Youtube comments of Muizz (@muizzy).

  1. 2300
  2. 523
  3. 164
  4. 156
  5. 83
  6. 77
  7. 59
  8. 57
  9. 46
  10. 37
  11. 34
  12. 33
  13. 29
  14. 28
  15. 20
  16. 20
  17. 19
  18. 19
  19. 17
  20. 15
  21. 14
  22. 14
  23. 13
  24. 13
  25. 12
  26. 11
  27. 10
  28. 9
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 7
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. Well, when you get so deep in to the science of elementary particles, things get fuzzy, fast. An elementary (also called a point particle) is a particle which has no internal structure, it's not made of anything in the way that protons are made of quarks, it's just that particle. We call a proton a composite particle, these composite particles are far from spatially localized due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. The wavepacket of the particle always occupies a non-zero volume. With composite particle that isn't really a problem, seeing as that's when you get quantum superpositions of quantum states. An elementary particle however, doesn't have these superpositions or quantum states. Seeing as we describe the size of particles (composite and elementary alike) by the size of its structure, we can define the size of elementary particles to be exactly 0. It doesn't have such a structure because of it's elementary-ness. Experimentally we have found that the radius of an electron is lower than 10^-18 meters (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29724 - ctrl+f for electron radius) which falls in line with the value we expect exactly 0 to be. It is extremely difficult to explain these concepts in laymans terms without having you take a course in quantum mechanics. A wave particle duality says nothing about what a particle actually is. All it says is that a particle has properties consistent with both. Wikipedia has a fine article on that concept. (Got to eat dinner so cutting it off)
    2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. I think you're on very slippery ice when you have any sentence of the form "X is just Y"; it is bound to oversimplify the relation you're trying to establish. For example, I have been committed to the same partner for 6 years and haven't had any secondary relationships, yet strongly identify as poly. Why? Because I value my agency to the point where I feel uncomfortable in any setting where my actions are (implicitly) restricted. You do note a few statements in this discussion that I would like to also touch on: "sex should just be a perk in a relationship": I'm not fully sure how to interpret this, but what jumps out about this comment to me is the phrasing "should just be"; why should is be that way? Is there any physical reason for this, or is it something mental? If it is something mental, why would it be universal? This phrasing often (though not always) indicates that the exclaimer hasn't spent their time thinking about the implications and hence assumes the status quo. "And if it’s loving multiple people, then yes, being polyamorous is not wanting to commit.": I have to assume you mean romantic love here, because I find it hard to grasp that this includes the love one feels for friends. This sentence points to a very narrow definition of commit though, so I want to highlight this. If you mean commit as "committing to exactly one person", then you are right (though it would be rather crudely phrased). However, the way most people read the word commit is as "committing to a relationship", in which case there are a plethora of cases where people commit long term in poly relationships, marrying is not out of the ordinary, nor is having kids. If neither of those are clear commitments to a relationship, then nothing could be.
    2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. I watched the whole video, and I understand your argument, but it's also mute. Here's why: 1) You explicitly say that you shape recipes around "chunk" ingredients like how much pasta there is in a box of pasta. You then argue that the fluid ingredients change based upon this and make a song and dance about how rounding would screw with the proportions. What you forget to include in your analysis, is that you can just scale a pound to 500 grams and scale all the fluid ingredients by the same amount, without rounding. Suddenly, this argument is fixed. 2) At the end of your video, you mention that a tablespoon in different countries means something else. I'd like to point out two things here. First, this means that for anyone reading your recipe and following along in, say, Europe, who has imperial measuring tools, will still mess quantities like a tablespoon up. Second, these quantities (like the entire imperial system) is already defined in terms of the metric system. 3) Beyond point 2, a much more important argument against imperial recipes is that they are unreliable by virtue of being based on volume. Say we were making brownies and the recipe asks for 1 cup of cocoa powder. If my powder is ground finer than yours, I will be adding more cocoa to my brownies than you will. This also goes for things like rice and pasta, or anything which either has variable size, or variable density. Another example may be brown sugar: Do you just loosely pour it into the cup, or do you compress it? Both are exactly a cup, but both have wildly differing quantities. This is why even US bakers have standardized on the metric system: Expressing ingredients in grams ensures that your brownies and my brownies are exactly the same, even if our ingredients may differ.
    1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. Usually, you have very strong arguments for things, but these sound fairly weak to me. Most of them seem to come from a fundamental disagreement: I believe that recipes exist to ensure repeatability. While it seems like you believe recipes exist to teach the cook a dish. In that light, I'd counter-argue the points you made like this: 1. Eye-balling, though great for everyday cooking, has no place in the "formal" system of a recipe; as it decreases reproducibility. 2. This is a valid argument towards the quality of life, but not one towards the quality of the recipe. 3. This is mostly a non-argument. Assuming the worst case of a mixing bowl to which you need to add extra wet and dry ingredients, you're still only left with 1 mixing bowl to wash up (which you'd need to do anyway), and one small measuring bowl. (Dry can be weighed before wet.) The difference in washing up is minimal. 4. You debunked this one yourself. Having 2 scales, one for heavy things, and one for light things, is not an objection when you're comparing the space it occupies to a bunch of measuring cups. Using 2 scales like that also ensures higher accuracy than volume; even in small quantities. 5. This is why I believe we have very different views of recipes. The recipes I write and maintain are after many iterations of trial and error, getting a little closer to perfection every time. They're made for me and my friends, not because I don't know how to make a creme brulee, but because this exact version of creme brulee is the best I have thus far managed to make.
    1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1