You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve heard every combination of “[food] is actually [plant part]” so any time anyone says this type of sentence, I just roll my eyes.
Cabbages are actually tree trunks
Raspberries are actually tubers
Wheat is actually a berry
And oranges are actually an eldritch, ante-dimensional horror perpetrated by intelligent, unseen beings
Also acorns are the progenitors of oranges.
Potatoes
are actually an eldritch, ante-dimensional horror perpetrated by intelligent, unseen beings
too.
Achenes are not nuts.
(1) Achene. A small hard indehiscent fruit. The term is strictly only applied to those formed from one carpel, but is sometimes used for those formed from two carpels (e.g. the fruit of the Compositae). The latter is better termed a cypsela.
(2) Nut. This is similar to an achene, but is typically formed from two or three carpels (e.g. dock fruit).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/achene
i. Achene - A one-seeded, dry, indehiscent fruit; the one seed is attached to the fruit wall at a single point.
ii. Nut - A dry, indehiscent, one seeded fruit similar to an achene but with the wall greatly thickened and hardened.
https://courses.botany.wisc.edu/botany_400/Lab/LabWK03Fruitkey.html
Also, even if they were, it wouldn’t make the strawberry a nut. It would make it covered in nuts.
Thank you! 👏
Like cashews?
While peanuts are not nuts, but legumes.
I hereby christen thee, pealegumes.
So what this nerd is saying is that we can milk a strawberry??
Before the tech gets there, let’s commission some “art” on that subject?
(For real, the seeds being nuts is a stretch)
Strawberries do not have nipples. :(
Ofc not, don’t be silly.
Nuts have nipples (where do you think almond milk comes from? Kids today have prob never seen an almond on a farm & think almond milk grows in the stores!).
And if the seeds on the strawberries really are “nuts”, then we should be able to milk them.
I see no flaw in my logic.The real problem these days is with intensive almond farming. Almond tastes better from free range almonds, with space to graze in peace and calm between the bushes.
Have you heard of “bitter almonds”? Turns up in mystery novels. It’s what you get from caged almonds raised on steroids.
I love it when activists save caged almonds & how their little faces light up when, for the first time in their nutty lives, they arent sucked on by a relentless machine.
This thread gets dangerously close to r34 territory, and I do not know if I like that.
Well, unfortunately I’m no artist & I’m against AI (the system, not the tech as such), so no pics.
But yeah, definitely, can you imagine the number of nips on a single strawberry? And the satisfaction of each nut? The dripping milk?
…no, definitely not.
Also not an artist but got chu fam.
Strawberry cows
If strawberries do not have nipples, then where does strawberry milk come from?
I wonder if people are allergic to strawberries are just allergic to the seeds then
Strawberry nut flour - it’s gluten free!
Smelling roses has always reminded me of strawberries, although people think that’s strange. Taste and smell are connected and this explains it.
I want to fill a spoon with strawberry seeds and see how it tastes
You gotta shell them first.
strawberries are accessory fruits, not nuts.
But they’re covered in nuts
Kinda like your mom last night
👈😎👈
…which is exactly what the third comment is saying
If you took all the seeds off a strawberry, it’d still be a strawberry. A bowl full of strawberry seeds is not a bowl of strawberries.
e: They’re actually not even nuts. They’re achenes.
This is nuts!
Strawberry seeds are designed by a malevolent god to stick perfectly in human front teeth.
Raspberry seeds make fun of strawberry seeds.
I have a chia seed from 1973 in the back of my mouth.
You celebrated 50 years together two years ago… Such a heartwarming story!
Keeps my mouth warm too
They are made to stay a long time in hosts so that they can spread farther
Like cashews!
I thought nuts had to come from trees, though.
Like, peanuts aren’t actually nuts.
What is a tree?
Well damn, I guess strawberries can be trees and nuts.
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding your post, but cashews are drupes, not nuts. I don’t know whether all true nuts come from trees, but all the ones I can think of do.
If strawberries are nuts, cashews are nuts. It’s a seed that grows on the outside of an accessory fruit.
Obviously strawberries aren’t nuts either but we’re playing pretty fast and loose with words and meanings.
The “nut” from a cashew is the seed a stone fruit (like the center of a peach pit). The strawberry “seed” is the entire fruit.
I don’t see why the apple from a cashew can’t also be classified as an aggregate accessory fruit, like the red flesh of the strawberry, which would make the cashew pit an achene like the seeds of a strawberry.
There’s a legumes joke in there, but I dunno.
Peanuts claim to be nuts, but they aren’t a legumtimate part of the taxonomy.
I dunno.
Ah, my favorite flavor enhancing chemical:
Monosodium Legumtimate.
Honest attempt. 7.5/10.
To me arguing over which fruit belongs in which category is a prime example of people arguing over shadows in Plato’s cave. Not that it’s a waste of time or anything but sometimes people act like tomatoes won’t grow if you call them vegetables. Like at the end of the day it’s just humans developing a system to make sense of nature rather than discovering an inherent, pre-existing system.
Technically, the pre-existing system could be evolutionary biology. I’m just saying that in some cases, a little bit of pedantry is enjoyable. It’s an acquired taste, maybe
I totally agree. It is completely nonsense to say. In other languages it is different. I just know some Spanish, but they don’t have a word for berries or nuts, it is all just fruit. (Forrest fruit for berries or dried fruit for nuts) but they don’t call potatoes vegetables, but “tuberculo”. Interesting difference, which i guess is because they have another climate and other plants.
We do just call it a vegetable in my language.
Bayas y nueces… Tubérculo is closer to the botanical definition because it is a tuber (storage organ) and not a fruit (like most vegetables). And I would think that tubérculo could be any tuber vegetable, not just papas/patatas. Things like ñame or otoe are called tubérculo también.
Like at the end of the day it’s just humans developing a system to make sense of nature
The core of the matter is that we have multiple, mutually incompatible schemes sharing in part the same terminology. Biology is not cooking, both fields care about vastly different things thus the categorisation scheme is different, that’s the end of it. Culinarily, tomatoes have too much umami to be fruit. Botanically peppermint is an aromatic, I recommend you not put any into your soffritto.
EDIT:
Tomato is also dominated by oxalic acid, not malic, citric, (typical fruit acids) or acetic (fermented/overripe). Oxalic acid is in parsley, chives, spinach, beans, lettuce, that kind of stuff. “It’s sour” isn’t sufficient to describe a taste profile, our tongues may not tell them apart but our noses definitely do.
I think it should be possible to break the culinary categorisation down to chemistry. That doesn’t tell you anything about the “why” but it’s definitely not random and definitely not all in our heads.
I think it should be possible to break the culinary categorisation down to chemistry. That doesn’t tell you anything about the “why” but it’s definitely not random and definitely not all in our heads.
I agree with what you mean in kind of a broad-strokes way, but as individuals our subjective experiences of flavors can vary pretty wildly. There’s genetics, neurology, age, and habit/experience that influence our taste in terms of actually sensing the chemicals. Then there’s what we see, taste, and smell just prior or during tasting that severely impact our interpretation of that chemical sense.
Oh, this is actually a perfect example of the arbitreity of mapping systems!
A looong time ago on reddit, I got into an argument with someone who was doing that thing where you confuse the map for the object itself. We were mostly talking about the chemistry table. But anyway, he just could not see how a change in motivation, that is what the map designer finds useful, could change how the map is arranged.
I mean, I don’t think this would convince him: he would just say the culinary version isn’t real. But still, I really like it.
I mean that’s a pretty big difference right?
Like, the periodic tables mapping isn’t arbitrary or alternate.
Like you can’t actually map the periodic a different way and it’s in a sense “self evident” in a way arbitrary mappings aren’t.
The periodic table itself is a kind of proof of quantum theory, or at least, strong supporting evidence. While it can be displayed differently, actually couldn’t be arranged differently and the things we know about physics hold true.
Like, the periodic tables mapping isn’t arbitrary or alternate.
Neither the biology nor culinary mappings are arbitrary, they have their rhyme and reason. Also biology would be the alternate one? Because the culinary definitions were definitely first.
Did you know that there’s quite extreme disagreements on what metals are? Chemists will tell you one thing and not be particularly unified in their response around the topic of semimetals, while astrophysicists have a very simple definition of metals: Anything that has more protons than helium.
Who is right? This has nothing to do with metaphysics (I’ve read a bit down the thread) as in “what is beyond physics, god, and stuff”, but how we interpret our (scientific) observations. Neither definition of metals is more correct than the other, they’re both maps drawn by scientists caring about vastly different things. Neither side says that the other is wrong – they just don’t care for it.
Back to the periodic table itself: Defining elements by protons has quite some predictive power but at the same time it’s a vast oversimplification of what actually goes on, ask any quantum chemist. It is rooted in quite hard science, but that doesn’t make it ground reality. Actual reality is something we can’t observe because to observe anything we first have to project it into our minds. All perception is modelling: Ask any neuroscientist. Or, for that matter, Plato.
Ah, there he is!
Just kidding.
The extreme usefulness of the one periodic table as we know it is why this is so hard to talk about. Philosophically, it isn’t any different: it is arranged by human values for human consumption. I think there is likely a strong reason that alien values would converge here, but that doesn’t really affect its arbitreity. The elements don’t have value unto themselves, they just are.
And there are plenty of different ways to arrange it. For one, if all you care about are the metals for some reason, you can arrange the nonmetals out of it completely. You could keep a linear, alphabetical list because whatever work you’re doing is derived from chemistry but does not actually care about atomic values.
yeah. you don’t understand the periodic table. this is the same cliff that both post-modernists and fascists have pushed themselves off of.
You are mistaking relativity for subjectivity and the two things are not equal. Human experience is not the arbiter of truth, and you couldn’t have picked a possibly worse example than the periodic table. To put a finer point on it: No. There aren’t other ways to construct the periodic table. Its construction has nothing to do with human perception.
You should’ve spend the time to go read about it before you use it as an example.
Wow, there he is. Like, for real.
It’s okay, man. You majored in some science field, you don’t care much for philosophy; we don’t have to be at each other’s throats here. I’m not questioning the validity of the periodic table, it’s simply a way of thinking about it.
Dude I understand what you think you are saying and you are quite simply wrong. You don’t understand what the periodic table is if you think it could be constructed in some other way or that it’s organization is arbitrary or subjective.
You are also wrong in the basic philosophy of it.
No wonder you got the piss taken out of your in that other place.
Hey, that guy is a troll and a pretty good one. Block and move on, you’re worth it
You never had tomato pie? It would likely change your idea of what too much savoriness is.
I haven’t but that sounds like a pie not a cake. A meal, not a dessert.
Well, not all pies are desserts for sure, but a tomato pie is, unless you deviate from the usual recipes.
Besides, you didn’t say that a dessert has to be a cake.
There’s also tomato jams, compote, and you can do a tomato cake mind you, a tomato cake is really more like banana bread, where it’s a flavoring more than the star of the show.
Point is that tomatoes can definitely serve in the same role as “fruit”, just like some things that are sweeter can be used in savory dishes.
It’s about the preparation, not the ingredient. I mean, look at bacon jam. Not a dessert, but it’s a savory and sweet spread that’s used in the same was as fruit based jams. Onion jam is in the same range (and, as a side note, there’s also onion and tomato pie which is more of a savory dish than a dessert, despite being fairly sweet anyway).
From a culinary standpoint, there are few ingredients that are fully excluded from dessert territory by virtue of having strong savory taste. There’s also not many excluded from entrees purely because they’re sweet. It’s all a wonderful spectrum of sweet and savory
I want my bananas to be the star of the bread show.
But to be fair, I am a horny slut for bananas.I should look up some tomato stuff; I’ve never even heard of these things.
Banana bread may be the best baked good in human history.
“Botanically” “culinary” “terminology” “biology” and then you say umami seriously. Which is entirely made up.
Why is microsoft from Germany writing in English? Why don’t they just post it on their main Account which actually has a primarely English-speaking audience?
The original post (not shown in the screenshot) is from PBS, that’s why it says “Author” by their name. If it was in English (likely) it makes sense to answer in English as well.
Ok, the original post by PBS is just cropped out, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation
