Is there a reverse version of this where all the brownies are middle brownies? That’s the version I want.
Panko bread dough is placed between two metal surfaces, and is cooked by running an electric current through it. This avoids any crust forming, causing it to be very uniform.
I imagine you could do the same with brownies.
A spherical tray should work. Make sure it has enough mass to make its gravitational field hold on to the batter and suspend it in the oven using magnets.
That this looks like a meandering river of shit seems more topical to edge.
I don’t understand this joke, is anyone willing to explain it for me?
It’s a joke about edging
I don’t even know what edging is haha. Oh well. Getting old.
That’s okay, at a certain age it becomes irrelevant information anyway.
Edging, look it up on urban dictionary.
I’m familiar with edging, but I’m not sure I see the joke. That might be because “edge” feels somewhat semantically separate to “edging” in my mind. As a clearer example of what I mean, if the word “edgy” came up, I would be way more likely to think of it as describing someone or something that tries too hard to be dark and provocative. I’d be very confused if someone used “edgy” as an adjectivified form of “edging”.
Besides that though, I’m sure that edging was a thing 15 years ago; the Wikipedia article for “edging(sexual practice)” dates back to 2006, for one. Part of why I didn’t get the joke is because I can’t think of any logical link between edging and 15 years ago, so I think I concluded that the meme wasn’t about the sex thing.
Is there still something I’m missing, or am I just being supremely autistic about this?
If I say I had a good edge, it’s like saying I had a good wank. Look at the image and replace all instances of edge with wank
Just use a muffin pan, people! Then you’ve got 12 personal brownies that are all edge.
How does it feel? Being the smartest person in the room?
Does that commenter think the term “edging” didn’t exist 15 years ago? 🤨 I first heard about that kind of edging in the 90’s, my guy.
Every generation thinks it invented sex
Speaking from an American POV, that’s probably because parents would still rather commit seppuku than be open about human sexuality because they are prudes and cowards. Gratefully my parents weren’t that way but my friends weren’t so lucky.
This was in every Sky Mall catalog.
I miss Sky Mall so badly.
These days there’s nothing to do on a plane except play on your phone, and you can already do that literally anywhere else.
What there’s loads to do. You can awkwardly try not to touch the person next to you. You can hold it, because you’re stuck in the middle or window, and you don’t want to disturb the person next to you. You can drink the 2 oz of diet Coke they give you before they bring you peanuts, then desperately try to suck any amount of liquid out of the cup of ice you’re left with. You can try to get to your bag under the seat in front of you, fail because your feet are in the way, and spend the rest of the flight wishing you hadn’t done that.
Loads!
Ignoring the humor of this to throw down to facts.
There are brownie pans that have multiple cells such that each brownie is a single serving with four edges. Basically a cupcake pan but with squares.
This is only 2-3 edges per brownie; an inferior experience.
This allows you to maintain a higher volume, so more brownies per pan with multiple edges.
Okay, but the volume depends on the batter, not the pan.
I’m pretty sure the pan has a finite volume, unless it has some sort of space-folding technology.
They’re reusable though
Okay so this doesn’t matter and I don’t want to argue, so I’ll just honestly ask - what do you mean? I am genuinely confused.
Originally bringing total pan volume into it confused me, a baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it, but by the time you are anywhere near that limit you are probably already better off using a second pan.
The example brownies from the picture are nowhere near that limit, so if there was a moderate but significant decrease in the volume of the pan in the change to the squares It doesn’t seem like it should be a problem even on a per cycle basis. Even so, the cost of doing an additional cycle of baking is not that high anyways.
The main factor in how much volume of brownie you make will be the amount of brownie batter you make. Non-euclidean space isn’t required to bake an additional 25% or so of brownies by volume in that pan, and so your reply seemed snide, and I responded kurtly.
baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it
Okay, and I just want to check - do you think that this limit - which I assume would be measured in volume - might be what the person was referring to by the “volume” of the pan? Or do you think they meant something else? If so, what?
your reply seemed snide
That’s probably because it was.
