[HN Gopher] The Cube Rule
___________________________________________________________________
The Cube Rule
Author : rococode
Score : 92 points
Date : 2022-03-24 18:27 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cuberule.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cuberule.com)
| tromp wrote:
| Isn't the pumpkin pie slice an example of a missing type, that
| has starch on two adjacent sides of the cube?!
| bentcorner wrote:
| Rather I think Key Lime Pie is misclassified, it is just bent
| toast arrayed in a circle.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| We must somehow account for the feeling of food. Hot dogs don't
| feel like sandwhiches, they feel different. Why is that? The cube
| rule gives us an answer to "are hot dogs sandwhiches", but it
| doesn't give us an answer to "why does it seem so wrong to call
| hot dogs sandwhiches?"
|
| I think we intuitively know the following:
|
| * Subs are sandwhiches * Ice cream sandwhiches are sandwhiches,
| kind of (but they're not lunch). * Burritos, hot dogs, and tacos
| are not sandwhiches.
|
| But can we generate a list of rules based on the qualities of the
| things themselves that explain this? Maybe, I don't know.
|
| But maybe this condition isn't a consequence of the things
| themselves, so much as it is of our collective associations and
| connotations to sandwhich. Picnics, lunch, cafeterias, Subway.
| Mom packing our lunch box. Maybe 'sandwhich' isn't located out
| there, in the world, but at the intersection of many places in
| our minds.
| mcphage wrote:
| Check out Prototype Theory:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory which gives a
| better way to reason about these types of questions than trying
| to list properties. And also helps you recognize that words
| don't match up to classic sets--the answer to "is X a sandwich"
| may be yes, or no, or almost anything in between.
| niccl wrote:
| What would an AI come up with? something for the ingnobels,
| perhaps?
| a_t48 wrote:
| Hold up now, potatoes are starch, mashed potatoes should be (1)
| Toast.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| I guess my "poor man's" lasagna (pour some boiled
| pasta/penne/fusili in the bowl, slap some grated cheese on the
| top, repeat until run out of pasta or cheese) is a (7) Cake
| then.
| depaya wrote:
| What about shepherd's pie?
| mcphage wrote:
| Toast upside-down, I guess?
| tillinghast wrote:
| Floating Toast
| tillinghast wrote:
| Also, a pie slice is "Side Taco" (not "taco on its side").
| lalaithion wrote:
| The idea that we should classify food by shape is clearly
| erroneous. Our food classifications should be based on _method of
| eating_ , not by shape! A sandwich is any food that uses a
| carbohydrate to protect your hands from a messier food, so that
| you can eat it at a card table without getting your hands dirty
| (a la the origin myth). Let's go through the things here:
|
| Pizza: Yes
|
| Sushi: Mostly no (the carbs don't protect you from the insides,
| the seaweed does)
|
| Pumpkin pie: No (unless eaten with hands, without falling apart)
|
| Quesadilla: Yes
|
| Toast sandwich: No (inside is not messier)
|
| Victoria sponge: No (eaten with fork)
|
| Hot dog: Yes
|
| Sub sandwich: Yes
|
| Slice of pie: No (unless eaten with hands)
|
| Falafel wrap: Yes
|
| Pigs in a blanket: Yes
|
| Enchilada: No (the one pictured has cheese and sauce on the
| outside)
|
| Quiche: No (unless eaten with hands)
|
| Cheesecake: No (unless eaten with hands)
|
| Soup bowl: No (I'd love to see you try)
|
| Falafel pita: Yes
|
| Deep dish pizza: If eaten with hands
|
| Salad in a bread bowl: No
|
| Key lime pie: No (unless eaten with hands)
|
| Calzone: Yes
|
| Corn dog: No (if held with stick)
|
| Pie (whole): No (good luck)
|
| Dumplings: Yes (unless they have sauce on them)
|
| Pop tarts: Yes
|
| Uncrustables: Yes
|
| This is the best and most accurate method that actually provides
| a strict definition that lines up with my intuitions--the cube
| rule is fun, but you're really gonna claim that a subway sandwich
| isn't a sandwich?
| js2 wrote:
| > A sandwich is any food that uses a carbohydrate to protect
| your hands from a messier food.
|
| Open-Faced Turkey Sandwich enters the chat.
| lalaithion wrote:
| If it's so messy that you can't pick it up and eat it by the
| bread, it's not a sandwich--it's just some turkey on a plate
| with a soggy crouton beneath it.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| If you rule out anything eaten with a fork, you immediately
| rule out open-faced sandwiches, which as far as I know, are
| universally referred to as open-faced sandwiches. You can pry
| my open-faced tuna melt on rye out of my cold dead hands.
|
| If you commit yourself to the carbohydrate as a protector from
| mess, is a messy sandwich still a sandwich? What about cucumber
| sandwiches (not messy on the inside)?
|
| You say a pie isn't a sandwich, but a small pie can be eaten by
| hand quite easily. How can the difference be just the size?
| What if I, with my large hands, can comfortably palm the pie
| and eat it like an Uncrustable, but my wife can't? Conditional
| sandwich? Isn't an uncrustable just a small pie.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > you immediately rule out open-faced sandwiches, which as
| far as I know, are universally referred to as open-faced
| sandwiches.
|
| I mean, the whole reason they're called "open-faced
| sandwiches" is to distinguish them from, you know,
| sandwiches, because sandwiches aren't open-faced.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Open-faced sandwiches are sandwiches that have been
| transformed. You can (in theory) refold an open-faced
| sandwich back into a sandwich. Just like if you split the
| bottom of a cupcake in half and make a sandwich[1], you still
| are eating a cupcake.
|
| The pie thing is probably just a question of what kind of pie
| you are thinking of. Some pies are trivially to eat neatly in
| the hand, others are basically impossible (e.g. a cream-pie
| with a cookie-crumb crust).
|
| Also, I am completely incapable of eating an in-n-out burger
| at a card-table without getting very messy, but my wife can
| eat one with a single hand while driving and not spill a
| single drop of spread. It seems clear that the purpose of the
| bun is to prevent you from getting the messier inner
| ingredients on your hand, so I'm okay calling it a sandwich.
|
| 1: https://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/article/turn-your-
| cupcake...
| andybak wrote:
| > which as far as I know, are universally referred to as
| open-faced sandwiches
|
| You might have overreached with "universally".
|
| I call them "(x) on bread" - which is the logical extension
| of "(x) on toast" as seen in the ever popular "cheese on
| toast".
| andybak wrote:
| > cheese on toast
|
| And if anyone claims it's an "open-faced toasted cheese
| sandwich" then I will not be happy.
| smegsicle wrote:
| > open-faced sandwiches
|
| saying an open faced sandwich is a sandwich is like saying
| pluto is a planet because it is a dwarf planet- wrong side of
| history bucko, it ceases to be a sandwich if it is to be
| eaten by a fork
|
| > if I can comfortably palm the pie and eat it like an
| Uncrustable, but my wife can't?
|
| if you eat something like a sandwich, then it is a sandwich
| to you, and if it is meant to be eaten like a sandwich, then
| it is a sandwich in general.
| lalaithion wrote:
| ...you eat open faced sandwiches with a fork and knife? I
| usually eat them like a pizza. But _yes_ , if you eat it with
| a fork and a knife, it's not a sandwich.
|
| A messy sandwich ceases to be a sandwich as soon as it is no
| longer possible to eat it without your hands getting
| significantly less messy than if the bread weren't there.
| Surely no one would agree that blending a sandwich preserves
| its sandwichness.
|
| A small pie is a sandwich. A large pie is not. Yes, this
| depends on the person; I am fine with that.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >A sandwich is any food that uses a carbohydrate to protect
| your hands from a messier food, so that you can eat it at a
| card table without getting your hands dirty (a la the origin
| myth).
|
| I mean legally speaking it requires bread not just a
| carbohydrate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich#Language
|
| >In the US, a court in Boston, Massachusetts, ruled in 2006
| that a sandwich includes at least two slices of bread[1] and
| "under this definition, this court finds that the term
| 'sandwich' is not commonly understood to include burritos,
| tacos, and quesadillas,
| throwawaycities wrote:
| > a sandwich includes at least two slices of bread
|
| I guess open face sandwiches are not sandwiches.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| As a Dane, I can confirm they are not.
| lalaithion wrote:
| I don't care a whit what the US court system considers a
| sandwich.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think the suggestion was that the US court system's
| definition is supreme. I think the requirement of bread or
| at something starchy matches most people's intuitions for
| the definition of "sandwich." Is an apple (eaten whole,
| with your hands) a sandwich, given that apple peel contains
| carbohydrates?
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| by their definition not because the inside of the apple
| is not 'messy'
| tshaddox wrote:
| The stated requirement is that the inside is _messier_
| than the outside. I think that 's uncontroversially true
| of an apple.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| hmm, maybe, I think it must be a mistake though, the
| inside of just about everything is messier than the
| outside.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Is there a particular court system you prefer?
|
| Perhaps Ireland,
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/irish-court-
| ru... , if Subway bread too sugary to be bread maybe then a
| Subway sandwich is a form of cake. I wonder if 'Is it
| Cake?' will address this important question.
| andybak wrote:
| Strong start then you lost me by ruling out "toast sandwich".
|
| I eat it and every atom in my body screams "this is a
| sandwich". I can't get past that.
| lalaithion wrote:
| To be honest, I was on the edge with this one. Maybe it is a
| sandwich after all; but surely three pieces of _bread_ isn 't
| a sandwich.
| andybak wrote:
| There's a get-out clause. You've overlooked the fact that
| toast buttered on both sides _is_ messy...
| throwawaycities wrote:
| > Our food classifications should be based on method of eating,
| not by shape!
|
| I agree Euclidean geometry isn't the key to proper
| classification of sandwich systems.
|
| Rather we need to look towards physics and emergence. Sandwich
| emergence is the law or phenomenon that which occurs at
| sandwich scales (in space or time) but not at ingredients
| scales, despite the fact that a sandwich system can be viewed
| as a very large ensemble of ingredient systems.
| frogulis wrote:
| Big fan of this, if only because it supports the claim that a
| taco and a hotdog are sandwiches.
|
| The cube rule also tells us that makizushi (probably the most
| popular kind of sushi here in Aus) is not sushi, which seems
| like a pretty big weakness.
| [deleted]
| omnicognate wrote:
| Hotdog being a taco is definitely appealing, but I can't take
| this seriously when nigiri sushi is classed as 1/toast rather
| than 4/sushi.
| lisper wrote:
| It gets better. On the cube-rule taxonomy, steak is a kind of
| salad, and salad is a kind of nacho.
| danuker wrote:
| To be fair, only salad with croutons is-a nachos. Salad
| without sprinkled carbs is-a salad.
| wcerfgba wrote:
| Reminds me of Soup-Salad-Sandwich space:
| http://sandwichspace.xyz/
|
| Classifying mashed potatoes as a salad and then a salad as nachos
| is hilarious, but not very useful.
|
| I find Soup-Salad-Sandwich to be a better classification,
| although it is also incomplete. How do you classify ice cream,
| sorbet, or mashed potatoes? These foods are too solid to be a
| soup, but they don't have any structure like a sandwich, and they
| are also homogeneous unlike a salad. Also kebabs.
| andybak wrote:
| Isn't the choice of cartesian axes creating a false distinction
| here? Where does a tetrahedral snack with a missing face fit?
|
| I think a pure topological approach would be more robust. Count
| the holes and edges.
| chadcmulligan wrote:
| This is a great idea, then menus could be organised by their
| topological equivalences, instead of arbitrary entree, etc. So
| donuts and coffee would be in the one section as nature
| intended.
| gustavorg wrote:
| Yes but in the category of the calzones the photo of an actual
| calzone is missing!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-24 23:00 UTC)