Sure, but sugar/sweetness does balance sourness, perceptually and make sour things much more palatable, even though it doesn’t neutralise acidity.
Taste gets complex and offsetting or balancing is not neutralizing. It is more complementing it than that?
See, now this is one where figuring out if the correction is accurate or not is, at least to me, an interesting aside from the subject. It can happen!
Yep, I pointed this out here just a little while ago. The US Constitution calls them all '“states”. So, legally they are.
And “Cleopatra was really Greek, not Egyptian” . Well, true, she was descended from the Ptolemy successor state rulers of Egypt. But she was born in Egypt, her parents were born in Egypt, so were her ancestors some ten “greats” back or so (hard to count with all the inbreeding), and Ptolemy was Macedonian anyway. And she considered herself Egyptian anyway.
But certainly she was descended from Macedonians, most of whom did not consider themselves Egyptian.
To me, at least, one sits astride a motorcycle and on a scooter.
You just reminded me of an incident from over fifty years ago.
I was at college. I wanted a small refrigerator. There was a place that sold used refrigerators; I found a suitable one and asked the price. They gave me two prices: the price if I picked it up, and the price if they delivered it.
Somewhere in the conversation I referred to the delivery fee. They said there wasn’t any delivery fee. I said, um, you said it costs X if I pick it up, and X + Y if you deliver it. So Y is the delivery fee. They insisted there was no delivery fee. There were just two different prices; one for a delivered refrigerator, and one for the same refrigerator as a picked-up refrigerator. But there was no delivery fee.
I eventually gave up and bought the thing. But if I happen to think of it (which I usually don’t), apparently I’m still a bit ticked off about it. I didn’t mind paying for delivery; that was fair enough. But I objected to paying for delivery while being told that I wasn’t paying for delivery.
I’ve had customers ask me whether my radishes were bitter.
What they seem to actually mean (based on further conversation) is whether they’re sharp. Yes, they are; some more than others. They’re radishes. But they’re not bitter (or, if they are, I’m not bringing them to market.) To me those are two distinctly different flavors.
These days I answer “I wouldn’t call them bitter. But they are sharp.”
True of the peel; but not of the lemon flesh or juice, which are acidic but not bitter. At least in my mouth.
Back in the post-2020-election fiasco, when everybody suddenly became experts on election law, I saw numerous posts which proclaimed that the USA wasn’t a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. To which I always responded by informing them that a constitutional republic was a form of democracy. They always remained unconvinced, however.
That literally describes the aphorism “turning lemons into lemonade” 
I’ve also noticed that adding citrus— lemon or lime, to certain recipes like gumbos, also affects one’s (at least my) ability to detect saltiness. A meal I’m simmering that seems perfectly salted seems undersalted sometimes after I add the citrus towards the end of cooking .
Biblically, any four-legged livestock are “cattle.” “Neat cattle” = bovine
To botanists, there is no such term as ‘vegetable’. There are various structures of plants, including types of fruits, which are part of the process of reproduction. I’ve always found it faintly annoying when non-botanists imagine they are making some kind of point about the difference between fruits and vegetables. To cooks, vegetables, no matter what their botanical nomenclature, are savory, and ‘fruits’ are sweet. That’s it. Botanical terminology has very little overlap with cooking. Certainly not enough to make an interesting comment about the differences. I’m eating rhubarb crisp right now.
Well, there is Plantae, aka ‘The Vegetable Kingdom’ - perhaps a slightly outdated term.
I watch the program Antiques Roadshow (USA version) and love many things about the shown. One thing I don’t love is how they remind time & again that xxxx is a restricted material. Ivory, rosewood, whale products were really commonly used in the past and the inlay in the sword scabbard or guitar neck, for examples, isn’t really worth going over all of the restrictions over again every episode (a message flashed across the screen, which they also do, is fine) and doesn’t affect the appraisal or description anyway.
It’s clear to me that the appraisers are directed (and they otherwise wouldn’t) to remind us that, yes, sale of, say, human remains has some common-sense rules, and that everyone knows we, the TV viewers, don’t need to hear them again.
And then Suzuki comes out with The Bergman! 
I don’t know if the format is the same as the UK version of the show, but the reason they explain stuff like that every time it comes up, is that the expert is talking to a different person each time; to them, the information is news. We the audience are mere voyeurs of conversations between the expert and the owner of the object.
(I don’t think I recall very much discussion about restrictions - even ivory doesn’t come up every week).
There is also the possibility that someone got tired of angry letters of complaint that nobody mentioned the thing about elephant ivory, and decided to just explain it every damn time.
IIRC, that has been a Republican talking point- but you are correct- the USA has a republican form of democracy.
But in US law, there is.
Botanists follow a higher law. Probably.
Don’t call them Legos. They are LEGO™ brand interlocking construction bricks.
‘Nikon is Nye-kon not Nick-on’
(neither is exactly the Japanese pronunciation but more importantly, the official line from the company is that you should say it however you like)
Another one recently: every mention of Dunning-kruger has someone trying to shut it down, saying that it doesn’t mean what people think it does, or the original paper had some flaw.
But at this point it’s just a label for pointing out a particular kind of overconfidence based on ignorance. Who cares about the original paper?
Note that the everyday use doesn’t include claiming that D-K is the usual progression as someone learns about a topic.
IMO, the (potential) problems with the paper only matter if someone is actually citing the paper, or maybe in the gray area of the classic D-K graph in a PowerPoint or whatever.
The best state of affairs would be a new term without potential baggage, but language adoption doesn’t tend to work like that.
Yeah, another one like that is ‘begs the question’ - sure it originally meant something very specific and not intuitively obvious, but it’s also just a string of words and people can use words any way they like.
My sister-in-law loves to nitpick when my wife uses the word “cement”, as in pavement. “It’s not cement, it’s concrete.” So then I ask her why the trucks with the rotating drums on the back are referred to as “cement mixers” and not “concrete mixers”.