kettle - no one ever needs to tell the difference between 73C water and 92C water.
0 in Celsius is where water freezes. Is the weather approaching zero? Then you know outdoor plants are in danger of frost, any precipitation may turn roads and walkways treacherous. 0 in Fahrenheit isn't anything. 100 in Fahrenheit isn't anything. It's a system mapped to nothing, and so largely good for nothing.
yeah except that's not true - if the weather says 0C then whether any water is ice or not is dependent on highly local conditions such as wind and shade and radiative cooling to outer space. what's the advantage to "it's kinda close to 0" versus "it's kinda close to 30"? a system mapped to nothing is not worse than a system mapped to an arbitrary and irrelevant scale
meanwhile every decade of F roughly corresponds to a heavier outerwear layer, 0F is minnesota cold and 100F is florida hot. it is the best scale to measure temperature for people; cope and seethe you monarchist invertebrate
I'm going to be the pedant in the room and say you're both wrong; we should use either Kelvin or Rankine. At least then we won't have idiots saying "it's twice as hot as..." or "it's twice as cold as..." or similar idiocy.
You might think you're making a good point, but, like most other comments in this post saying one is better than the other, your argument only works for you because you grew up using that measurement.
For me as a non-american, your comment tells me nothing other than 100f is probably hotter than 0f.
What makes you say that? Genuine question; I've had some Americans I know say the same, but I never got their point. Supposedly it's a better indication of how a temperature 'feels', but considering that I feel like I'm melting when other people say it's perfect weather, I'm neither seeing nor buying it.
Objectively? Celsius is better for all measurements, Fahrenheit is just a convenient way to convey more information with human scale temperatures. 100°F is bordering dangerously hot, while still tolerable, 50°F is mild weather that needs a light jacket, 0°F is dangerously cold and should be avoided if you aren't properly prepared. 0°C is cold while being tolerable with medium jackets, 50°C is summer in the world's hottest deserts, 100°C is near instantaneous death
Objectively, it is not better for all measurements. That's ridiculous. First of all, when using whole numbers and even a single decimal place, fahrenheit is more precise. That's the only objective thing that makes one better than the other.
Secondly, there's nothing at all objectively better about Celsius. You *could* argue it's more convenient for boiling water, but who gives a shit?
Now if we're going to compare length measurements, sure. Otherwise you're full of shit.
My understanding is that F is still used in chemistry, because the degrees are actually slightly smaller, it's easier to be accurate without resorting to decimals
what would a single advantage of C be? the standard advantages of metric is that they're scales of 10 so its easy to convert between centimeters and meters and kilometers in ways that inches, miles, and feet arent; but there aren't useful celsius subunits. meanwhile the dynamic range of F is superior - "in the 40's" or "in the 60's" conveys more information than "in the teens" of C. water boils at 100C but you don't measure water to see if it's boiling and that leaves 40-99C as useless temps
I don't relate to what you call superior, seeing as we just give a range or say 'circa 15' if we have a need to be vague, but thank you for your answer :)
I don't understand. 0°C means it's starting to freeze. 5°C means jacket weather. 10°C means "grab a hoodie". 15°C means it's getting warm so gotta make sure to wear t-shirt under the hoodie. 20°C means it's getting t-shirt appropriate, no longer sleeves needed. 25°C means uncomfortable. 30°C (and above) means hell. Saying "in the teens" (weird way to phrase it, but yeah) conveys plenty? I mean, the 10° difference between 10° and 20° is a lot, but it still gives useful information?
Additionally, higher Celsius numbers have plenty of value in everyday life, as a Finn. Big difference between room temp, 40°C, 60°C, 80°C when determining when the sauna is ready. (Or when making tea and coffee, if you are an enthusiast!)
The single advantage is easily recognizing when cold weather becomes serious. And easy conversion to Kelvin. Familiarity to most people around the world. Let me start again: the three advantages are....
cold weather becomes serious at about 0F, which is where the frostbite risk starts. and no one who needs to use kelvin has trouble with also doing a little bit of division instead of just adding 273.15
Every single time people defend fahrenheit it's "its how humans feel" and "the range is better" without realizing that's because they grew up with it. For us knowing that it's near 0, or in the 10s, or 20s gives us the exact same indication! C is both scientifically based AND for us it's the way it feels. F misses the plank by having arbitrary scaling
But it's not like it has irrational or imaginary scaling. It's still a rational number. So the only advantage that C has over F is, its easier (addition/subtraction) reversibility with Kelvin. How often do you use Kelvin? Is it often enough that changing between units would be a measurable difficulty for you?
It's not better, as you rightly said that learning it is what makes the numbers important. Fahrenheit is more /convenient/ for describing temperatures between 0°F and 100°F, since that describes the boundaries of the extreme temperatures that most humans would interact with and recognize as dangerous. Literally every single thing is better in Celsius, Fahrenheit is just convenient in this one single use case, not better
Fahrenheit is more accurate. Water boils at 100C or 212F. When comparing how things feel or a safe temperature for food, it's literally just more accurate.
It's also easier when referencing weather, 0F is crazy cold and 100F is crazy hot. Easier to tell what it's going to feel like because it's basically a 0-100 scale.
That's pretty much the only real differences, and the second one isn't really important if you're already used to C anyways.
That's just something Americans say to justify using an inefficient temperature scale. I'm not saying you're doing that on purpose, but it sure helps people believe that there's no need to switch to the metric system, because they're "both good in different ways". I grew up with the metric system, 0°C is cold, 35°C is hot, that's how it feels to me.
Precisely. 25°C? that's shorts weather. 20°C? light shirt over a t-shirt, maybe long pants. 10°C? you better put on something warmer. 30°C? You better have sandals.
Except how "you" feel will vary from person to person, making the measurement pretty useless. On the other hand the human body is 60% water, so knowing how water would handle the temperature gives you a pretty good idea of what the majority of your body feels about the temperature, even if "you" feel differently about it.
As a Celsius user it really depends and it not always applies unless you are in a controlled environment. Outside it can be impossible to tell the difference in either scale.
It's much more likely that any action performed on the thermostat also triggers the fans pushing new air in the room, and if you put the temperature down by one then up by one again the new air would be indistinguishable from air one degree different.
There's a funny but stupidly in-depth YouTube channel called Technology Connections that goes through how our tech lies to us, how it actually works. He has a whole bunch of videos on AC.
Fahrenheit is arbitrary units on an arbitrary scale, where meaningful breakpoints fall on random numbers. It's only familiarity that makes it seem better for human use.
Yes Celsius is much better when you don't use 60% of the scale because it's a scale meant for the states of water, which definitely isn't arbitrary when measuring air temperature. The guy who has to change his thermostat by quarters of a degree thinks that a base 10 scale of human comfort is stupid for measuring temperature lmfao.
Both negative °C and values above 100°C are used all the time, what's this "don't use 60% of scale". And yes, using a scale that is related to one of the most important molecules that is shaping our everyday lifes is sensible. 0°C means that you need to drive carefully because of ice on the roads. Don't you have cars in America?
Hey bud, when was the last time you saw 100°c on the weather report? When you want to boil a pot of water, do you set your stovetop to 100° or does it work like everywhere else in the world and you just set it to high, medium, or low? 0° for potential for ice is just as arbitrary as 32° for ice and neither takes more effort to remember than the other. I reiterate; in a day to day use for the average person, you don't use 60% of the 0-100 scale for Celsius because it is defined by the states of 1
We're not talking about using it for anything else. I'm not saying Celsius or kelvin or anything else has no function, just that they're stupid measurements for air temperature in regards to human comfort.
0F is the freezing point of a specific salt-water mixture; the mixture is self-stabilizing ("Eutectic"), which made it easier to establish at lower tech-levels than the freezing point of pure water was — because, unlike the freezing (and boiling) points of water, it is completely independent of things like Air Pressure, and so gives the same result at any altitude.
I can accept that 0F has an actual meaning, but 100F was defined as "human body temperature". A value that not only varies with whether the subject is male or female, but also: age, health (including menstruation), state of consciousness, time of day, and *emotional state*, among other things. "Oh no, I'm feeling sad. Time to recalibrate all of the thermometers. That's frustrating… oh no! Now I need to recalibrate them again. That makes me so angry! Grr! Now I need to do it AGAIN!"
it wasn't set to 100, but 96 as the average human body temperature. he picked 96 b/c it's divisible by 12, which is convenient for calculations. and the C scale is no longer based on water at all, in part b/c it's so hard to get pure enough water and exactly 1 atm of pressure.
And yet you're using a temperature scale that's mediocre at describing the thing you're predominately using it for. Since, and I am assuming here, that you are a land dwelling mammal and not some sort of super-evolved fish.
Fahrenheit - 0° is frickin cold and 100° is frickin hot. Celsius - -17° is frickin cold and 38° is frickin hot?? I get what you are saying that familiarity makes it easy, but you can see what I mean, yes? (Yes I’m American, but am an engineer so I deal almost exclusively in °C at work).
I really tried to give your thinking a go, but I think it's still a question of familiarity, because -17° is "a normal day" for me, I'll bike to work as usual and enjoy a little stroll at lunch, kids are playing outside. But +38° is a totally unimaginable hellscape that I really hope I'll never have to experience in my life. You can't adjust with clothing or anything, you just have to lay still and hope your brain will survive the boil?!
No, I actually can't. My lack of familiarity with the absurd F scale means that I have to translate it to C in order for it to have any meaning. Also I'm a West Aussie, so no, 38'C is hot but it isn't frigging hot. 42'C is frigging hot.
Feeling is subjective though, I get cold when it's around 5 C and then it gets worse, and then there is wind, humidity and other factors that may make it better or worse, same with hot so it doesn't really matter what exactly the scale shows and both scales are valid for that specific purpose. It is just a matter of familiarity. The difference is the Celsius is good for both weather and scientific.
The frickiness is only relative to an individual's acclimatization to any given climate. If its how you feel then it should be a sliding scale depending on whether its winter or summer, ir if you are the kind of person who wears shorts in snow.
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
yeah and yet everyone knows that a fruit salad made with dandelion fluff would taste awful maybe words have different meanings in different contexts? also why would something being a leaf or a stalk exclude it from being a vegetable sometimes terms can fit inside other terms
ME2BNS12
I submit that Finland is a vegetable
JaneAirfryer
The whole world thinks I'm a vegetable
StephenDaniels
She tried a similar line of attack involving the word: theory and quickly went down in flames.
jaxomdad
Dropout is THE best streaming service. Hands Down.
FlyByGRider
This is the first time I've heard about it
coffscreek
Vic is always great on Comedy Bang Bang.
TheTexasLefty
I am LIVING for all the dropout content on imgur lately
OgreMkV
I enjoyed that show quite a bit.
Jawesome19
Vegetables is a word. A word used to classify food. Therefore, even if it is contradicted by a scientific term, it doesn't change the culinary term. Something can be a vegetable and a leaf. A vegetable and a flower. Duh. Cmon now
SherMattLockSmith
Vegetable is a scientific word, it is defined as any part of a plant that is eaten by humans. All fruits are technically vegetables, the differentiation between them otherwise is non scientific sunjective culinary definitions.
kantackistan
Thesaya
I do not recognise this gameshow. I do love Vic though.
MantisTobagganMD
I think you'll find that their real name is Vehicular.
boostcreep
Only when accused of being an elderly British man of course.
poorwegian
New show on Dropout called “smarty pants”. If you’ve ever seen that twitter post about the person who had “PowerPoint parties” , it’s that.
Darjanator
I was going to start that after I was done with Game Changer and Uhm Actually. Good to see I'm in for a treat.
HighwayWizard
Oh yeah you're gonna have a great time, I can't wait for the next episode
Kokokokko
Who's the pretty lady?
dingleberrysauce
vic michaelis
dallasinchains
I'm pretty sure I'd marry her. "Very Important People" is so good
MyVirginityIsGrowingBack
Drakesfear
Food theory just put out a video about just this
RobJenkins
No such thingasa fish
EndocrineResearcher
We are all fish
Photus
Came to say it. Didn't need to.
Scaper1812
beat me to it.
ShitIcantfindausername
Ahhhh, beat me to saying beat me to it. Yup. No biological definition of what is a fish. Apart from as David Mitchell puts it, what is on menus.
DeadOnionSaysWhat
I can't recall why. Have to ask Uncle Google.
TheFishFace
Or to put it in less provocative and more true language "fish is a paraphyletic group". Not to be confused with paraphylettuce, which is a nonexistent vegetable.
HypnagogicHallucinations
But some fish can move their limbs
TheFishFace
There's actually no such thing as limbs
GiddyKipper
The study of ghost lettuces
baldoaLord
A vegetable is a plant or part of a plant that is eaten as food, usually in savoury dishes.
Leaps
An apple is a vegetable?
cousteau
But an apple is not eaten usually in savory dishes, only sporadically
SubnetTwelve
I'm a vegetable and I exist !
HandsomePenguin
That's like saying motor vehicles don't exist. That's a car, that's a truck, that's a bus. We use words to describe groups of things, just because a more specific term exists doesn't mean the general term doesn't.
Manusho
But cars, trucks, and buses are all devices that transport goods or people and run on some type of motor. Hence, motor vehicle. What makes a squash a vegetable? Some people just decided that we should consider it one despite being a fruit.
HandsomePenguin
You can say that about literally any descriptive word.
mercure
Tomato a fruit or a Vegetable? Yes
SherMattLockSmith
All fruits are vegetables.
Djones06236
You're a vegetable.
admiralwiggles
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad.
cousteau
Guacamole is a fruit salad. Or at least chunky guacamole.
ImAWeirdMom
Mango salsa is a fruit salad.
Bossvoss
They wouldn’t dare try this with Brennan Lee Mulligan around!
nakedriver
The fact that he doesn't like eating vegetables is more likely to work in Vic's favor.
Darjanator
He could go on a rant how a Roseate Spoonbill doesn't exist.
OgreMkV
I can't wait until he's on this show.
ProfessorVanDiggenSagg
Bourbon is basically Ketchup which is a sports drink.
RatsLiveOnNoEvilStar
Thor?
imredheaded
LurkMasterP
"vegetable is a culinary term therefore they don't exist." Silly semantic game, go find something better to do with your time.
aleister94
Food theory on YouTube just did an episode about this and they make a pretty compelling argument
splatterfestival
Like commenting on imgur?
LurkMasterP
Precisely this
skylark28
I mean, the definition of a vegetable is a plant or part of a plant that is used as food. So... yeah, pretty much EVERYTHING that isn't meat is a vegetable. Celery, grape, strawberry, anything that is PART of a plant is a vegetable based on that definition. So all fruits are vegetables but not all vegetables are fruits sort of thing.
DarksteelPenguin
Also, while "vegetable" is a culinary term, "fruit" is both a culinary and a scientific term. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is a fruit and a pineapple isn't. Culinarily speaking, it's the opposite.
TheAttenwood
It's a satirical TED talk type show. Meant for giggles not insights.
skylark28
Ah. I haven't seen it yet. I have dropout.tv but haven' t seen this one. Is it a specific show?
gtotherizzle
By definition. All edible parts of plants are vegetables....the rest is minutia of language.
Babomonkey
so all fruits and nuts are vegetables?
SherMattLockSmith
Yes. All herbs, fruits, nuts, tubers, leaves, etc. are scientifically classified as vegetables because the term vegetable just means any vegetation that is eaten.
gtotherizzle
Yep....the rest is semantics
FartsSmellBad
A single piece of celery is a rib, the stalk is the whole collection of ribs, but it is also a vegetable because it's a real word.
FoxPesdassi
Yeah, that annoyed the heck out of me. "That's not a vegetable, that's a stalk! That's not a vegetable, that's a leaf!" Dude, you're just naming PARTS of plants. You don't see ME going up to vegans & saying, "This isn't meat, it's a chuck roast!"
bassaro
Of course not, it's much more fun to go up to them and say "booga booga booga, I'm made of meat."
FoxPesdassi
Stop it, Patrick, you're scaring him!
Misteree8
Thats the point these botanically different things are considered the same thing culinary. Its like a shark, starfish, eel, jellyfish are all fish. It works Colloquially, but not biologically where nuance is required
FoxPesdassi
Well, most people don't group starfish & jellyfish in with fish . . . but they DO include sharks, hagfish, & lampreys, which is largely where the problem lies, because the smallest group that contains all "fish" also includes almost ALL other vertebrates. Just as the smallest group that contains all "vegetables" contains all fruits, because what we call a "fruit" is really the fruiting body OF a vegetable.
Now, do *mushrooms* count as vegetables, that's another problem.
Misteree8
But that goes with what the women was saying. I mean her "anger" was obviously hammed up for the comedy. There are words that dont do a good job describing things and others that do better.
FoxPesdassi
Yes, the woman is technically correct--but ONLY technically, and anyone who tries to make her point without making that distinction is being deliberately facetious, if not outright dishonest. I *was* willing to give her the benefit of the doubt--I'm sure she had more to say than just a 90-second clip--until she got to the "That's not a vegetable, that's a tuber" part. Girl, it's BOTH, and you KNOW it. Stop dicking with semantics just to sound smart.
imsurroundedbyassholes
Vic is NB, Fyi
akodorokku
It's almost like the whole thing is a bit.
ShoopDeDoop
What about the vegetables that live in hospitals?
so1oeclipse
“Live” is used very loosely here
TheUnstoppableWampas
Again, that's a culinary term.
Asadsadsadclown
FTUG
Those are hotdogs
rabidpenguine
Batteries. We call it life support, but we're really using them to power the whole hospital. Sneaky hospices.
KuldFyt
Soberyn
M R. A N D E R S O N
VoidScreamer
liefdevol
unluckyandbored
Or Congress, for that matter.
bigfatpanda89
kantackistan
You mean the ones that never leave the bed?
firethequadlaser
Those are “Meat Popsicles”.
XRay0976
Those ones taste the best
karashu2000
Tubers.
ObiHaiv
Tuber Culosis
so1oeclipse
Wow.
shadowsdustwind
Hilarious
76000BatteryLlamas
cbjfan
FrenziiTheSuccubus
Daevram1123
Sub to Dropout; torrent everything else.
swedishcalypso
HighwayWizard
Dropout is pure quality over quantity entertainment, I have no need for hundreds of channels of barrel-bottom schlock when I know these guys can consistently deliver bangers directly into my sensory organs
Boxingjedi
JabesMcJabesface
Absolutely!
CaptRandom1290
$5-6 per month for, genuinely, some of the best original content I've ever seen from a team that loves what they do!
UNHchabo
I've recently come to think that if you oppose financially supporting something on moral grounds, pirating it still helps them.
Instead of pirating the Hogwarts game, go buy Celeste to support great game devs.
Instead of pirating Photoshop, learn Inkscape or Krita to reduce Adobe's monopoly.
Even if you like the convenience of streaming music, you should occasionally buy something from an indie musician so they can pay their rent (Spotify hardly pays them).
airwoman
I don't really like their app and I'm wondering if I buy a membership to their YouTube channel whether I will still have to see ads on the members only videos (they upload all episodes there I believe)
DidItForScience
Wow it's American. I never even heard of it until you named it. And this is why people should name sources of videos.
reddogg9877
What dropout show is this from?
Daevram1123
Smartypants. It's new.
reddogg9877
Yup just watched it lol
MichelGoussu
Is there enough content for the fee to be worth it ?
BeatenBearface
I say yes, and I don’t even watch dimension 20.
Duraxis
If you like goofy and adult comedy, definitely. If you like nerd stuff, definitely. If you like roleplay games, definitely. If you like more than one of the above options, there’s more than you’ll ever finish
Asadsadsadclown
I would say so at $5. But i am a massive fan.
OleUncleEddie
Tons of content - I cannot keep up with the options I would like and I'm super picky about what I watch
da1stjster
they have a bunch of different shows and there's usually a couple different shows with weekly or bi weekly episodes coming out, plus the dnd episodes are like hours per episode. and the rewatchability is high imo
robingal1
If you're unsure (I was), youtube has a few episodes for free. I recommend the Fantasy High and any Game Changer episode. $5 is the best value. Also, the back catalog is great
deej3335
Absolutely. There's a huge back catalog at this point and new stuff coming out all the time.
waeraj
Bro the backlog is huge
MichelGoussu
Thank y'all for your replies
spaghettron3000
I'm only really interested in one or two of their shows, so I sub one month a year and binge. :P
s4ltinecr4cker
Ive been getting my money's worth since subbing in February. I think it's like 60$ for a yearly sub? Wish their videos would remember where i left off though, hard to watch a 2hr dnd video in one sitting at work.
binaryspike
Make sure you cleanly close out of the video and don't leave it on pause. Seems to work for me.
CaptRandom1290
I watch on my phone and it lets me pick up where I left off if I close the app halfway through an episode
TheoryOfRelativeTea
It's a common answer but if you're on browser, try clearing your cache. Usually works for me, at least for a while. For the TV app I have to click OK on my remote and make sure the clock is increasing because otherwise if I try to scrub forward or backward it will just go back to where I originally started.
s4ltinecr4cker
I'm on fire fox mobile and it gives me a "You don't have permission to watch this video" after like an hour and refresh doesn't help. I gotta to back to the menu and re-select the episode. Im mostly watching the game shows rn and just letting the dnd shows play sound only when im working like a podcast but still
ImAWeirdMom
I have this issue on my phone but my TV remembers. I think they just need to fix up their system.
Im absolutely getting my money's worth with Um, Actually alone. My husband and kids sit with me and play along.
adognamedpumpkin
I’ve listened to some of Fantasy High on my commute. Johnny Spells!
RedRaptor
Oooooh Mama~!
BarnHusbandNinja
Don’t miss Escape From Bloodkeep!
RatsLiveOnNoEvilStar
I just started season 2. So fun.
RedRaptor
Same! I wish the audio was a bit better but it's been a WILD ride so far.
RatsLiveOnNoEvilStar
I like that they go unedited after season 1, but I do miss the polish of season 1
quade
"a plant or part of a plant used as food"
iamthemanwithnoname
I remember getting downvoted to oblivion for claiming vegetables do not exist. Good times This is a hill I am willing to, and likely to, die on
Dondarian
I do believe I downvoted you for that!! I recall doing that to someone? Were you that very someone? Mayhaps! But also, people are idiots: myself included in that lot.
Sticklebrickk
So, vegetables are leafy greens? And potatoes?
SirYumYum
There's also no such thing as wood. Just a series of similar structures arrived at by convergent evolution.
RealRaceRiotsAreAboutGettingBlueshelledInMarioKart
LaronX
Because they do exist they aren't a firm scientific grouping. But neither are snacks so the whole point is incredibly stupid from a scientific perspective.
Axelxdisepic
Weird hill to die on but at least you're dead
TheZacAttack
Beat me to it
IxnayOnTheOttenRay
Folks downvote anything they dislike, so eff 'em
ProfessorDumbass
Your name will go down in history as the hero who died...wha..what? No fucking name...well shitbiscuits
ThisGuyHere
Scientifically*, they don't exist. In the culinary world, though.... different story.
Koldfront
She literally contradicts herself at the end of her presentation. Vegetables do exist, everything mentioned in the clip, aside from maybe dandelion fluff, is more or less considered a vegetable. But cucumbers are technically a fruit you say? Yes, and they are also considered vegetables. Both are technically true - in much the same way people like you can be considered both an intellectual, and an idiotic smart-ass. It all depends on context.
tetondons
Even the phrase "scientifically, vegetables do not exist," is false, because people can scientifically study linguistics, and the term and concept of 'vegetables' does exist in linguistics. "Vegetables are not a categorization in the science of botany" is a different concept than vegetables not existing in all of science, and even then that wouldn't mean they didn't exist, it would just mean you don't know how words work.
MillenniumFalcon
"The mob is fickle, brother."
BumbleBeeBeardedGingerBear
I knew that cucumber, squash, eggplants etc were fruit bc i'm a gardener. But i honestly didnt know about the celery, broccoli, one. TIL. I love this.
candle340
Fish also do not exist
HaberdasherInGold
"X is not in this box, therefore X does not exist, despite all the things clearly referred to as X."
candle340
More correctly, when it comes to fish, there is no taxonomical definition that doesn't also include ALL vertebrates, whether we consider them "fish" or not
HaberdasherInGold
When I go fishing, I go to catch fish. I don't care for specific classification. Saying "fish don't exist" is on the level of "I'm reading a book about the Dust Bowl, and since it doesn't mention lasers, that means lasers aren't real."
MrAcurite
Vegetables do totally exist though. The "Scientific definition," or lack thereof, is meaningful in a Scientific context, but other contexts exist. The culinary context makes sense for daily use, and also for stuff like taxes, because you want to tax desserts more than staple foods. It would be like claiming that houseplants don't exist, just because they're not their own order or something. Thus, vegetables do exist, you just don't get invited to parties.
KingSwing
I'm guessing it was all the Saiyans.
Sonicschilidogs
Vegetables generally tend to signify the vegetative portions of the plant, which could include the root, stalk, leaf, and flower. Tomato is only considered a vegetable because of Congress wanting school pizza to be in the vegetable food group.
Immycatsdad
Actually, wasn't it ketchup?
yesyoucancancan
Did you use a rat to get the point across?
ProppaGanda
Vegetable is a culinary term. Things can be more than one thing at a time
MosquitoHawker
I agree. Likewise, if we are going to subdivide “vegetables” then let’s go after fruit too. Berries, aggregate fruits, multiple fruits, dry fruits like drupes, legumes, cereal grains, capsulate fruits, and nuts. Though to be fair, fruits are taxonomically encapsulated in those descriptions where vegetable is *shrug* a plant in general?
cousteau
There's a hell of a difference between "there isn't a concrete definition for" and "does not exist". Or do ravens not exist?
Rhythmaster
How is a raven like a writing desk?
AnythingMuchShorter
The word means the general category that most of that stuff is in. It's like saying that trucks don't exist because a ranger or F-150 is actually a ford and a raptor or tacoma is actually a toyota.
muzzmuzzle
Does it amount to a 'hill of beans' cos they're not vegetables either??
turdfuerguson
Tylurker
Die Hard is a Christmas movie too, right? We get it...
spinbutton3
Seems a bit needlessly pendantic. You say tomato and I say tomato..yes I know it is a fruit.
aleister94
But that’s just a theory…A FOOD THEORY thanks for watching
WeatherWiz
Well did you post it in a comedic video format like this?
iamthemanwithnoname
Presumably not
WeatherWiz
Well, there’s ya problem!
dwilson0725
Fish don't exist.
Chronomechanist
Oh yeah? If vegetables don't exist, explain this. (Yeah okay, I know I'll go to hell for this one)
https://imgur.com/V1grBRX.gif
kimst
Pork and beef do not exist, only Sus scrofa domesticus and Bos taurus exist because pork and beef are only used in the culinary sense. Food does not exist because it is not scientifically categorized? Of course salad exis
ArgumentativeArguerJustBecause
There's also no such thing as a fish!
DarkwingDuc
But they do exist. They are simply not a scientific classification. Just because something is not a taxonomic class doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
astrangehop
IDK man, there's no scientific Definition for "salad dressing" or "Flan" and those things aren't real either
TwiceK
You're only going to die because you don't eat any greens.
nicoleoftheeast
They do exist, it’s just not a scientific term. It’s not a good argument tbh
fluffMlemGod
I’m so happy for you getting upvoted today :)
ArchMagos
Out of context, "vegetables do not exist" is false and something an insane person would say. "Scientifically, vegetables do not exist." Is true, but vegetables do exist as a culinary category.
OreoBorealis
A vegetable is any edible part of any plant that is not the fruit or seed-bearing part of the plant
cyno01
"Vegetable" is a (loose) culinary classification, nothing botanical or taxonomic.
carmexcoveredlips
Chef here. I appreciate the word exists for culinary purposes-some dishes have so many tubers, leafs, roots, fruits and seeds that naming stuff would be difficult and understand it to be a word to mean an umbrella term in the same way that animals is used. So while we may only eat the root of a carrot and the leaf of a lettuce, they are both colectively, vegetation.
Beef and plant stew sounds gross. So does beef and vegetation. And beef with roots, bulbs, stalks, and tubers stew is too long.
butIlikeitbecauseitisbitterandbecauseitismyheart
Thank you, Chef!
shitheadtookmyname
That's like saying blue does not exist bc there's cerulean, navy, teal, etc
shitheadtookmyname
A vegetable is a plant part we eat that isn't fruit or a grain
ChickenROAR
So VeggieTales was a lie?! Sacrilege.
TeaOverdose
i think the only real thing in veggietales are the vegetables
lilbrother
KuldFyt
DefinitelyaHumanNotanAlien
I google defined it, it says a vegetable is 'a plant or part of a plant used as food, such as a cabbage, potato, carrot, or bean.'
JoeLedger
So...by that definition, a fruit is a vegetable. Silly google.
astrangehop
Yeah, and according to the USFDA milk is a food because of how fast it spoils and where it comes from. This isn't hard.
cousteau
I'm OK with that.
vmos
a plant or part of a plant that is used as food, excepting those parts that contain testa (the hard outer coating of seeds) or wood or pollen?
kaiken1987
Not only that but grains are as well so bread and beer are healthy
SherMattLockSmith
Yes, indeed, botanically speaking all fruits are vegetables. The differentiation between them for classification otherwise is a subjective culinary definition, not an objective botanical or scientific defenition.
iamthemanwithnoname
I guess wat I really hate is when people point out a Tomato is a fruit. Like, sure but so is a cucumber. Why is the tomato seen as so special when all fruit are vegetables anyway and loads of vegetables are fruits.
carmexcoveredlips
Part of it is the history it has with a supreme court ruling in 1892 when the taxation of imported vegetables was introduced. The decision was to err towarss the common understanding, not the botannical.
thesavagery
It'll take a lot longer to die on that hill if you eat your vegetables every day.
DancesWithHippos
Vegetables, the culinary term for certain plant matter. Depending on the ones, they have great fiber, vitamins and nutrients.
drduffer
Well done, Sir or Madam! Here: ⬆️
dingleberrysauce
how do you eat the wheelchair?
Astramancer
Like a peanut, you aren't supposed to eat the shell.
Snooj
If they don't exist then you're eating nothing and you'll die very quickly.
Bakasauruswastaken
Eat your what, everyday?
haveanupvotegif
1BadPanda
Vegetables. Like fruit, but less sugar and more fiber.
DongleDingler
So less sugar than cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, squash, eggplants, avocados, pumpkins, peas, okra, olives and corn?
Casually
That is like saying music doesn't exist because you can define any song by the style of music it is.
LordKingSalmon
"because you can define any song by the style of music it is."
How can you define it by the style of MUSIC it is if MUSIC doesn't exist? You can't argue something doesn't exist if you have to use the word in the explanation.
vmos
"because you can define any song by the style of composition or performance it is."
LordKingSalmon
Except composition itself can refer to more than one medium, where music composition has its own category, and music is still used as a term. How would you define a song by performance? That sounds more like you're going off the visual, not the audio. If you are going off of the audio, you're back to the style of music.
vmos
you can take the same lyrics and melody and even sometimes the same chords and notes and depending on how you perform that, it could be a country song or death metal, nothing to do with visuals. And yes, "composition" can be used to refer to a novel or a painting, but the use of the word "song" earlier in the sentence means we're refering to the composition of the song, because that's how language works.
vmos
You don't even have to define the genre, just dismiss is as "a series of pressure waves"
abion47
That's probably an apt comparison actually. Similarly to "vegetable", "music" as a generic term is difficult to precisely and objectively define, and while virtually everyone has an intuitive sense of what is and isn't music, there isn't really a precise place to draw the line.
CJAW
It's also similar to how there isn't really a scientific definition for fish
PleaseRespectMyAsshole
"Music is an art form that combines sounds, either vocal or instrumental, to convey ideas and emotions through rhythm, melody, harmony, and color."
CoinedWatcher
Does my fart count?
CJAW
The definition that I memorized in middle school band was "music is the art of combining sound and tone together in a suitable manner that is pleasant to one's ear"
Goldensands
Color?
abion47
Under that definition, rap and solo a capella would arguably not be considered music. "Color" is also not really an objectively quantifiable metric.
UrbanHerbalist
Tell that to my synaesthesia
Unfortunate500
Fish don't exist either, so add that to the list.
Endocrom
Birds
Sonicschilidogs
Fish as polyphyletic groupings exist, it's just that if you made fish monophyletic, you would have to include all derived vertebrates and conservative Christians get angry about that idea
ancalime
Well yeah, no one wants to hear that the feeding of the 5000 was with bread and "derived vertebrates".
DancesWithHippos
Wait, what is this "bread" you speak of?
SmoeAhsolse
It's made from fruit.
dwilson0725
Trees don't exist.
JayDeeDubs
Vegetables absolutely exist. It's part of a different system of classification, as noted, a culinary one. This is like arguing Fahrenheit doesn't exist, just because it's a shitty unit of measure.
wiltsjunk
Fahrenheit is the best unit of measure what are you talking about.
Beardologist
Fartingheat?
DHDragon
Fahrenheit does exist, but it fucking shouldn't /s
Thesaya
It's a game show.
Snooj
It's part of a book.
TheTexasLefty
a comedy gameshow, even
Endocrom
Comedy doesn't exist, just pain and time
Baalzak
Game shows don't exist. Science tells us they are just reality shows that have a winner.
inkasep1
Reality shows don’t exist. Science tells us it’s just a tv show without professional actors. Or writers. The camera crew generally ain’t that great either.
jsims281
I can 100% assure you that reality shows have writers.
inkasep1
Sorry that’s my fault for shortening. I meant‘professional’ writers. …which in and of itself was more a dog at the quality of writing.
Misteree8
Its pointing to the fact that Vegetable being a culinary term is more a subject than objective term. You have seeds, fruits, tubers, all under this term, even though they are very different things botanically. What they only have in common is that we humans deemed them edible. If a word is too broad or too esoteric it ends up meaningless. For instance everyone has their own definition of "spiritual." If everyone interpretes one word a million ways then what does it mean?
tooomanystevesgotbanned
Agreed/
darthnerdus6236
It would be more like comparing Celsius to warm. One is a well defined term while the other is a rather vague notion.
IconicM
So... You're saying bananas don't exist?
LonelyVoid
Yeah and also fruit has a scientific definition and a culinary definition, so it's not wrong to say tomato isn't a fruit when you're talking about cooking, OKAY, DEMETRIUS FROM STARDEW VALLEY? fuck you, something not following a specific scientific definition doesn't make it factually inaccurate.
NotaCPA
science vs non science
somerandomusernamebecauseididntlikemyoldone
I agree with your first point, but not the second. I think a more apt example is claiming Fish don't exist (or we are all fish) according to cladists because of how they categorize evolutionary trees. So by a specific categorization they don't, but by any other they do. But as another person said it's a game show, I imagine they are given a prompt and have to roll with it, honestly it's an exercise I have done a bunch for skill building
JayDeeDubs
Yes, the fish categorization works well here, but I didn't think of it at the time, and here we are, watching a bunch of Americans defend Fahrenheit.
OgreMkV
A better example is monkey. Monkey is a terrible term that is essentially all primates EXCEPT: members of strepsirrhini, tarsiers and hominidae (or hominini depending on who you talk to).
allmj
But farenheight has a definition. its a scale based on the movement of mercury at different temperatures. Where 0 is the temperature a solution of salt water freezes. 32 is the temperature normal water freezes. And can be easily and accurately reproduced at scale. There is no official definition of what a vegetable is. Its generally assumed to be all edible plant parts that are non fruits. But then is bamboo a vegetable? What abt cane sugar or seaweed?
Boomboomyeahshaketheroom
It is A JOKE
SkittishLittleToaster
Bingo.
Duraxis
Fish don’t exist
JayDeeDubs
Or all tetrapods are fish
MAup
To be fair, its like comparing apples and oranges
micicle
Fahrenheit doesn't exist fight me
Monocular0
It’s more like arguing “water isn’t wet” because you’re using some hyperspecific definition of “wet” that does not include things composed of liquids, contrary to nearly every English dictionary.
GTimgur
I do legitimately like the increased precision of Fahrenheit!
Jawesome19
Listen here you Fahrenheit hater. I fucking love Fahrenheit ok, I LOVE IT
Shapster
I second that sir! 176.7C or 350F lol.
JayDeeDubs
That's assuming you have to set it to some Fahrenheit temperature and then convert it. Cooking at 175C or 180 aren't going to meaningfully change things.
Lichelf
Yup, 350F was chosen because it's a nice number, not because it's better than 349F or 351F.
aPokal
You love Fahrenheit Zero Kelvin? That is so low, you can't go lower.
swephisto
WeeHuaHua
Fahrenheit is truly a better system of measurement for the human experience.
HiddenSanity
*If you grew up with it. If you grew up with Celsius then 'It's 80 out' sounds like 'They're all dead'
OmniscientSquid
Mm, much like ‘the human experience’, that is a deeply subjective statement.
sysadm1n
And yet everyone is so quick to shred anyone that dares promote Fahrenheit..
WeeHuaHua
0 = really cold 100= very hot … this part of the human experience is hardly subjective. Celsius is how water feels. Kelvin is how an atom feels. Fahrenheit is how a human feels. Why not be open to ideas instead of just finding a way to shoot it down. Don’t be so joyless.
Snooj
Same here. Finer units of measurement. If 71 is a little too warm I want to skootch it down to 70, not go from 21.6 to 21.1. That's dumb.
DarwinsAgain
I gotta say, I've heard this assertion before and it has to be about the inane 'argument' in support of the Fahrenheit system that I've ever heard. If you seriously think you can feel the difference between 22 degrees Centigrade and 21 degrees without any external measuring technique then I'm afraid you're living in a fantasy world.
BruceMan200
As a person with a centigrade thermostat, you have 21.5 and 21... Obviously...
ttm2
and any decent electronic thermometer has a precision of 0.1°C
maddeninglemon
I think "exist" here is being used in the sense of metaphysical realism, as in "exists independently of being thought of or experienced". In other words vegetables are a social construct and not a thing existing in objective reality.
whitey211
Then define what it is. As she started, a fruit has a defined "box" that all fruits fit in. The culinary definition of a vegetable is basically "these things, because I said so". Why tomato and not an orange? They are nearly identical in form.
lineaira
If fruit has a defined "box", then veggies could be all edible parts of a plant or fungus that are not fruit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
MerriMod
Botanically, the definition of a vegetable is any part of a plant that isn't part of its reproduction derived from a flower. Fruits are the mature ovary of a plant, thus they are not considered vegetables. Strictly speaking, both tomatoes and oranges are berries.
The culinary definition is the edible part of a plant. "Vegetable" is a categorical macro term; leaves, stem, roots, tubers, bulbs, and flowers. It also includes fungi, despite those being completely different entities on every scale.
Totalwombat
Cucumber, capsicums, zucchini,peas,
MerriMod
The first three are berries, while peas are considered an aggregate fruit, botanically speaking. The pea pod itself is the fruit, while what we commonly consider as "peas" - the little green balls - are seeds. They can also be classified as legumes.
whitey211
In the video she was using botanical definitions for the parts of the plants, and I have no issue with that. As for the culinary definition you gave- cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers etc aren't vegetables then. They are not leaves, stem, roots, tubers, bulbs or flowers.
MerriMod
Cucumbers, tomatoes, and peppers are berries, botanically speaking. In culinary terms, they get folded under the "flower" category, as they are the result of a flower's single ovary. Berries paradoxically are considered vegetables, fruits, or neither - simply and erroneously "berries" - simultaneously depending on what purpose they traditionally serve in a dish. The general rule of thumb is that sweet/sour/tart = fruit or berry, bitter/savory/"earthy" = vegetable.
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
pounds and ounces were right there and you went with the one scale on which imperial is objectively superior to metric
Evi1Gav
First of all, Fahrenheit isn't imperial, it's metric. It counts in base ten, whereas every imperial measurement system uses some other fucked up system (fuck off cups). Secondly, Fahrenheit is great for telling people it's hot "it's 100 out", objectively, hot. We understand 100 as a big number. But it's dreadful for telling someone it's cold "bit cold today, it's 40".
sysadm1n
Fahrenheit is for people and weather. Celsius is for everything else.
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
most things which there might be an argument for celsius are better measured by kelvin, with the singular exception of actually measuring water temperature at 1 atmospheric pressure
Monocular0
Not if you’re a liter of pure water.
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
at exactly 101.325 kPa
Raeghir
No it is not
KingXizor
Fahrenheitt gives a range of 462 units to the same scale of 140 in Celcius. It is a much better system for daily human use with the parts of general life. If you want to use celcius you might as well just use Kelvin and ditch Celcius alltogether. Basing 0-100 on water's state changes doesnt benefit the layman as well as the range that 0-212 does. Also Fahrenheit was developed with the human body temperature in mind, and before Celcius at that. Beyond all of that, they ARE effectively comprable >
Raeghir
They are both arbitrarily set, but C is set to external factors which i think is alot easier to consider, its 0 so water starts freezing/thawing, saying its 68 degrees so its colder than the human body in fahrenheit makes no sense,
JayDeeDubs
If simply more units make it better, why not a thousand? Or, ooo, a million? This is essentially the spinal tap argument: Fahrenheit is good because it goes to 11. Kelvin goes far too cold, and unnecessarily, for everyday use, has 3 digits for average temps. 0 being the freezing point of water benefits laymen exceedingly anywhere that gets freezing weather, for travel safety, knowing how weather may effect plants, personal safety, etc.
KingXizor
in ease of use and the only real dividing factor is familiarity. 20°C doesn't mean anything to me off-hand but I know exactly what 68°F feels like without thinking.
Raeghir
Well that is simply due to growing up with it, i know instinctively what 20°C feels like, same with all temps in C, with Fahrenheit i have no idea
RootMeanSqr
32-212. That sounds so much better. /s
KingXizor
Originally based on the temperature that a specific brine mixture maintained itself, the freezing temp of water was set at 32°F shortly after the initial forming of the scale with boiling exactly 180° above it for easy fractional scaling.
JayDeeDubs
Found the American in denial. Fahrenheit sucks.
HavelTh3Rock
[Citation needed]
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
the advantage of most metric scales is subunits are powers of 10 - which doesn't apply to temperature as no one ever uses centidegrees. the advantage of celsius is "water freezes at 0 and boils at 100" which is not an issue that ever comes up in day-to-day life. water boils a minute after i push the button on the kettle - no one ever needs to tell the difference between 73C water and 92C water.
JayDeeDubs
0 in Celsius is where water freezes. Is the weather approaching zero? Then you know outdoor plants are in danger of frost, any precipitation may turn roads and walkways treacherous. 0 in Fahrenheit isn't anything. 100 in Fahrenheit isn't anything. It's a system mapped to nothing, and so largely good for nothing.
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
yeah except that's not true - if the weather says 0C then whether any water is ice or not is dependent on highly local conditions such as wind and shade and radiative cooling to outer space. what's the advantage to "it's kinda close to 0" versus "it's kinda close to 30"? a system mapped to nothing is not worse than a system mapped to an arbitrary and irrelevant scale
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
meanwhile every decade of F roughly corresponds to a heavier outerwear layer, 0F is minnesota cold and 100F is florida hot. it is the best scale to measure temperature for people; cope and seethe you monarchist invertebrate
WeeHuaHua
Amen
ArcUlfr
I'm going to be the pedant in the room and say you're both wrong; we should use either Kelvin or Rankine. At least then we won't have idiots saying "it's twice as hot as..." or "it's twice as cold as..." or similar idiocy.
mieper3
You might think you're making a good point, but, like most other comments in this post saying one is better than the other, your argument only works for you because you grew up using that measurement.
For me as a non-american, your comment tells me nothing other than 100f is probably hotter than 0f.
Fillask
What makes you say that? Genuine question; I've had some Americans I know say the same, but I never got their point. Supposedly it's a better indication of how a temperature 'feels', but considering that I feel like I'm melting when other people say it's perfect weather, I'm neither seeing nor buying it.
Jackoftoys
Do you prefer ratings "1 out of 10" or "out of 5 stars"?
F is like the 1 out of 10. You can get more practical information without going into fractions or decimals.
VoxVocisVerum
WhyDontYouMakeMe
Objectively? Celsius is better for all measurements, Fahrenheit is just a convenient way to convey more information with human scale temperatures. 100°F is bordering dangerously hot, while still tolerable, 50°F is mild weather that needs a light jacket, 0°F is dangerously cold and should be avoided if you aren't properly prepared. 0°C is cold while being tolerable with medium jackets, 50°C is summer in the world's hottest deserts, 100°C is near instantaneous death
Cindex1337
Objectively, it is not better for all measurements. That's ridiculous. First of all, when using whole numbers and even a single decimal place, fahrenheit is more precise. That's the only objective thing that makes one better than the other.
Secondly, there's nothing at all objectively better about Celsius. You *could* argue it's more convenient for boiling water, but who gives a shit?
Now if we're going to compare length measurements, sure. Otherwise you're full of shit.
IrateWolfe
My understanding is that F is still used in chemistry, because the degrees are actually slightly smaller, it's easier to be accurate without resorting to decimals
ThePunishersVengefulBrother
I manage 3 labs. We use C.
IrateWolfe
Then apparently I am incorrect.
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
what would a single advantage of C be? the standard advantages of metric is that they're scales of 10 so its easy to convert between centimeters and meters and kilometers in ways that inches, miles, and feet arent; but there aren't useful celsius subunits. meanwhile the dynamic range of F is superior - "in the 40's" or "in the 60's" conveys more information than "in the teens" of C. water boils at 100C but you don't measure water to see if it's boiling and that leaves 40-99C as useless temps
Totalwombat
You'll find metric is actually scales of 1000. Not ten it's just tens also work in 1000s
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
okay so A) 1000 is a power of 10, obviously, and B) whats a centimeter is that a thousandth of a meter? or a decibel is that one thousandth of a bel?
WeeHuaHua
Celsius is how water feels. Kelvin is how an atom feels. Fahrenheit is how a human feels.
0 = really cold
100 = really hot
RootMeanSqr
You are not used to it. If you grew up with celsius, it would be meaningful to you.
Fillask
I don't relate to what you call superior, seeing as we just give a range or say 'circa 15' if we have a need to be vague, but thank you for your answer :)
kiukkuinenkissa
I don't understand. 0°C means it's starting to freeze. 5°C means jacket weather. 10°C means "grab a hoodie". 15°C means it's getting warm so gotta make sure to wear t-shirt under the hoodie. 20°C means it's getting t-shirt appropriate, no longer sleeves needed. 25°C means uncomfortable. 30°C (and above) means hell. Saying "in the teens" (weird way to phrase it, but yeah) conveys plenty? I mean, the 10° difference between 10° and 20° is a lot, but it still gives useful information?
kiukkuinenkissa
Additionally, higher Celsius numbers have plenty of value in everyday life, as a Finn. Big difference between room temp, 40°C, 60°C, 80°C when determining when the sauna is ready. (Or when making tea and coffee, if you are an enthusiast!)
JayDeeDubs
The single advantage is easily recognizing when cold weather becomes serious. And easy conversion to Kelvin. Familiarity to most people around the world. Let me start again: the three advantages are....
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
cold weather becomes serious at about 0F, which is where the frostbite risk starts. and no one who needs to use kelvin has trouble with also doing a little bit of division instead of just adding 273.15
MrSyth
Every single time people defend fahrenheit it's "its how humans feel" and "the range is better" without realizing that's because they grew up with it. For us knowing that it's near 0, or in the 10s, or 20s gives us the exact same indication! C is both scientifically based AND for us it's the way it feels. F misses the plank by having arbitrary scaling
SaveitforQueenDoppelpoppolus
okay but in that case they're at best equal - and K is scientifically based. I asked for an objective advantage of C
HavelTh3Rock
So what you're saying is neither one is superior in any regard and this entire argument is bullshit?
WizardofAnus
But it's not like it has irrational or imaginary scaling. It's still a rational number. So the only advantage that C has over F is, its easier (addition/subtraction) reversibility with Kelvin. How often do you use Kelvin? Is it often enough that changing between units would be a measurable difficulty for you?
WhyDontYouMakeMe
It's not better, as you rightly said that learning it is what makes the numbers important. Fahrenheit is more /convenient/ for describing temperatures between 0°F and 100°F, since that describes the boundaries of the extreme temperatures that most humans would interact with and recognize as dangerous. Literally every single thing is better in Celsius, Fahrenheit is just convenient in this one single use case, not better
Cindex1337
Fahrenheit is more accurate. Water boils at 100C or 212F. When comparing how things feel or a safe temperature for food, it's literally just more accurate.
It's also easier when referencing weather, 0F is crazy cold and 100F is crazy hot. Easier to tell what it's going to feel like because it's basically a 0-100 scale.
That's pretty much the only real differences, and the second one isn't really important if you're already used to C anyways.
Fillask
I'd say the former is solved by decimals and the latter is just what you're used to; again, my idea of nice weather differs from those of others.
YoureTooTents
Fahrenheit is how you feel, Celsius is how water feels and Kelvin (Rankine) is how atoms feel.
protoman1080
Fahrenheit is like "what percentage hot am I?"
WhatTheFrog
That's just something Americans say to justify using an inefficient temperature scale. I'm not saying you're doing that on purpose, but it sure helps people believe that there's no need to switch to the metric system, because they're "both good in different ways". I grew up with the metric system, 0°C is cold, 35°C is hot, that's how it feels to me.
ttm2
Precisely. 25°C? that's shorts weather. 20°C? light shirt over a t-shirt, maybe long pants. 10°C? you better put on something warmer. 30°C? You better have sandals.
ArmoredWanderer
Except how "you" feel will vary from person to person, making the measurement pretty useless. On the other hand the human body is 60% water, so knowing how water would handle the temperature gives you a pretty good idea of what the majority of your body feels about the temperature, even if "you" feel differently about it.
spartanatreyu
You can feel the difference between 1 degree of Celcius. You can't feel the difference between 1 degree of Fahrenheit.
JacobKnipper
You literally could not be more wrong
afgncap
As a Celsius user it really depends and it not always applies unless you are in a controlled environment. Outside it can be impossible to tell the difference in either scale.
Bryllyg
I assure you, I know immediately when my husband has knocked the AC down from 74 to 73F.
spartanatreyu
It's much more likely that any action performed on the thermostat also triggers the fans pushing new air in the room, and if you put the temperature down by one then up by one again the new air would be indistinguishable from air one degree different.
There's a funny but stupidly in-depth YouTube channel called Technology Connections that goes through how our tech lies to us, how it actually works. He has a whole bunch of videos on AC.
MrMcGeeIn3D
My wife can also tell within SECONDS.
JayDeeDubs
Fahrenheit is arbitrary units on an arbitrary scale, where meaningful breakpoints fall on random numbers. It's only familiarity that makes it seem better for human use.
ThanksForTheThing
TIL
Trunkmonkay
Yes Celsius is much better when you don't use 60% of the scale because it's a scale meant for the states of water, which definitely isn't arbitrary when measuring air temperature. The guy who has to change his thermostat by quarters of a degree thinks that a base 10 scale of human comfort is stupid for measuring temperature lmfao.
ttm2
Both negative °C and values above 100°C are used all the time, what's this "don't use 60% of scale". And yes, using a scale that is related to one of the most important molecules that is shaping our everyday lifes is sensible. 0°C means that you need to drive carefully because of ice on the roads. Don't you have cars in America?
Trunkmonkay
Hey bud, when was the last time you saw 100°c on the weather report? When you want to boil a pot of water, do you set your stovetop to 100° or does it work like everywhere else in the world and you just set it to high, medium, or low? 0° for potential for ice is just as arbitrary as 32° for ice and neither takes more effort to remember than the other. I reiterate; in a day to day use for the average person, you don't use 60% of the 0-100 scale for Celsius because it is defined by the states of 1
whyexactly
Do you really not use temperature for anything other than indoor air?
Trunkmonkay
We're not talking about using it for anything else. I'm not saying Celsius or kelvin or anything else has no function, just that they're stupid measurements for air temperature in regards to human comfort.
defaultname2000
Well, to be honest that is exactly what I expected from Americans
rrlyrae
it's not arbitrary just b/c you don't like the endpoints (but F's have actual meaning). temp is dimensionless so they don't really matter.
JayDeeDubs
0 in Celsius means something. 0 in Kelvin means something. 0 in Fahrenheit means...?
NoNameFred
0F is the freezing point of a specific salt-water mixture; the mixture is self-stabilizing ("Eutectic"), which made it easier to establish at lower tech-levels than the freezing point of pure water was — because, unlike the freezing (and boiling) points of water, it is completely independent of things like Air Pressure, and so gives the same result at any altitude.
Toilet001
Cold
NoNameFred
I can accept that 0F has an actual meaning, but 100F was defined as "human body temperature". A value that not only varies with whether the subject is male or female, but also: age, health (including menstruation), state of consciousness, time of day, and *emotional state*, among other things. "Oh no, I'm feeling sad. Time to recalibrate all of the thermometers. That's frustrating… oh no! Now I need to recalibrate them again. That makes me so angry! Grr! Now I need to do it AGAIN!"
rrlyrae
it wasn't set to 100, but 96 as the average human body temperature. he picked 96 b/c it's divisible by 12, which is convenient for calculations. and the C scale is no longer based on water at all, in part b/c it's so hard to get pure enough water and exactly 1 atm of pressure.
warriorofdiscord
As an American... you're an arbitrary scale
Aldamas
tooomanystevesgotbanned
Found the American. Grow up with Celsius and that will be how 'you' feel.
Freeflare
And yet you're using a temperature scale that's mediocre at describing the thing you're predominately using it for. Since, and I am assuming here, that you are a land dwelling mammal and not some sort of super-evolved fish.
rudejohn
Try a shitty thermostat that uses whole Celsius degrees. 22 is not warm enough, and 23 is too warm.
jakedafish
Psha. Too big a range on each unit of Celsius to be used for air con. You Europeans and your sloppy measuring.
kiukkuinenkissa
30°F sounds hot to me. What would it be in C?
vwyx
30°F = -1°C. It is freezing.
Goarath
-0.5 ish
YoureTooTents
Fahrenheit - 0° is frickin cold and 100° is frickin hot.
Celsius - -17° is frickin cold and 38° is frickin hot??
I get what you are saying that familiarity makes it easy, but you can see what I mean, yes? (Yes I’m American, but am an engineer so I deal almost exclusively in °C at work).
mouthfullofpebbles
I really tried to give your thinking a go, but I think it's still a question of familiarity, because -17° is "a normal day" for me, I'll bike to work as usual and enjoy a little stroll at lunch, kids are playing outside. But +38° is a totally unimaginable hellscape that I really hope I'll never have to experience in my life. You can't adjust with clothing or anything, you just have to lay still and hope your brain will survive the boil?!
tooomanystevesgotbanned
No, I actually can't. My lack of familiarity with the absurd F scale means that I have to translate it to C in order for it to have any meaning. Also I'm a West Aussie, so no, 38'C is hot but it isn't frigging hot. 42'C is frigging hot.
Metlahaed
But 50 Fahrenheit is also cold
MrMcGeeIn3D
50°F is chilly at best.
afgncap
Feeling is subjective though, I get cold when it's around 5 C and then it gets worse, and then there is wind, humidity and other factors that may make it better or worse, same with hot so it doesn't really matter what exactly the scale shows and both scales are valid for that specific purpose. It is just a matter of familiarity. The difference is the Celsius is good for both weather and scientific.
jugend
tooomanystevesgotbanned
Yes, I completely agree.
vwyx
That's why we also calculate windchill and so on.
Lichelf
Celsius - 0° is frickin cold and 100° is frickin hot.
JohnEdwa
As someone who just came from a 100C Sauna, I agree.
Sanguinius4893
When you live further north, 0C is cold in the fall, but it's warm in the spring. If you know you know.
DarksteelPenguin
Old and hot are not a good metric.
Celsius - 0° is cold, 30° is hot
Fahrenheit - 32° is cold, 81° is hot??
See how that doesn't make sense either?
MBinks0
As long as we can all agree that -42 is too damn cold
ThanksForTheThing
UNHchabo
"Drops down to -173."
"Fahrenheit or Celsius?"
"First one, then the other."
dogbeachesarethebestbeaches
The frickiness is only relative to an individual's acclimatization to any given climate. If its how you feel then it should be a sliding scale depending on whether its winter or summer, ir if you are the kind of person who wears shorts in snow.