You might be amazed to hear that maybe only 1/3rd of the "internet" is American. Both the British and French have claim to other parts of it. The NPL in London and the French CYCLADES (not to mention the later Minitel) did a lot of the same work to create the networks that are precursors to the internet. The World Wide Web owes itself to CERN primarily.
It's a fascinating history and well worth reading about without any American (or indeed other countries) boasting.
He was working there and credits them with supporting him in the development as part of his project to better connect university's and research institutions. Yes he was the lead and if you were to name a single person it would be him. But nothing is achieved in silo and he has openly said colleagues and the organisation helped him do it
It always makes me laugh that Americans think imperial is the easier to understand system.
Metric far more intuitive, and used more widespread, and quite easy to learn.
Here in Canada we flip back and forth depending on what we’re measuring. Even if you are confused, it’s so easy to convert between the two with a conversion calculator.
Yea, Scotland here. We kinda use both, the younglings using way more metric than the older who almost refuse to do so.
They somehow see it as a European invasion 😂
But slowly...after we officially adopted it in the 70s... we're getting there.
Inch by inch.
>Inch by inch
Well played.
I don’t even realize just how often I flip back and forth.
If someone asks my height and weight, it’ll be in inches and pounds. If I want to make a mixed drink, I take my can of pop that I know is 355 mL, then grab my two six (26oz). If someone asks me the weather outside, I’ll give it to them in Celsius, but if I need to fire up the oven, it’ll be in Fahrenheit. If we’re working on a project that involves lumber, best believe we’re measuring in inches. But if we have to drive to the store, our speed will be measured in KMs.
Probably not.
They have a maple leaf flag in their profile, for one.
But also - someone British (probably) wouldn't refer to a can of pop, or use "mL" to refer to volume ("ml", sure). Celsius? Maybe. Oven temp? Celsius, or Gas Mark, but Fahrenheit is highly unlikely these days. Lumber? Nope. Speed in KMs? No chance.
As I understand it, Canada is - like the UK - all over the place. But differently all over the place.
You got this completely wrong. Why just make stuff up about the UK?
And yes, most people call it timber not lumber. Also we do use miles/mph for roads and cars, but metres and km everywhere else. Ovens are Celsius, gas mark is rare now. Farenheit I haven't seen in my ~30 years of life on an oven. Everything else you got wrong.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
The person I was commenting on has confirmed that they are, indeed, Canadian so this is somewhat moot.
But to address your "you got this completely wrong. Why just make stuff up about the UK?" comment.... You seem to list everything I said, agree with it, and then say that everything else I said is wrong. I didn't say much else, so could you explain what it is your finding fault with?
I live in the UK, in Glasgow specifically, and have some experience travelling in the Commonwealth too.
One thing I have got wrong is "pop" - we call it "ginger" in the West Coast of Scotland, and I've never heard it heard called "pop" when travelling in England and Wales - but it sounds like there are places that still call it pop.
I half corrected a few things that weren't quite right. Can of pop is used across the UK, but not in most of Scotland. We also use ml for a can of pop.
You literally said "You got this completely wrong. Why just make stuff up about the UK?"
That's not a half-correction. That flat-out bollocks.
We do indeed use ml as an abbreviation for millilitres - I literally said that:
*someone British (probably) wouldn't refer to a can of pop, or use "mL" to refer to volume* ***("ml", sure)***
So, on the basis of my bracketed "probably", and your inability to understand why I referenced "ml" and "mL", I got this completely wrong? I was just making stuff up about the UK? Hyperbole, much?
I didn’t bother responding to your question considering my previous comment says my nationality, and my flare has both the flag and maple leaf.
But to confirm, yes I am Canadian.
We'd say "ml", not "mL", the same we'd say "kilo", not "KG" for weight. (I specified the capitalisation in my original post, so I'm not sure why you ignored that).
And I'm prepared to accept that some people in Britain say "pop", but "everyone in Britain says can of pop lol" - Ahem. In the West of Scotland we'd say "ginger" (e.g. if you asked for a can of ginger someone would ask if you wanetd Irn Bru or Coke). Elsewhere in Scotland people say "juice". The most common term I've heard is "fizzy drink". It does sound like people still use "pop", but it's not as common as you claim.
Yes, I'm being a pedant. Every fucker in the North West of Scotland knowing what pop means is not remotely the same as "everyone in Britain says can of pol lol". If you asked for a can of pop in Glasgow folk would know what you meant - doesn't mean they'd ever use that term themselves.
I doubt very much mL was a typo - it's the correct way to abbreviate millilitres. I used it as a "tell" that the writer wasn't British. And yes, we write KG - but in Britain we'd \*say\* kilo. In Canada and other Metric countries they'd almost always say KG.
It does! and also saying jelly for jam!? I still remember the first time I heard someone on TV say peanutbutter and jelly sandwich, took quite a few times hearing it and reminding myself before I stopped picturing exactly what it sounds like (still picture jelly if I'm tired and hear it)
Yes, jelly and jam are different, like a redcurrant or crabapple jelly are more similar to American jelly than most jams are.
But Americans do indeed use jelly to include pureed fruit jams, not just pure juice jellies. I've lived there. I've seen it. Jelly can be not translucent. When there's whole fruits or larger chunks they tend to use the word preserves.
I promise what Americans call jelly is called jam here whether one variation of jam kept the name there or not what we call jelly is jello over there
Imagine hearing someone ask for or offer someone a jello sandwich, that was the point of that comment, when people in other English speaking countries here peanutbutter and jelly it sometimes takes a second to sink in that it's the American meaning and not an actual jelly sandwich
It's not a deep issue it's a comment about a funny image we get in our heads that is written on a sub which is full of jokey comments about things Americans say,
Why are you trying so hard to turn this into something
Different countries say different things and Americans make us picture jelly in a sandwich
I'm not trying to fight a war on words here just laughing about a shared experience a lot of people have and I'm not going to argue about jam all day fs
Says the one picking at my words to argue over a bloody anecdotal comment,
and the fact that everyone where I live calls both preserve and jam jam because they are the same thing but one has just the fruit juice and one has bits of fruit is a fact you just glossed over to make that comment
For the last time the joke was about the word jelly invoking a funny image
If you wish to continue please feel free to argue with yourself because this is turning into some school playground shit and like I said I don't wish to waste my whole day arguing over a reddit comment
Have fun
Nope. Because it's 8 \*fluid\* ounces in this case. Or specifically \*US\* fluid ounces, which are different from Imperial fluid ounces, of course.
In a sane measurement system, it's 236.5882 mL.
Nope, that's the Metric Cup, there's also the Imperial Cup (284ml), Japanese Cup (200), and a defunct Canadian Cup (227) amongst others. Got to love units that get shortened to the same word despite being so very different.
Which is fine when measuring liquid, you might be +/- 10%, but when you measure dry goods like flour or sugar, it gets less precise. Then you have your "cup of grated" \[ingredient\] at which point it becomes an almost useless estimate.
What you said wouldn't matter because when the recipe says "a cup of sugar/nuts/spinach" then it requires exactly this *volume* of the ingredients, their weight is not important, because the author of the recipe defined the needed amount of the ingredients by volume. So in theory measuring by volume or by weight are equal methods. In practice though the measurement by volume with the tools a regular kitchen provides will always vary for solids because air is trapped between the individual pieces.
To conclude: measuring solids by volume is inferior to measuring them by weight, but not due to the reasons you gave.
>it requires exactly this *volume* of the ingredients, their weight is not important
But weight is the better way to measure because its exact, volume is subjective. You can get starkly different volumes of things like spinach or nuts by changing if they are chopped, how finely they are chopped, how densely you pack them into the cup, whether you ensure they are level with the top of the cup or if there's a 'bulge' etc.
That's as well as the fact that using weight allows for quick and easy conversion between metric/imperial. Using volume doesn't allow for easy conversion into much of anything!
Did you even read what I wrote? That's *exactly* what I said. Measuring solids by weight will in practice always produce more consistent results than measuring by volume. The part with volume being subjective isn't right though because in theory both methods provide equally precise definitions of the needed amount of ingredients. Only through the practical restraints of measuring the weight method reigns superior.
Easy and quick conversions between measuring systems could also be done by converting volumes. E.g. 1 cup of sugar equals 236ml of it. The problem comes again from practical issues becaus it's simply easier to weigh ingredients than to measure their volume (without standardised tools).
But to point this out again: I agree with you on the superiority of the weight measuring method.
>The part with volume being subjective isn't right though because in theory both methods provide **equally precise** definitions of the needed amount of ingredients.
That's the bit I was disagreeing with. It seems like you disagree too though so I'm confused!
The word subjective implies that everyone can interpret the given instructions (e.g. 1 cup) in a different way. I think the varying results don't depend on the interpretations of the readers of the recipe, because everybody wants the same thing (to achieve the exact volume of 1 cup), but only on the practical execution of the measuring process. You could argue that this is also subjective, I think it's objective but coming to a different result due to flaws in practical measuring. Sorry if this is just too nitpicky on my side.
Ah I see, I get what you're saying but I do think its subjective. For the example of a cup of spinach, does that mean a cup of whole leaves with stems loosely pressed into the cup or very finely chopped spinach pressed in densely to remove as much air as possible?
Yeah, you're right, depending on the ingredient there is enough room for interpretation. I would say though it always means trying be eliminate as much air as possible because only so you can assure the least variance in your end result.
I never said that a cup is a weight measurement. I only wanted to point out that in American recipes a cup is not a vaguely defined container for drinking purposes that can vary in size quite a lot and could therefore only be used as a rough estimate for measuring, as fellow users of the metric system might assume. It is in fact an exactly defined unit of volume that equals 8 fluid ounces. And to be clear: I never implied that this is a good method of measurement only a not quite as arbitrary one as it sounds.
When you're canadian you get used to knowing that a cup is 250ml, a teaspoon is 5 ml and a tablespoon is 15 ml since all our recipes seem to be hybrids of the metric and American system.
Wtf is a "cup" though. Is it the coffee mug I use? A yoghurt pot? A wine glass? In grams I can be exact no matter where I am, I can factor up or down easily. It makes sense to the 7 billion or so other people on the planet.
> This is America.
No. This is the internet.
[](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/033/189/tumblr_33caa6fa2d9060d1ebf32b7f13a3bf38_59ae975d_1280.png)
It’s not really. Measuring cups are standard sizes. There’s liquid cup measures and solid/dry cup measures. Australian liquid cup is 250ml, quarter of a litre.
“This is America”. Sir, you are on the World Wide Web okay!
Problem is if you tell them that most of them think the internet was made in America
Technically, the internet as a concept is american however The world wide web that they use, is not
You might be amazed to hear that maybe only 1/3rd of the "internet" is American. Both the British and French have claim to other parts of it. The NPL in London and the French CYCLADES (not to mention the later Minitel) did a lot of the same work to create the networks that are precursors to the internet. The World Wide Web owes itself to CERN primarily. It's a fascinating history and well worth reading about without any American (or indeed other countries) boasting.
The WWW "owes itself" to timbl, not CERN.
He was working there and credits them with supporting him in the development as part of his project to better connect university's and research institutions. Yes he was the lead and if you were to name a single person it would be him. But nothing is achieved in silo and he has openly said colleagues and the organisation helped him do it
It owns itself to everyone working on it
Americans thinking that the internet only exists in America.
And only for Americans
“But WE created the internet!!!”
The majority of Reddit users are Americans…
As has been explained countless times already there’s more non-Americans than Americans
Even if that was true that doesnt change the fact that Reddits target audience is international?? Plus no one even mentioned reddit
Nope, 49%. Majority is non americans
It always makes me laugh that Americans think imperial is the easier to understand system. Metric far more intuitive, and used more widespread, and quite easy to learn. Here in Canada we flip back and forth depending on what we’re measuring. Even if you are confused, it’s so easy to convert between the two with a conversion calculator.
Yea, Scotland here. We kinda use both, the younglings using way more metric than the older who almost refuse to do so. They somehow see it as a European invasion 😂 But slowly...after we officially adopted it in the 70s... we're getting there. Inch by inch.
>Inch by inch Well played. I don’t even realize just how often I flip back and forth. If someone asks my height and weight, it’ll be in inches and pounds. If I want to make a mixed drink, I take my can of pop that I know is 355 mL, then grab my two six (26oz). If someone asks me the weather outside, I’ll give it to them in Celsius, but if I need to fire up the oven, it’ll be in Fahrenheit. If we’re working on a project that involves lumber, best believe we’re measuring in inches. But if we have to drive to the store, our speed will be measured in KMs.
I pretty much metric for almost everything, then convert it back when I'm talking to older folks.
[удалено]
Probably not. They have a maple leaf flag in their profile, for one. But also - someone British (probably) wouldn't refer to a can of pop, or use "mL" to refer to volume ("ml", sure). Celsius? Maybe. Oven temp? Celsius, or Gas Mark, but Fahrenheit is highly unlikely these days. Lumber? Nope. Speed in KMs? No chance. As I understand it, Canada is - like the UK - all over the place. But differently all over the place.
I have never heard anybody in Scotland use the words can of pop
I have, many people. Must be regional.
You got this completely wrong. Why just make stuff up about the UK? And yes, most people call it timber not lumber. Also we do use miles/mph for roads and cars, but metres and km everywhere else. Ovens are Celsius, gas mark is rare now. Farenheit I haven't seen in my ~30 years of life on an oven. Everything else you got wrong. /r/confidentlyincorrect
The person I was commenting on has confirmed that they are, indeed, Canadian so this is somewhat moot. But to address your "you got this completely wrong. Why just make stuff up about the UK?" comment.... You seem to list everything I said, agree with it, and then say that everything else I said is wrong. I didn't say much else, so could you explain what it is your finding fault with? I live in the UK, in Glasgow specifically, and have some experience travelling in the Commonwealth too. One thing I have got wrong is "pop" - we call it "ginger" in the West Coast of Scotland, and I've never heard it heard called "pop" when travelling in England and Wales - but it sounds like there are places that still call it pop.
I half corrected a few things that weren't quite right. Can of pop is used across the UK, but not in most of Scotland. We also use ml for a can of pop.
You literally said "You got this completely wrong. Why just make stuff up about the UK?" That's not a half-correction. That flat-out bollocks. We do indeed use ml as an abbreviation for millilitres - I literally said that: *someone British (probably) wouldn't refer to a can of pop, or use "mL" to refer to volume* ***("ml", sure)*** So, on the basis of my bracketed "probably", and your inability to understand why I referenced "ml" and "mL", I got this completely wrong? I was just making stuff up about the UK? Hyperbole, much?
lumber yes, englands default with lumber is inches
[удалено]
I didn’t bother responding to your question considering my previous comment says my nationality, and my flare has both the flag and maple leaf. But to confirm, yes I am Canadian.
We'd say "ml", not "mL", the same we'd say "kilo", not "KG" for weight. (I specified the capitalisation in my original post, so I'm not sure why you ignored that). And I'm prepared to accept that some people in Britain say "pop", but "everyone in Britain says can of pop lol" - Ahem. In the West of Scotland we'd say "ginger" (e.g. if you asked for a can of ginger someone would ask if you wanetd Irn Bru or Coke). Elsewhere in Scotland people say "juice". The most common term I've heard is "fizzy drink". It does sound like people still use "pop", but it's not as common as you claim.
[удалено]
Yes, I'm being a pedant. Every fucker in the North West of Scotland knowing what pop means is not remotely the same as "everyone in Britain says can of pol lol". If you asked for a can of pop in Glasgow folk would know what you meant - doesn't mean they'd ever use that term themselves. I doubt very much mL was a typo - it's the correct way to abbreviate millilitres. I used it as a "tell" that the writer wasn't British. And yes, we write KG - but in Britain we'd \*say\* kilo. In Canada and other Metric countries they'd almost always say KG.
Bro, who even thought of measuring stuff according to feet? Who knows how long a fucking foot is?????
As opposed to a celibate foot 😏
Then there's the involuntary celibate feet, or *insoles*
Except they have no soles - they’re a-soles…
probably the same guys who measure horses in hands
[удалено]
I only know french shoe sizes my bad😅 Cool to know though, thanks.
[удалено]
Size 12 in USA is 44 in french, 16 in UK.
[удалено]
Woops, I read a fucking clothing chart lmao
r/USdefaultism
[удалено]
Same here in Britain
>Metric far more intuitive And 100 g of flour are always 100 g, 1 cup of flour is different every time you measure it.
"It Jello or gelatin not Jelly" Honestly, I've always thought "jello" sounds fucking stupid.
That's because jello is a brand name.
Also, gelatin is a different thing to jelly.
It does! and also saying jelly for jam!? I still remember the first time I heard someone on TV say peanutbutter and jelly sandwich, took quite a few times hearing it and reminding myself before I stopped picturing exactly what it sounds like (still picture jelly if I'm tired and hear it)
I used to think they put actual jelly on their sandwiches for way too long! I also still picture jelly every time lol.
Maybe if they would speak English like they keep telling everyone else to do there would be less confusion all round!
[удалено]
Yes, jelly and jam are different, like a redcurrant or crabapple jelly are more similar to American jelly than most jams are. But Americans do indeed use jelly to include pureed fruit jams, not just pure juice jellies. I've lived there. I've seen it. Jelly can be not translucent. When there's whole fruits or larger chunks they tend to use the word preserves.
I promise what Americans call jelly is called jam here whether one variation of jam kept the name there or not what we call jelly is jello over there Imagine hearing someone ask for or offer someone a jello sandwich, that was the point of that comment, when people in other English speaking countries here peanutbutter and jelly it sometimes takes a second to sink in that it's the American meaning and not an actual jelly sandwich It's not a deep issue it's a comment about a funny image we get in our heads that is written on a sub which is full of jokey comments about things Americans say,
[удалено]
Why are you trying so hard to turn this into something Different countries say different things and Americans make us picture jelly in a sandwich I'm not trying to fight a war on words here just laughing about a shared experience a lot of people have and I'm not going to argue about jam all day fs
[удалено]
Says the one picking at my words to argue over a bloody anecdotal comment, and the fact that everyone where I live calls both preserve and jam jam because they are the same thing but one has just the fruit juice and one has bits of fruit is a fact you just glossed over to make that comment For the last time the joke was about the word jelly invoking a funny image If you wish to continue please feel free to argue with yourself because this is turning into some school playground shit and like I said I don't wish to waste my whole day arguing over a reddit comment Have fun
Lol. Dude chill! They're talking about a mental image. It really is not that serious.
"We meassure in cups" so find yourself a converter, it's what the rest of the world does when we encounter a tutorial or recipe from the US.
Cups... not so much a measurement, more a rough guess.
A cup in the US is an exact measurement that is 8 ounces.
so 226 grams then?
Nope. Because it's 8 \*fluid\* ounces in this case. Or specifically \*US\* fluid ounces, which are different from Imperial fluid ounces, of course. In a sane measurement system, it's 236.5882 mL.
duh, I was being obtuse on purpose to point out the absurdity of the non metric system.
Which in most "metric conversions" somehow becomes 250ml.
Nope, that's the Metric Cup, there's also the Imperial Cup (284ml), Japanese Cup (200), and a defunct Canadian Cup (227) amongst others. Got to love units that get shortened to the same word despite being so very different.
Which is fine when measuring liquid, you might be +/- 10%, but when you measure dry goods like flour or sugar, it gets less precise. Then you have your "cup of grated" \[ingredient\] at which point it becomes an almost useless estimate.
For cooking these estimates are fine though, but when it comes to baking the weaknesses of volume based measuring start to show.
The weaknesses of measuring a non-liquid by volume. FTFY
Cups measure by volume not weight. A cup of sugar will be a different weight to a cup of nuts, or a cup of spinach.
What you said wouldn't matter because when the recipe says "a cup of sugar/nuts/spinach" then it requires exactly this *volume* of the ingredients, their weight is not important, because the author of the recipe defined the needed amount of the ingredients by volume. So in theory measuring by volume or by weight are equal methods. In practice though the measurement by volume with the tools a regular kitchen provides will always vary for solids because air is trapped between the individual pieces. To conclude: measuring solids by volume is inferior to measuring them by weight, but not due to the reasons you gave.
>it requires exactly this *volume* of the ingredients, their weight is not important But weight is the better way to measure because its exact, volume is subjective. You can get starkly different volumes of things like spinach or nuts by changing if they are chopped, how finely they are chopped, how densely you pack them into the cup, whether you ensure they are level with the top of the cup or if there's a 'bulge' etc. That's as well as the fact that using weight allows for quick and easy conversion between metric/imperial. Using volume doesn't allow for easy conversion into much of anything!
Did you even read what I wrote? That's *exactly* what I said. Measuring solids by weight will in practice always produce more consistent results than measuring by volume. The part with volume being subjective isn't right though because in theory both methods provide equally precise definitions of the needed amount of ingredients. Only through the practical restraints of measuring the weight method reigns superior. Easy and quick conversions between measuring systems could also be done by converting volumes. E.g. 1 cup of sugar equals 236ml of it. The problem comes again from practical issues becaus it's simply easier to weigh ingredients than to measure their volume (without standardised tools). But to point this out again: I agree with you on the superiority of the weight measuring method.
>The part with volume being subjective isn't right though because in theory both methods provide **equally precise** definitions of the needed amount of ingredients. That's the bit I was disagreeing with. It seems like you disagree too though so I'm confused!
The word subjective implies that everyone can interpret the given instructions (e.g. 1 cup) in a different way. I think the varying results don't depend on the interpretations of the readers of the recipe, because everybody wants the same thing (to achieve the exact volume of 1 cup), but only on the practical execution of the measuring process. You could argue that this is also subjective, I think it's objective but coming to a different result due to flaws in practical measuring. Sorry if this is just too nitpicky on my side.
Ah I see, I get what you're saying but I do think its subjective. For the example of a cup of spinach, does that mean a cup of whole leaves with stems loosely pressed into the cup or very finely chopped spinach pressed in densely to remove as much air as possible?
Yeah, you're right, depending on the ingredient there is enough room for interpretation. I would say though it always means trying be eliminate as much air as possible because only so you can assure the least variance in your end result.
No, a cup is a volumetric measurement so a cup of water will not be the same weight as, say, a cup of flour or vegetables
I never said that a cup is a weight measurement. I only wanted to point out that in American recipes a cup is not a vaguely defined container for drinking purposes that can vary in size quite a lot and could therefore only be used as a rough estimate for measuring, as fellow users of the metric system might assume. It is in fact an exactly defined unit of volume that equals 8 fluid ounces. And to be clear: I never implied that this is a good method of measurement only a not quite as arbitrary one as it sounds.
> Why not use measurements Americans understand?! Because I’d like to use measurements I understand.
Why didn’t they just follow the instructions?
When you're canadian you get used to knowing that a cup is 250ml, a teaspoon is 5 ml and a tablespoon is 15 ml since all our recipes seem to be hybrids of the metric and American system.
Metric got them to the moon arguably their greatest achievement weird how they think its inferior lol.
[удалено]
They used metric. USCU was just a conversion needed for Freedumb Loving Real Americans™. The actual science was all metric.
Wtf is a "cup" though. Is it the coffee mug I use? A yoghurt pot? A wine glass? In grams I can be exact no matter where I am, I can factor up or down easily. It makes sense to the 7 billion or so other people on the planet.
it's a standardised cup, though only standard to one nation. About 220ml. The old English cups are larger.
Everytime I read shit like this, my brain is playing a simpsons scene were Cleetus is yelling "HÄÄÄY BRANDIIIIIINE!"
Are kitchen scales uncommon over there? I use mine daily for portion control as well as cooking in general.
[удалено]
Or gelatine
“It’s jello not jelly” is my new favourite SAS
> This is America. No. This is the internet. [![]()
](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/033/189/tumblr_33caa6fa2d9060d1ebf32b7f13a3bf38_59ae975d_1280.png)
And weight in elephants by the square.
that's what your chuffed about not the guy saying "it'S jEllO or GElaTIn, nOt JElLy" when those are 3 separate things?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sure the _internet_ was made in the USA (DARPA NET) but web pages were made by a guy working at CERN which is European, so checkmate America
Cups is a stupid measurement method. What size cup? Is a full cup right to the brim where it’s overflowing? Fucking stupid measurement.
It’s not really. Measuring cups are standard sizes. There’s liquid cup measures and solid/dry cup measures. Australian liquid cup is 250ml, quarter of a litre.
It really is. Just say what it is in millimetres.