That’s not what’s going on here. The dextrose is there to feed the bacteria, not you. You can’t taste it at all, except in the broad sense that if it wasn’t added, the curing might not be successful, and that would not taste very good.
The spanish jamón serrano (cured ham, you can buy it in the USA too, which was not easy to get allowed, btw - link in Spanish) only has pork and salt, and tastes excellent. The best go for up to $500/kilo, and they are worth it, altough acceptable ones sell for a tenth of that. Adding dextrose is cheating, and it does not taste as good. Yes, I am guilty, I still bought that crap. I should not have. The curing was artificially accelerated, and the result was not good enough.
Yeah; I certainly think this is a possibility - and I doubt very much that there are any actual physical laws that forbid it. However, the technology that would allow the creation of ‘emulations’ may remain illegal, or restricted by moral and ethical concerns and may never get built (for a hundred reasons). I suspect that those of us who are alive today will never know for sure.
I don’t know. I have the strong feeling we have reached, are at or are very near to the peak of our species’ technological development. It’s all downhill from here.
“Artificially accelerated” curing is a far cry from saying that sugar is added to make it addictive. If you don’t like the taste profile you get, fine, but a fermentation step is crucial for some products.
We are talking past each other. Never mind. Not a hill I am willing to die on.
According to an article in Nature a few years ago, Everett’s “Many Worlds” has seen a resurgence in popularity among physicists. I can’t imagine how any open-minded physicist could reject it outright; I mean, “makes no sense” is not a mantra that should ever be heard in a science argument, except as a euphemism for “this is interesting and needs immediate investigation”.
Whatever “Many Worlds” may be, it is – by definition – not subject to intuitive understanding. Saying “it’s too incredible for belief” is saying nothing at all. Sir Arthur Eddington said the same thing about his student Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar’s hypothesis about collapsing stars and black holes. Eddington, with all his experience on this earth, simply concluded that the idea of a gigantic star collapsing to an invisible point was impossible and not worth discussing.
Yes. Eddington, who was right about a lot of things, was wrong about that.
Let me put it this way:
Lots of American bread has significant sugar added to make it taste “better” (for some definitions of better). It may or may not taste sweet, but it definitely changes the nutritional profile and it doesn’t taste like sugar-free bread. One could argue that the “sugar-industrial complex” plays a role here.
On the other hand, it’s very common to add sugar to yeast to get it started. It’s a trivial amount and doesn’t change the nutrition at all. It doesn’t have any direct influence on the taste at all, but may play an indirect role due to having more active yeast.
Whatever you might think of this–whether it’s “cheating” or un-traditional or whatever–those are dramatically different uses of sugar and shouldn’t be lumped together.
Agreed, but getting yeast started has dramatically little to do with chorizo or French salami, and nothing at all to do with ham cured the spanish way. Just leave me my scientifically unsupported peeves, I’ll leave you yours. Deal?
But I came here for an argument…
OK, that made me laugh.
But it’s one o’clock in the morning here, and I must go.
Right, it’s the hidden sugar that is the issue.
Hidden Sugar, Crouching Tony the Tiger… My favorite cereal, They’re Great!
I believe that the West Antarctica Ice Sheet is even more unstable than the worst predictions of scientists. Some of it is grounded thousands of feet below sea level, and there aren’t any ice walls that high to study.
Scientists know that this is a known unknown. However, the consensus is that even given the worst instability it would take many many decades to fully crumble. I am not so sanguine. While it is possible that some unknown mechanism will slow down the rate of the crumbling of the wall, I just don’t see how scientists can be so sure that it can’t immediately fall apart once it reaches a critical height. And by “immediate”, I don’t mean within a day or two because I recognize there are physical limits to how fast such a large sheet can crumble, but within a year or so once it starts in earnest, it is plausible that it would entirely crumble and thus raise sea levels by 10 feet or more.
I believe this, too, and would go one further, and say that the scientists making the predictions know it, too. I believe similar about all climate change related predictions—the scientific consensus is less bad than the actual likelihood of bad.
This is due to another (somewhat) unsupported belief I have in science. When scientists have results that are controversial or unpopular they will often downplay things by dithering in the discussion, making press statements about “more research needed” when their actual results are pretty conclusive.
Of course, we all know some scientists who like controversy, and being the center of arguments, but most of them just want to do their work and get the next grant funded. If they become known as the person shouting doom about 5 meters of sea level rise in the next 20 years, they’ll have trouble just doing their work, even when all of their best models say 5 meters in 20 years. They’ll put in unrealistically conservative parameters to get things down to a not quite as doomsday 0.25 meters in 20 years.
Fundamentally, no system can understand itself, and that fact is related to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. I’ll grant you that society as a whole might be able to understand an individual human brain. But that just pushes the problem up a level: There’s then no system that can fully understand that society.
As to Many Worlds, it’s an interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are dozens of different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and they all produce exactly the same predictions for anything observable. It’s been rigorously proven that they all make the same predictions; nobody would take seriously any interpretation for which that wasn’t true, because the predictions of quantum mechanics are very thoroughly tested. We fundamentally can’t tell which interpretation is correct; indeed, it’s not clear that it’s even meaningful to say that one is more correct than another.
Here’s another one for this thread: The reason onions, and especially cooked onions, smell so good is because they mimic a human pheromone. The phenomenon of a plant mimicking an animal pheromone isn’t unknown: For instance, catnip mimics a cat pheromone. But I’ve never seen anyone say it for onions and humans.
Huh? I like onions eaten raw or cooked, but I never found the smell exceptionally great, instead I know a lot of people who don’t like the smell, especially of sauted onions. Of course YMMV, but I don’t see that onions are catnip for humans.
Garlic would be the catnip for humans. 
Dammit! Now I want garlic and onions!