Talk:2241: Brussels Sprouts Mandela Effect

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 20:24, 14 December 2019 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Brussels Sprouts Mandella Effect dot Tumblr dot com--GoldNinja (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Is liquorice really so disliked as suggested? For me it's "Meh" (Liquorice allsorts are all the better for being partnered with sweetness in various ways), but pallatable enough in its plain form. Although I admit the versions salted with ammonium chloride are a more acquired taste to my (apparently) non-European tastebuds. I won't eat those in handfulls, just the odd occasionally grabbed morsel from the bag that gets rapidly emptied by the continental person who brought them... 00:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Black licorice jelly beans are good (the Twizzler fake stuff not so much), but I mostly don't like the allsorts. Tried the Finnish/European stuff, and that's just plain nasty. However, of my peers and co-workers, I'm apparently the only one that likes black licorice. Still, however, there's always plenty of the bags of black licorice jelly beans in the store around Easter, so the cohort of folk that like them is large enough that it's still profitable to stock.
Most people like liquorice in The Netherlands (which comes in various forms: sweet/salty, hard/soft etc.), it is available at most supermarkets. As for the title text, when I saw today's comic title, the first thing I thought was: is that your new password, Randall? --IByte (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Silica packets are harmless to eat:

The joke (a supposedly false statement) about silica gel may be actually a true, keen observation: people are “misled” to believe that it is absolutely NOT edible (i.e. poisonous) because of the strong warning DO NOT EAT they read again and again (see e.g. [1]). Maybe this is intended; maybe it's just a joke (lie) that turned out to be true. What do you think? Yosei (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I remember eating Brusseles Sprouts as a kid and those were tasty (and expencive). I wonder if modern sprouts won't be tasty for me.

Perhaps they were expensive because they were well prepared? I too, recall eating Brussels Sprouts and thinking they were tasty...they had been steamed by a gourmet chief, in a light wine vinaigrette with white pepper, and I decided I must have been mistaken about them; later I found I still hated them, normally, and I had just had them uncommonly well prepared that one time. Normally they are not expensive, you might have been paying for the skill, not the subject. On the other hand, there is currently a widespread discussion concerning the vast difference in the currently wide-spread and almost ubiquitous “Cavendish” banana cultivar from its predecessor, almost untasted by living tongues, so it is not unheard of for a change in the produced monoculture causing consumers to suddenly, unexpectedly, finding their tastes apparently changing, despite common parlance using one generic term for all varieties of a foodstuff. Eclair Egglayer (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I realize this is an uphill battle, but I can’t help reminiscing about how Wikipedia, about a decade ago, seemingly implied that “U.F.O.” referred to “a pseudoscientific belief in ‘flying saucers’ piloted by little green men from the planet Mars” rather than being a military and aeronautical term referring to a wide range of common phenomena, some of which are claimed, by some, to be evidence for a widely known pseudoscientific theory. I will refrain from mentioning more recent questionable editing of Wikipedia, as I don’t want to bring any more hotheaded contention to what is already a hopeless struggle, but many of you are familiar with the sort of thing I am referring to. I am aware that Randal’s characters referring to a “real Mandela Effect” already has the implication that “the Mandela Effect is not real”, but do we really want to contribute to the growing conflation of observed and documented phenomena with the pseudoscience explanations for them, simply because the pseudoscience occupies more of the popular consciousness? The redirect currently points to a subsection of a Wikipedia article on False Memories; surely we don’t want to add to any further confusion in common parlance between False Memories and esoteric explanations for them involving alternate realities? Before you dismiss my concerns, think about how often you encounter a firm conviction that “anyone who believes in UFOs is crazy or stupid”, or even more bizarre claims like “Flat Earthers aren’t real” (rather than “Flat Earthers are real people who believe in a particular pseudoscientific theory”). Just because the popular discussion of the Mandela Effect is dominated by discussions that conflate the phenomenon of commonalities in miss-remembered history, with a particular pseudoscientific explanation, must we accept that sociologists and psychologists can no longer discuss the former, because it is firmly settled, in the non-scientific discussions of the day, that any such conversation must be about that latter? Eclair Egglayer (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The title text referenced the password strength comic, and I had to go back and check that the comic's example password was really "correcthorsebatterystaple".

I found out that the new sprouts actually came out in 1999. See: nieuwe zoete spruitjes

...Huh. That means that the tasty Brussels sprouts I've eaten as a kid might have already been the new variety (I was 7 years old in 1999, and I think those memories go back farther than that, but I'm not actually very sure). -- 20:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)