Things that are Just Wrong

[mansr]

Subway tuna subs contain no tuna DNA

And no bread, at least in Ireland:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/irish-court-rules-subway-bread-is-not-bread

 

[jkasch]

Subway tuna subs contain no tuna DNA

“Eat fresh” (whatever it is).

 

[FrantzM]

Subway tuna subs contain no tuna DNA

lol

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Subway tuna subs contain no tuna DNA

If you had read the entire story, you would know that it was not proven whether or not there was tuna DNA in the subs.

lol

 

[Semla]

If you had read the entire story, you would know that it was not proven whether or not there was tuna DNA in the subs.

The Times (or its lab) failed to find any DNA, but inside edition did. It is tuna.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The Times (or its lab) failed to find any DNA, but inside edition did. It is tuna.

The Times reporter sent it to the only lab he could find and they reported that they could find no DNA at all because the submitted samples had been denatured. The entire report should never have been published.

 

[Wes]

well sorry, but I did not read anything about it, merely saw it on TV news

Did they find any Soylent Green in it?

 

[dasdoing]

“Warm” beer.

well ... it’s not actually warm, rather around 49 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

only true for corn beer lol

 

[dasdoing]

labiaplasty

silicone tits

 

[Kal Rubinson]

My dear, dear friend; that holds true for roughly 99% of everything published nowadays! Jim

Not so sure about that exact number but this particular one was dissatisfying as well as not entertaining. The point of the project was to determine if there was any tuna in the product. The reporter failed to find a proper procedure, a suitable lab test or any useful results but, despite these failures, decided to finish the piece anyway and the NYTimes decided to publish it.

 

[Blaspheme]

Yes, a tubular roll. It's a spiral viewed from the end. And when I say "marinated", I mean that the fish (in particular) is washed in salt brine, presumably to reduce transmission of disease. I did not eat sashimi in winter, but only in summer. That may have had something to do with it. Jim

Pedantry incoming—and totally gratuitous detail—I'll beg forgiveness in advance. Also adding to Jim's post, not making him wrong.

The roll is called norimaki (nori is the specific type of seaweed sheet, maki means rolled). It's a type of sushi, the general term is makizushi (rolled sushi) because other types of seaweed, omelette, etc can be used as the outer layer. Yes, the spiral is cool, but only one style, I forget its name. There is also norimaki-onigiri where the filling is wrapped rather than rolled. It's the Japanese functional equivalent of a sandwich.

Regular sushi is the familiar single piece of raw fish (or other seafood, like sea urchin or fish roe) served on small moulded portions of rice. Chirashizushi (scattered sushi) is raw seafood scattered on a bowl of rice. There are many, many regional and seasonal variations. So all this is simplified and generalised. Sushi is a broad category referring to any dish made with vinegared sushi rice.

Sashimi is not a type of sushi. It's also not marinated—sauce/garnish is added later while eating (Jim clarified this). Sashimi is made from the best grades of fish: depending on the species, it can be prepared hira-zikuri (flat slice) uzu-zikuri (thin) kaku-zikuri (square) or ito-zikuri (strip/thread).

There is a marinated raw fish much like sashimi called called ceviche (South American). Also Japanese raw beef dish gyu tataki (Italian equivalent would be carpaccio). Plus toriwasa (chicken) and basashi (horse).

None of these are wrong, so totally off-topic. I am however, now somewhat hungry.

To restore topicality, wrong in my view is norimaki made with cooked/canned tuna, and/or variations of California maki (usu. avocado) lavished with mayonnaise. Very popular. I'm often on the losing side of history.

 

[dasdoing]

I once bought a meat sandwich from subway and it didn't taste like meat at all

 

[Raindog123]

Tartare steak… Yum.

 

[Ron Texas]

I could give a long list but It's all political.

 

[Wes]

Not so sure about that exact number but this particular one was dissatisfying as well as not entertaining. The point of the project was to determine if there was any tuna in the product. The reporter failed to find a proper procedure, a suitable lab test or any useful results but, despite these failures, decided to finish the piece anyway and the NYTimes decided to publish it.

ok, now I am "triggered" - several years ago a NY Times science reporter called me since I was the scientist who had worked on a particular project; I carefully explained to him the science & context, which he promptly screwed up in his published piece

a couple years later i was chatting in a local coffee shop with a former English teacher I knew casually and the topic of newspaper reporting came up - he insisted that the NYT was reliable since they had special "science reporters"

he didn't know that I was a scientist or about the article, and I decided not to crush his world and bring it up

 

[Blaspheme]

ok, now I am "triggered" - several years ago a NY Times science reporter called me since I was the scientist who had worked on a particular project; I carefully explained to him the science & context, which he promptly screwed up in his published piece

a couple years later i was chatting in a local coffee shop with a former English teacher I knew casually and the topic of newspaper reporting came up - he insisted that the NYT was reliable since they had special "science reporters"

he didn't know that I was a scientist or about the article, and I decided not to crush his world and bring it up

Corvid cat-vomit cleanup—real tuna confirmed:

Spoiler: in case it's meal time

NYT just needs a smarter species of reporter.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

ok, now I am "triggered" - several years ago a NY Times science reporter called me since I was the scientist who had worked on a particular project; I carefully explained to him the science & context, which he promptly screwed up in his published piece

a couple years later i was chatting in a local coffee shop with a former English teacher I knew casually and the topic of newspaper reporting came up - he insisted that the NYT was reliable since they had special "science reporters"

he didn't know that I was a scientist or about the article, and I decided not to crush his world and bring it up

Someone said something about how 'you reads the newspaper about a topic you actually know a lot about and notice that it's full of mistakes, and then read the next article that you know nothing about and feel pretty well informed'.

Newspapers and media are all relative. You have the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journals (not their editorials), and then you have Washington Times and OANN.

But most people don't read the papers anymore anyways. I thought cable news was bad, but now it's all Facebook "news", where "research" means you read some echo chamber posts, and "science" means what that crazy anti-vax nurse said.

2020 was an eye opening year for me. Some of my basic assumptions about people have been challenged, and I will act accordingly from here on out.

What I mean is, what makes audiophoolery work isn't just limited to hifi. It's about everything. And people have very few places get reliable information, which results in most people believing various forms of misinformation.

 

[rdenney]

ok, now I am "triggered" - several years ago a NY Times science reporter called me since I was the scientist who had worked on a particular project; I carefully explained to him the science & context, which he promptly screwed up in his published piece

a couple years later i was chatting in a local coffee shop with a former English teacher I knew casually and the topic of newspaper reporting came up - he insisted that the NYT was reliable since they had special "science reporters"

he didn't know that I was a scientist or about the article, and I decided not to crush his world and bring it up

It’s axiomatic that the media is authoritative except on topics about which we are experts.

Rick “already said, of course” Denney

 

[Freeway]

My youngest son telling me to turn it down!

 

[mansr]

ok, now I am "triggered" - several years ago a NY Times science reporter called me since I was the scientist who had worked on a particular project; I carefully explained to him the science & context, which he promptly screwed up in his published piece

a couple years later i was chatting in a local coffee shop with a former English teacher I knew casually and the topic of newspaper reporting came up - he insisted that the NYT was reliable since they had special "science reporters"

he didn't know that I was a scientist or about the article, and I decided not to crush his world and bring it up

When it comes to science, never trust a source that doesn't link to the original paper.