Yeah but for this i would rather use butter. Note that you get better color with it too. For ex try with a fish in a fan.
I do concede that butter burns quicker (and that’s not healthy) so the way to avoid is to mix a bit of oil to the butter. But i rarely use olive one in that case (for taste reason)
With today’s materials this almost never happens anyway.
The classic old way is apply butter by hand then wheat. Put away the surplus of wheat. This is called chemiser in french cooking. Can be done with any oil +wheat, but less convenient and taste is well, different
So just to tell that i love using olive oil but i avoid to mix its taste with milk products. My opinion ofc.
Oh i tried that already. I like and use bechamel, it sounds to be easy to make for many but be careful to cook it enough time for good digestion and… taste! (It’s like 10mn minimum including time in oven if used). Not everyone has patience to cook it so long (and watching that it doesn’t burn meanwhile).
We have what we call beurre manié, a piece of mix of butter and wheat you pick on a fork and turn onto a sauce to make it more thick. A classic process which is sadly not always enough cooked in french restaurants… The main reason why bechamel is not highly looked at in french cuisine.
Maybe, but most pans and trays at my house are older than I am … some of them could have even applied for a pension by now
Oh, I am not arguing at all, just exchanging some cultural culinary ideas. Also it is an issue of what is readily available in each place. For example, if it were not for the occassional traditional cake, I do not use more than 50 grams of butter per year. One of my grandmothers had her own chickens and a few sheep and a goat? Cheese, eggs and butter everywhere for them!
Winning a lost game, with the caveat that I actively did something to win it and it was not some random grand mistake (e.g. self-atari) during the end-game or winning by holding out on time. In those cases, it is not really satisfying.
There are two possible answers to this question: it’s either two or a gazillion.
And the answer depends only on the definition of the word “hole”.
Topologically speaking, except for elementary particles, the only objects in our universe that may have less than two holes are black holes (which is ironic).
If you really think that a straw has only one hole, I suggest an experiment:
Take a straw and shine a light on it! Now count the holes that the photons came through!
Imagine making the straw shorter and shorter, until it is just almost a circle with, say, a length of 1 mm — do you still insist on there being TWO holes?
IMO there are two openings, one on each side, but these are openings to the same, single, hole.
I am not an expert on topology, but AFAIK it has one hole, in the handle, so, topologically speaking, it is possible to morph the whole cup into a torus — or into a straw.
A torus is a theoretical concept and clearly a theoretical cup is identical to a theoretical straw.
But the straw Mark500 asked about is not a theoretical concept (or else he could have said “torus” and the point would be moot) but a physical object, and as such it has a gazillion of holes.
In fact, it is 99.9999% holes. Only the nuclei of the atoms are sort of solid.
The rest is holes. Topologically speaking the straw just isn’t there, only the atomic nuclei are there. And how many holes does each nucleus have?
Well this is a entirely different question. As stated, except for elementary particles, the only objects in our universe that may have less than two holes are black holes. These may have no holes at all.
By the second conceivable and practical definition, a straw is for drinking and as such it has two ends with a hole at each end =2
I think this sounds like nonsense. A hole needs a boundary (the object contains some n-dimensional sphere that cannot contract continuously to a point without leaving the object; this sphere is the boundary). In what sense do you get boundaries when speaking of elementary particles? Especially since these particles are actually waves…
At best you might argue that everything is a collection of totally disconnected discrete points.
Or, speculatively speaking, maybe at even smaller scales, everything is made of vibrating strings, where some are in the form of closed loops, which one could interpret as holes.
But certainly not 99.99…% holes, which is what you were claiming.
If I’ve been to the supermarket a gazillion times over the past week, I’ve certainly been there more than twice. Claiming gazillion = 0 is even weirder than claiming a straw has a gazillion holes
I think the essence of the original question is really about how the word “hole” is ambiguously and inconsistently used across various contexts. It is about the fuzziness of natural language rather than precise mathematical definitions.
I think that it is perhaps stretching the notion of “hole” a bit too much to use it to refer to empty space, but it seems that the main point of @Kesha_alone_in_Dubli is just that nearly any sort of thing that we perceive as solid, continuous matter at the macroscopic scale is quite different at very tiny scales.
However, I think that our fuzzy natural usage of the word “hole” often just casually ignores the small scale, as well as other things.
For example, suppose I look at my t-shirt collection, where some are older and showing signs of damage from years of wear. Maybe, I might decide to get rid of some of those in worse shape, and apply the deciding line of whether or not they have any “holes”. In this context, when I say “hole”, I’m referring only to those large, noticeable holes that should not be there (i.e., damage) and I’m ignoring the other relatively large holes that should be there (such as the openings designed for my head, arms, and waist) as well the much smaller holes that are inherently present in the fabric due it being woven from thread.
