Cooking in a dishwasher is a staple of “let’s see if this is possible” internet videos. I’d be surprised if you couldn’t cook an egg. I would think you could put it unprotected in the bottom rack and have it cook just fine, if a bit slow.
I don’t know about leaving it unprotected.
If you don’t crack it, it may end up exploding, which, I suppose would be easy enough to clean up, but would ruin the egg.
If you do crack it, then I certainly would advise against using any detergent.
I’m actually surprised that the King of Random hasn’t done this. I mean, they did cook them in molten salt.
I would recommend using detergent if you’d be doing it unprotected period. The shell is permeable.
Why is the dryer ‘yellow’ for Wash Clothes? It’s not going to do anything but warm then up.`
It could do a bit of good. Remove pet hair for example. Certainly won’t do any harm. Maybe that’s why it’s yellow?
Tumbling clothes will beat off a lot dust and other dry debris.
You can pick up home dry-cleaning kits. Comes with a bag; put your clothes into the bag and the bag into the drier.
On high heat it will kill bacteria and fungus so it doesn’t smell.
On those sporadic occasions where I wash pots, pans, non-plastic mixing bowls, etc., shortly after cooking in the oven, I’ll put them in the oven to dry while it’s still got a lot of residual heat. Works quite well, of course.
Is the “more people have been to Russia than I have” one an old standard example? Because it really sounds like it makes sense, but I can’t even figure out what sense it almost-makes.
Not really related, but it brings to mind the memorable fantasy short story Tower of Babylon by Ted Chiang.
It’s set in a world where it really is possible to build a miles-high tower to reach the celestial vault. And then tunnel through it when you get there.
Yeah, I was thinking of that one too.
It fooled me enough that the first time I thought it did make sense. Your post is what clued me in to look more closely. Gotcha! Or more like Gotme!
IANA grammarian, so this analysis is spitballin’. Try this similar sentence:
More people have been in my store today than I have fingers.
The “than” is a comparison and by putting a clause denoting a number on both sides of “than” we have something sensible. The “have” on the left denotes past tense while the have on the “right” denotes possesion. And the whole thing is logical and sensible and can be assigned a true / false value.
Now leave the number specifier (implied to be 10) off the end:
More people have been in my store today than I have.
We still have a comparison denoted by “than”. The left “have” is still denoting past tense. But now we’re comparing a number to nothing and the right “have” is now past tense, not possession, since there’s nothing for it to connect to possessing.
The apparent parallelism prompts us to accept the sentence as meaningful. But it’s equivalent to
18 >
which is meaningless.
But the original sentence almost implies “Others have been to Russia, but not me.”
Late last sentence:
And at the same time it almost implies “I’m one of the many, many people who’ve been to Russia, but I’m only a tiny fraction of everyone who’s done so.”
Those two diametrically conflicting interpretations scintillate in my head, and perhaps yours.
At least it’s not, “Fewer people have been to Russia than I have.”
I feel another almost meaning is “People have been to Russia more times than I have.”
Which leaves out the issue of whether I have been to Russia even once.
Apparently it’s a thing.
A related parsing difficulty
Time flies like an arrow,
fruit flies like a banana.