Talk:2241: Brussels Sprouts Mandela Effect

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 21:46, 16 December 2019 by (talk) (Added small comment explaining the timeframe of sprout development.)
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)
In Denmark we love it, so I guess it is mainly an American thing. Maybe it is also not so varied what types you can get if most people have an idea that they dislike it. I eat some every day. My children also likes it allot. But there are also types of licorice I do not like. I think for children in the first world it is more general that they do not like sprouts than licorice. Have added a note of this in the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Silica packets are harmless to eat: (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

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 think you should not eat them, have added link, but the gel itself is probably not toxic, but can annoy you if eaten as in the packets. --Kynde (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I remember eating Brusseles Sprouts as a kid and those were tasty (and expensive). 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)
Tried to read your statment but could not understand the point. Mandela effect is not real! UFO as in from aliens are not real. But of course an object you do not know what is that flies is a UFO. But not from outer space. Cannot understand your objections. Are they against Randall's comic or this explanation? --Kynde (talk) 15:58, 16 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". (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I found out that the new sprouts actually came out in 1999. See: nieuwe zoete spruitjes (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

...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): Don't think so, it probably took a few years before they were cultivated in the US. In the Netherlands and the rest of Europe they have not broken through at all. 1999 was the year it was developed.

When my mother prepared brussel sprouts when I was a child, she would boil them to tenderness, aka just short of boiling them to death. This tended to leach all the soluble stuff, like sugars and vitamins, into the water and emphasize the sulphur compounds. In more recent times, I have had them prepared better and prepared them myself better (cut in half through the stem, drizzle with oil and roast or pan fry) and they can be very tasty. Nutster (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I always loved sprouts as a kid. Proper loved 'em. They're OK now, but the only thing bitter about eating them now is me: nobody who hated them had any duty to eat them but, because they somehow felt they did, growers created a blander version that haters would tolerate. Wouldn't it have been better - for everybody concerned - to leave them alone?! Those who liked them would eat them, those who didn't wouldn't, and we'd all be happy. Now we have everybody saying sprouts are no good - either because of the entrenched idea that it's an accepted fact, or because these once-tasty delights have been replaced by little nuggets of bland greenness. Yorkshire Pudding (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and the Mandela Effect: frustrating to everyone in the parts of the world with better reportage on 1980s South Africa, to whom it's like saying 'But surely Tom Cruise died in that plane crash along with Madonna, Bill Gates and Emperor Hirohito in 1987! I fucking REMEMBER it!' Yorkshire Pudding (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I was really damn confused by the alt text until I read the explanation. I kept thinking "saw them open" meant "cut through them" 08:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes this was one of those few moments where I mus admit I would never have understood this my self, and also not have been able to search my way to it. BevauseI really never go to a concert with a opening act. --Kynde (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comic seems to have been updated to fix the NPR reference number 10:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the image, but usually it takes some hours before the new version will be present on this page. --Kynde (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)