• bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      True, but that’s just replacing a cup with a length, and rules out using an existing tub.

      Why not use weight, which is easy to measure and tolerant of different forms/shapes?

        • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          This sounds like a catch-22 problem.

          Maybe scales could be improvised, with a stick, some cups, and awkward-shaped chunks of chicken in one of the cups.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

            Or, we just use volumetric measurements, despite the slight variations they introduce when you cram pack flour into a cup instead of gently scooping the sifted. It’s a kitchen, not a laboratory or a factory.

            • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              My first example was “a cup of frozen chicken strips”.

              I know I can make a guess how much they mean, but I could easily be off by a factor of 2.

              It really wouldn’t be hard to have the weight listed.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Butter in a tub usually isn’t pure butter as they add oil to it to make it spreadable when cold.

        Recipes that call for butter are normally designed for true/pure butter and may not cook or bake properly if spreadable stuff is used. (there is however Amish rolled butter that’s sold in big ‘loaves’ where measuring can be annoying)