Why Tabasco is sold in 2oz bottles

Flack · Post by **Flack** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:39 am

http://qz.com/186446/why-tabasco-hot-sa ... e-bottles/

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:40 am

Man, I've been on a total Tabasco kick lately. It really is one-of-a-kind, and that woodsy, earthy undertone is just unmistakeable and totally addicting.

That article, now that I read it again, doesn't make any sense to me. Here are the numbers:

It says that the 2oz bottle has exactly 720 drops. The bottle says that one teaspoon is the serving size, and that the bottle contains 12 servings.

That means one serving, and one teaspoon, have SIXTY drops? I don't know what counts as a "drop", but in order for 60 of them to fit in one teaspoon, they'd have to be pretty goddamn tiny drops. Could they have meant 72 drops, or 6 per serving? That now seems too little.

It's all very confusing, but it's all so deliciously tasty.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:53 am

Huh. Apparently a "drop" is an actual precise unit of measurement, and there are 76.0021463202 drops per teaspoon. Let's round that down to 76 for ease of use.

If a bottle of Tabasco has 720 of them, and 1 serving is 1 teaspoon, then the actual number of servings per bottle is: 9.47.

The nutrional label says: "Servings: About 12". 9.47 is not really "about 12".

There's something FISHY going on here.

EDIT: BUT WAIT: I've now checked three different sources for "# of drops per teaspoon" and ALL THREE gave wildly different answers, although one of them says "60 drops of THICK FLUID". So if you count Tabasco as a thick fluid, then the math adds up.

So now the question is:

Why does everyone think there are different (and very precise) numbers of "drops per teaspoon"?

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:56 am

UPDATE: I've now found SIX different numbers for "drops per teaspoon". One site had conversions for "UK teaspoon, US teaspoon, and metric teaspoon", and all three numbers were different from every other number I found on every other site.

What the FUCK is going on here?

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:22 pm

Look, I've provided some excellent hot sauce-related content around here lately, and am getting even less response than your average Don Rogers show.

I will stop talking about it if nobody cares. If that's what's to happen, I will make one final hot sauce thread, in which I state my conclusions after a lifetime spent chasin' heat, and then I will never bring it up again.

Is that what you want? IS IT?

Because it's kind of what I want! So that's cool! Hopefully we can all agree on this.

ChainGangGuy · Post by **ChainGangGuy** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:35 am

While I cannot speak for the others, I've refrained from commenting or posting questions to maintain its clean, tidy, pristine condition, and ensuring not to clutter the thread with uselessly long replies or YouTube videos, so as not to lose its high OWL rating.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:02 am

pinback wrote:UPDATE: I've now found SIX different numbers for "drops per teaspoon". One site had conversions for "UK teaspoon, US teaspoon, and metric teaspoon", and all three numbers were different from every other number I found on every other site.

What the FUCK is going on here?

It's not just drops, it's almost everything.

The definition of "pound" (weight, not the British currency) depends on what you're weighing. A "pound" of macaroni is 16 Avoirdupois ounces (about 28 grams). A "pound" of gold, silver, platinum or other precious metals is 12 "troy" ounces (about 31.1 grams).

This is why precise technical measurements went over to the Metric system because everything has one single measurement and each has an exact definition.

For example, how long is a "second"? There's an exact definition for that: "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." where "ground state" means "zero magnetic flux."

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:07 am

Well, there goes our OWL certification.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:09 am

pinback wrote:Huh. Apparently a "drop" is an actual precise unit of measurement, and there are 76.0021463202 drops per teaspoon.

Nope, it's not precise. A drop is the amount of liquid coming from a container which has exceeded the maximum amount that can hang on the edge of a container before detaching. That means a heavy liquid would have smaller drops, and thinner or more cohesive liquids would have larger ones.

All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size. Drops of detergent will almost certainly be different. The group Train never said how big "Drops of Jupiter" were, though.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:12 am

Tdarcos wrote:All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size.

This is the most insane thing you have said in weeks. I mean hours. How does your brain come up with these "facts" that have no basis in reality and then immediately convince itself "YEP THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER! GET THIS OUT TO THE FANS IMMEDIATELY!"?

How is that possible?

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:15 am

pinback wrote:Well, there goes our OWL certification.

What the hell is OWL certification as you're referring to it, and who's going to tell them we failed?

I think you have it confused with something else. OWL Certification is issued by the Unitarian Church for certified sexuality teachers. This topic has nothing to do with that.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:16 am

Tdarcos wrote:
pinback wrote:Well, there goes our OWL certification.
What the hell is OWL certification as you're referring to it, and who's going to tell them we failed?

I think you have it confused with something else. OWL Certification is issued by the Unitarian Church for certified sexuality teachers. This topic has nothing to do with that.

I propose that Paul be confined both to his wheelchair and his base on Caltrops. Wait, I will turn it into a poll.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:21 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size.
This is the most insane thing you have said in weeks. I mean hours. How does your brain come up with these "facts" that have no basis in reality and then immediately convince itself "YEP THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER! GET THIS OUT TO THE FANS IMMEDIATELY!"?

How is that possible?

Here is an example of your crass and inept stupidity. You've just stated something stupider than I have. You proceed, with no evidence, proof or justification, to trash my opinion. You have absolutely nothing to dispute my statement, and yet you proceed to trash me for making it.

This is exactly the sort of thing I talk about with the CRs over at Caltrops who proceed to assign me various mental illnesses - all beginning with the letter A - with no evidence or proof.

But you raised the issue, present your evidence to show how it would be trivially obvious to show that water drops coming out of a faucet are different sizes, and how raindrops are different sizes. So go ahead, provide your evidence since it apparently is so obvious that you had to trash me for saying something you claim is stupid on its face.

If what I said is so clearly inept, surely you can immediately and easily justify why you make such a claim.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:24 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:
pinback wrote:Well, there goes our OWL certification.
What the hell is OWL certification as you're referring to it, and who's going to tell them we failed?

I think you have it confused with something else. OWL Certification is issued by the Unitarian Church for certified sexuality teachers. This topic has nothing to do with that.
I propose that Paul be confined both to his wheelchair and his base on Caltrops. Wait, I will turn it into a poll.

You still haven't answered the question. Since this OWL certification you're talking about is not the usual and customary one most people refer to, what does it mean?

When someone says "NRA" they are almost always talking about the National Rifle Association. If you're talking about the National Restaurant Association you have to make that clear.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:27 am

Tdarcos wrote:You proceed, with no evidence, proof or justification, to trash my opinion. You have absolutely nothing to dispute my statement, and yet you proceed to trash me for making it.

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/raindropsizes.html
http://spikesworld.spike-jamie.com/scie ... -size.html
http://www.livescience.com/7809-raindro ... sizes.html
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentof ... ops-sizes/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8155883.stm

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:29 am

Tdarcos wrote:You still haven't answered the question. Since this OWL certification you're talking about is not the usual and customary one most people refer to, what does it mean?

Even if I explained it, you still wouldn't get it, or you would reply with ten more pages of unrelated, factually incorrect horseshit.

Just chalk it up to "one more thing everyone here understands except you".

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:37 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:All rain drops and drips coming out of a faucet are the same size.
This is the most insane thing you have said in weeks. I mean hours. How does your brain come up with these "facts" that have no basis in reality and then immediately convince itself "YEP THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER! GET THIS OUT TO THE FANS IMMEDIATELY!"?

How is that possible?

Were you born an asshole or did you have to train for it?

This is an example of the absolute worst way to comment on someone's statement which you disagree with. You immediately go into hostile, nasty, attack mode. Do you really think (metaphorically) spitting in someone's face is going to make them respond positively?

You could have said your piece, and made your point without anger, hostility or namecalling, and maybe even had a chance to allow someone to learn something. But no, instead of trying to allow the other person to save face and maybe reducing the tension levels, you immediately went into asshole mode and took the low road.

Have you ever considered trying to be polite and communicate, use your presumed intelligence to guide people into understanding, and maybe win them over to your side, instead of causing them to refuse to back down and to respond in knid with anger and more namecalling?

----
"I know I should have kept my mouth shut
When I saw two grand above my car
But I can't back down now
Because I pushed the other guys too far."
- The Beach Boys, Don't Worry Baby

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:39 am

Tdarcos wrote: Were you born an asshole or did you have to train for it?

You just replied to the same post twice within a 20 minute period.

You are completely insane.

ChainGangGuy · Post by **ChainGangGuy** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:49 am

pinback wrote:Even if I explained it, you still wouldn't get it, or you would reply with ten more pages of unrelated, factually incorrect horseshit.

Just chalk it up to "one more thing everyone here understands except you".

I feel awful for even bringing it up now. :(

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:00 am

pinback wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:You still haven't answered the question. Since this OWL certification you're talking about is not the usual and customary one most people refer to, what does it mean?
Even if I explained it, you still wouldn't get it,

That's a cop-out, you know it is, and more than that, it's an automatic admission on your part that you can't prove what you claim, plus you know you can't prove it, and rather than simply admit it and accept you're wrong, you try to "blame the victim" for their supposed lack of intelligence instead of admitting you have no response.

This is a slimy and disreputable way of making a point. It's done quite frequently by some minority figures who want to make a point they know is clearly erroneous or unsustainable, and to keep that point from correctly being attacked, they will accuse their opponent (of a different race) of being "racist." It's a brilliant tactic, because it's unanswerable: claim you're not racist and you sound like Richard Nixon claiming he wasn't a crook. So it's used to silence dissent and give the person who can't respond a way to shut down the conversation in a way that silences their critics whose point may be valid. And it's as disgusting a debating trick as yesterday's garbage.

or you would reply with ten more pages of unrelated, factually incorrect horseshit.

I never do that much. But look, proceed to make your claim, if you really can, and I will take time, if I disagree with what you say, to make a response not exceeding (approximately) ten lines (the BBS software renders in editing mode differently from display mode, so it may run over by a line or two.)

Just chalk it up to "one more thing everyone here understands except you".

No, I'll chalk it off to something you know is wrong, know that you have no proof or evidence to argue against the point, and that knowing this you don't want to admit it, so rather than concede I am right, you simply claim I can't understand it.

Look, I have reason to believe I'm brighter than you think I am. One time my sister asked me what my IQ was. I said that the last time I was tested, I was 12 and my Verbal was 130 and my written was 95, for a net of 115. She said that was impossible. "My IQ is 140 and you're lots smarter than I am."

So let's try it. Present your evidence and to the extent I disagree, I will take the extra time to do a very short response. Presuming you have any evidence, which your continued deflection indicates strongly that you do not.