Bloody.

Vance’s comments was the context in which my comment was made. Context matters

First, you missed the part where the actual price now is not 4 dollars? He lied. It was 3 dollars, per the sign right behind him.

Second, national inflation is calculated off a broad spectrum of goods and services providing insight into the relative buying power of tthe dollar itself, so it is not missing the point to compare based on the adjusted buying power of the dollar. It is a more accurate reflection of the true rise in cost of this individual good comparing how its rise in price has outpaced the average rise in costs across the board. It reflects the extra pressures put on the egg market from the avian flu outbreaks and possible other factors rather than the general inflation of the entire economy.

Third, if Vance’s goal was to demonstrate that inflation in general had gone up tremendously and blame Harris specifically for that (despite how ridiculous that is), using eggs as a specific measure of the effect of their policies when the price hike on eggs have significantly outpaced other goods and is clearly due to non-policy related circumstances outside anyone’s control is obviously disingenuous. And that was before he lied and tried to add another 30+ percent on top of the already inflated price.

Salmonella is eliminated at 165F. Cookies get to around 190-205F when fully baked. So there’s at least 25 degrees Fahrenheit between completely safe from salmonella and fully baked cookies.

I often prefer slightly undercooked baked goods.

Not to mention the price spike on eggs specifically is also way less than he would like to make it appear. Yes, in 2020 dollars, a dozen eggs was $1.50. But adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, that 1.50 is actually about 2 dollars today (inflation being a much broader issue and highly affected by covid). So the price didn’t jump from 1.50 to 4 dollars, an increase of 167%, nor even from 1.5 to 3 dollars, an increase of 100%. It only went up from 2 dollars to just under 3 dollars (given the signs), an increase of just under 50 percent. Considering all the avian flu outbreaks that is an entirely reasonable price hike on a high demand good.

If there were a 4th spatial dimension and you could see in 4 dimensions, yes, you could see the inside of things that are enclosed in 3 dimensions. It wouldn’t be like x-ray vision exactly though. Think about a sphere in 3d. It is enclosed. When you take 2d projections of the sphere by slicing cross-sections of the ball, from a 2d observer on that plane, they would also see an enclosed circular object. But from the 3rd dimensional observer looking down at that cross section they can see everything enclosed in the circle. From the 4th dimension, then it stands to reason they would have a similar view of a 3 dimensional objects innards. But rather than seeing through the object like in an x-ray, they just see the whole thing laid out in every detail at once like we see the insides of the 2d circle.

I disagree. I think we are very much hardwired to innately understand 3d space in an intuitive level. All else about higher and lower dimensions is learned experientially and/or academically, and it’s near impossible not to understand it in terms that relate to 3 dimensions or math. I also think that thinking about 4 dimensions in relation to 3 dimensions makes it impossible to truly understand 4 dimensional space as a whole. We can describe every detail of it mathematically, but still not be able to visualize it in whole. Regardless, given the fact that there is no 4th spatial dimension, I doubt either of us will ever have a definitive answer.

I’ve read it. Recently actually. It is really cool. It kind of supports my point though. It’s hard for those to both comprehend and describe that have been in higher dimensional spaces and much of what they do describe is in 3 dimensional terms, (enclosed spaces being visible as if by an open top being a good example of trying to comprehend a thing that would be uncomprehendable in 4d through a 3d mindset). Of course, it’s also written by an author that hasn’t actually experienced such things and is also trying to imagine what it would be like to experience his interpretation of the phenomenon, so… not exactly conclusive either way.

Interact with, yes. Process and perceive it as it truly is? I don’t believe so, no.

You are correct that 4d toys (and other games) already simulate 4 spatial dimensions. But those games all display the 4th dimensional space from a 3 dimensional projection. I think what OP is suggesting is creating a game that displays an actual 4 spatial dimensions. I have argued in another comment that I don’t think this is possible in a way that our brains could ever percieve or process due to the limitations of a brain evolved in 3 spatial dimensions.

For clarity the word is perpendicularity. A 4th spatial dimension would have to be perpendicular to all 3 other spatial dimensions.

There’s nothing technically stopping us from simulating 4 spatial dimensions now. In fact, there are several games that utilize a 4th dimension in their gameplay. Here’s 8 examples. The problem is that our brains evolved in 3 spatial dimensions and, even if we can conceive of, define the nature of, and to some degree even indirectly imagine a 4th spacial dimension, our brains are hardwired to think in 3 dimensions and our understanding of a 4th spatial dimension can only be in 3 dimensional terms. The software of our brains, and the hardware of our eyes are simply incapable of perceiving and processing a 4th spatial dimension as it truly is. It would always be filtered through the lens of 3 spatial dimensions, projected into a 3 dimensional form that we can understand.

For a good example of this limitation, we regularly show 3 dimensions in film, tv, animations, video games, etc. projected on 2 dimensional surfaces. We can interpret those 2 dimensional images into an understanding of the 3 dimensional spaces being projected, but A) we do not actually perceived them as 3d. We still only see height and width. Depth is imagined largely based on perceived scale and parallax oocclusion. and B) we are only able to see the 3 dimensional space in our minds because that is how our minds always perceive space. In order to make those 2 dimensional images seem actually 3 dimensional, we have to project different 2 dimensional images to each eye with precise focal lengths and angles to mimic our actual eyesight in 3 dimensional space. Only with that stereoscopic view do we actually see 3 dimensionality with actual depth. Now, with that understanding, that it takes 2 projections in 2d to trick our minds into seeing 3d, how would you trick our perception into seeing 4d? How to we make either our eyes or our brains see whatever the 4th dimensional direction is called? A 3rd eye? No, plenty of animals have more than 3 eyes or even compound eyes, and still only perceive 3d. We have to perceive a direction perpendicular to height, width, and depth that does not actually exist. How would you achieve that goal?

I don’t think that is actually possible. I think, like those games in the link, even in a simulation we are stuck playing with the 4th dimension via its interaction with and projection onto 3 dimensions because our brains cannot truly process what a 4th spatial dimension would even be.

You can cook in a microwave. But those frozen meals and rice packs are already cooked, you’re just reheating/reconstituting them. I wouldn’t conconsider that cooking, no.

Cooked

Slap a whole fish down in front of you.

You: “Not cooked”

slice fillet of fish off and present it.

You: “Not cooked”

slice fillet into small bite size pieces and squirt some neon green horseradish next to it

You: “Dis is cooked!”

?

Ceviche is said to be “cooked” with acid, even if that’s not the most accurate term. And most forms of sushi are made with cooked rice, at minimum, and not uncommonly with other cooked ingredients. So those things kind of muddy the waters for your point. But a clearer example may be something like beef tartare, a garden salad with a vinegarette, or sashimi. Those things are “prepared”, not cooked, because no cooking is involved in their making. Cooking is specifically the preparation of food utilizing heat. Chefs prepare plenty of dishes that do not involve the act of cooking.

“Cooking” to me, requires the combination of ingredients AND heating them to create a new thing. Making a grilled cheese is basic, but cooking. Slapping meat, cheese and veg on bread is not cooking.

Out of 4 lines

They’re also round, warm colored, and soft/smooth. I will not be taking follow up questions.