Everybody and their cousin has experienced the argument “is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable” at some point in their lives. It’s a fun bit of trivia, and let’s know-it-all’s speak condescendingly, or at least they did like 10 years ago. “Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad”. Whatever.
Which brings up the point, that botany and culinary sciences are very different. Botany is the study of plants, culinary is cooking and how things taste. Botany is science, and it has rules (kind of), where cuisine is full of guidelines that are completely cultural.
Tomatoes are a fruit. A fruit is how many plants have babies, and are made in the ovary of a flower. I have a diagram.
Armed with this knowledge we can know that tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, beans, peas and peppers are all fruit.
“Now”, I ask you, “what are lettuce, and cabbage, and spinach, and kale”?
“Vegetables”, you say, assuredly.
“Yes, but, what are they?”
“…vegetables”, you say, slower, and louder this time, not quite sure what I’m wanting from you.
No. They are leaves.
What are carrots, beets and radishes? Roots. What about celery and rhubarb? Stems. Potatoes? Tubers (food storage for the plant, and where new plant babies will grow from). Garlic and onions? Bulbs (also food storage). Mushrooms? They’re not even a plant, they’re a fungus, in the kingdom of fungi, which is somewhere between the plant and animal kingdoms.
“Vegetables” is just a word for plants that we eat, that doesn’t have enough sugar to be a fruit, and not enough flavour to be a herb or spice.
Botanically speaking, there is no such thing as a vegetable. They’re just different parts of a plant that happen to be edible.
There are other plants, normally considered weeds, that can be “eaten like a vegetable”. Dandelion, stinging nettle, dock, purslane, can all be cooked and eaten, making them vegetables, at least to the people to treat them as such. It’s all very cultural, and biased, and based on nothing but what people think it is. Therefore, they are not a real thing, it’s just a concept.
This girl on youtube was talking about how if she took a pretty test without all the makeup n hair she’d be ugly. So, she really took a pretty test and lmao it came to 58%.
I decided to take it bc i was curious and i took it twice. Using a picture i had already and take one with my camera.
So apparently, im in between 56-81%
If you take it let me know your results.
Btw, this was all out of fun. I know having stuff like that is stupid and honestly thay site is honestly based off eurocentric features bc they said my nose is wide which is true. But having a wide nose does not make you ugly. Having ethnic features doesnt make you ugly. But if you do decide to take the test lemme know your results:
I stumbled upon an excellent video recently. It’s specifically about Cinemasins as a horrible, exploitative and substanceless product pushed onto the masses that actively harms how we consume movies. But a lot of the same concepts described in it apply to Matpat/Game Theory. For a long time I’ve been thinking that stuff like Game Theory is actively harmful to the younger kids and teenagers who watch it. It promotes sloppy research, reaching for information that isn’t there, and altering or decontextualizing fact to better support incorrect information or mindless speculation.
It’s really worth the watch. As a side note, the douchebag at the start of the video is the Cinemasins guy himself:
well i guess this is it 