[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)