Used a couple of US recipes recently and most of the ingredients are in cups, or spoons, not by weight. This is a nightmare to convert. Do Americans not own scales or something? What’s the reason for measuring everything by volume?

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Milk has a specific gravity slightly higher than 1, so that isn’t accurate.

    Also, “cups” and “feet” aren’t arbitrary. They aren’t part of the metric system, but a cup is a standardized unit of volume and a foot is a standardized unit of length.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Exactly. How is a foot anymore arbitrary then a meter?

      Or a cup anymore arbitrary then an ounce?

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        Imperial measurements were based on arbitrary things, metric has specific scientific definitions for their weights.

        1l of water is 1kg at sea level, why the fuck is kings foot size the defacto foot?

        • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          Imperial measurements were based on arbitrary things, metric has specific scientific definitions for their weights.

          What do you mean? A pound is legally defined as 0.45359237 kilograms.

          And the kilogram is defined:

          The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015×10^−34 when expressed in the unit J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m^2 ⋅s^−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.

          These are all currently defined off of the same universal constants, just with different multipliers, which are all arbitrary numbers: 6.62607015 is just about as arbitrary as 0.45359237. Hell, the number 10 is arbitrary, too, so we still use a system for time based on dividing the Earth’s day into 24 and 60.

          Like, I get that there’s some elegance in the historical water-based definitions derived from the arbitrary definition of length, but the definition of “meter” started from about as arbitrary a definition as “foot” (and the meter was generally more difficult to derive in the time of its adoption based on the Earth’s dimensions).

        • DaDragon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ll nitpick that said definition is also arbitrary. Why is it 1l of water at sea level, and not molecular weight of the water? And why a Liter anyway.

          Even metric units like time are somewhat arbitrary. Why is a second based on caesium frequency, and not some other element?

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’ll nitpick that said definition is also arbitrary. Why is it 1l of water at sea level, and not molecular weight of the water? And why a Liter anyway.

            Why? Because 1L is 1000 Cubic centimeters, which takes 1000 calories to raise 100 degrees to boiling point.

            Nothing is arbitrary with metric, everything is also directly related to every other measurement.

            • TheCannonball@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              Because 1 Drakon is 1000 Cubic 100tholians, which takes 1000 Vornies to raise 100 degrees on the Flugar scale to boiling point.

              Metric is very scientific, but it was made through arbitrary means. They chose to make it easier than imperial by using divisions of 10. But it’s all based on a single measurement that they made up through arbitrary means.

              “We have this length called a meter. How do we define it? Let’s use it to measue something in nature and then use that measurement to define it.”

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Until a few years ago, a kilogram was defined by a block of metal.

          From 1799 to 1960, the metre was defined by another block of metal. Before 1799, it was defined by a measurement that was hard to verify.

          That kind of sounds arbitrary.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            On March 30, 1791, the French Academy of Sciences defined the length of a meter. Before this date, there were two definitions to this measure of length: The first was based on the length of a pendulum and the second was based on a fraction of the length of a half-meridian, or line of longitude. The French Academy chose the meridian definition. This defined one meter as one ten-millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.

            The meter is the basic unit of distance in the International System of Units (SI), the world’s standardized system of measurement. Since the 1960s, all countries have adopted or legally recognized the SI. As a universal standard of measure, the meter helped ease the exchange of commerce and scientific data.

            However, the definition of a meter has changed since 1791. In 1983, the meter got its current definition. The meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuumduring a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

            The meter was never to do with metal, and every metric definition is scientifically found, not based off of someone’s foot.

            • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              You are way overthinking this.

              Also, a foot is just a scientific as any other definition as long as you use the same foot every time.

              Can you get me All of the things that I would need to Measure the speed of light in a vacuum, then do the math to divide all that?

              Because that is what the average layman would need to verify what a meter is.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                3 months ago

                Also, a foot is just a scientific as any other definition as long as you use the same foot every time.

                That king is looooooong dead

                • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  And yet if we were to take something and make it the same length, We would have a rule about how long it was.

                  We could even call it something like a ruler, or whatever the metric equivalent of a yardstick is, a meter stick maybe.

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    And than what happens when it’s destroyed? You don’t have anything to verify it with, and using a rulered rule to rule will lead to progressively larger deviations from the true original.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              A fraction of the Earth’s diameter isn’t a sound scientific reasoning to define a length. And after that, the definition reverted back to a similar definition of a foot, a fixed length of an item, similar to a foot.

              The two main benefits of the metric system are the decimalized behavior of its units and that the scientific community adopted it early, creating additional units from the standard and allowing for greater precision of the initially defined units over time.

              However, the value in the meter being its length is the same as everyone agreeing the Prime Meridian goes through Greenwich, UK; it is because everyone agrees to it.

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Milk has a specific gravity slightly higher than 1, so that isn’t accurate.

      In this context milk is a bad example because the difference between 1.03g/ml and 1g/ml is negligible in a kitchen. Even oil (0.92g/ml) is close enough.

      This matters the most for stuff like below (with 1cup = 240ml):

      • honey: 340g/cup = 1.4g/ml
      • sugar: 200g/cup = 0.85g/ml [varies depending on granularity]
      • flour: 120g/cup = 0.5g/ml [sieved, and “properly” measured. It’s a PITA to measure it by volume.]

      Also, “cups” and “feet” aren’t arbitrary.

      All units are arbitrary, be them metric or esoteric.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        In this context milk is a bad example because the difference between 1.03g/ml and 1g/ml is negligible in a kitchen. Even oil (0.92g/ml) is close enough.

        The context is that if you are going to hand wave away a 3% difference in a quantity, then having to weigh everything probably isn’t important.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The context [SIC - rationale] is that if you are going to hand wave away a 3% difference in a quantity, then having to weigh everything probably isn’t important.

          That’s poor reasoning; ignoring a tiny difference doesn’t imply ignoring larger ones. Myself mentioned three cases where the difference matters, with one (flour) being highly variable.

          A better argument to defend your point would be that most differences in the kitchen are tiny.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’ve been making that argument in other comments. If I had to argue the nuances of this argument in every comment, I’d be copying and pasting pages long comments that no one would read.

    • BlameThePeacock
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s close enough for home cooking, the specific gravity of milk is around 1030g/L so unless your recipe calls for multiple liters of Milk the small difference isn’t going to affect the result.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s close enough for home cooking

        And now you are getting to the reason why American use volume for recipes. If I don’t need the precision of mass for recipes as it won’t appreciably affect the taste, then why break out the scale?

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s really mainly only flour though, because can be compacted, most of the things that you’re using in the kitchen like baking powder or sugar aren’t going to be compacted to any appreciable level.

            For flour, you pour it into your measuring cup and then run the spine of a knife or something over it to get rid of the excess flour and get a level cup

            • BlameThePeacock
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              There are many of other things that can be compacted or have different volume to weight ratios.

              Corn starch is like flour, you can pack it down.

              Salt (Table vs Kosher) Kosher salt has about half the volume to weight as table salt.

              Shredded Cheese (this one always bugs me. Is it 3 cups after shredding, or before… how packed in should it be), etc.

              • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                A lot of volumetric baking recipes tell you to run the grain through a sieve to remove clumps, this generally standardizes the density well enough.

                Salt is usually assumed to be table salt unless noted in the recipe. Even then, most recipes have a point to them where they tell you to taste the food and add salt to taste as necessary.

                What are you cooking with shredded cheese where the ratio is that important?

              • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Are you measuring cornstarch?

                Maybe I just have weird cornstarch but anytime I try to actively scoop out of it, it’s like trying to scoop baking powder.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In my other responses, I’ve noted that I don’t bake. In other people’s responses, they’ve noted that there are still a lot of baking recipes out there that don’t require precision.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Precision in baking is massively overstated. The earliest recipes are in parts if you’re lucky. More likely they are mix in these ingredients until it looks right.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Elevation changes everything though and if you don’t adjust the measurements change more.

        If you’re at sea level, sure.