4 ms·

An unexpected thing I learned in a recent dive into learning how to make Tamales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

An unexpected thing I learned in a recent dive into learning how to make Tamales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization This complicated process of preparing maize makes more nutrients bioavailable. The Aztecs figured it out somehow. I learned about this when trying to buy maize flour and discovering that there are 2 types: nixtamalized and non. Reminds me of how certain South American indigenous tribes have this very complicated ritual to prepare Cassava/Tapioca. They didn't know it, but it removes cyanide and makes it much safer to consume (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48859333 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48859333 ).

throwawaygh 5y ago
> Reminds me of how certain South American indigenous tribes have this very complicated ritual to prepare Cassava. They didn't know it, but it removes cyanide and makes Cassava way safer to consume. This is basically how a lot of modern experimental science still works. Sort of black/grey box scientific reasoning. We have better theories, and better instruments for verifying those theories, but in the end? A bunch of people have high failure rates, but one guy's thing always works. You go over and ask that guy why his always works. He shows you his process and you are hopefully able to ape him. This knowledge is crystallized and handed down. Perhaps even formalized and written up if it's important enough, but often not. There's a word in tech for people who are good at this sort of "grey/black box observe the world and make it work without really knowing why" skillset. That word is hacking.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm a bit confused about modern time versus the (unscientific) past. Because people trying stuff and keeping what works is not far from scientific process. It's blind and primitive but structurally too similar to ignore. There's also something nicer about the past, they could only focus on important ideas to share and save. People had direct interactions with life critical knowledge. I find that better than the current system where science is a far away field that people only see materialize as shiny devices.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    The cost of progress is specialization. I can't even keep up with everything in my own subfield. There are enormous scientific enterprises dedicated to diseases that will never touch my life and mean nothing to me, but constitute actual miracles to another community.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  Yes, there was a great podcast with the Electrochemical Society's Doron Aurbach. A very senior scientist, who has been working with lithium batteries. Basically the labs all over the world need to test all the possible combinations. And there are so many of them. That's why sharing your results is so important. Too bad it was in Soundcloud and it's been removed: https://www.electrochem.org/ecsnews/doron-aurbach-commercial-li-ion-batteries/ https://www.electrochem.org/ecsnews/doron-aurbach-commercial...
ggm 5y ago
Absent a reason, the only path to WHICH thing fixes some problem in food is to do ALL OF THEM, maybe suffer some nutritional deficiency from washing the good stuff out with the polysacceride poison, and then very carefully experiment with removing one treatment at a time. Which would butt hurt if it took BOTH heat AND acid to do the thing (tm) Survival guides for 'crashed in the rainforest' have instructions which pretty much is "do all of it. pound it, wash it, drain it, look at the bubbles, if fish die in the water its pretty toxic, dry it, cook it, taste a tiny bit, wait until the dysentery passes, try again..."

throwawaygh 5y ago

> Reminds me of how certain South American indigenous tribes have this very complicated ritual to prepare Cassava. They didn't know it, but it removes cyanide and makes Cassava way safer to consume. This is basically how a lot of modern experimental science still works. Sort of black/grey box scientific reasoning. We have better theories, and better instruments for verifying those theories, but in the end? A bunch of people have high failure rates, but one guy's thing always works. You go over and ask that guy why his always works. He shows you his process and you are hopefully able to ape him. This knowledge is crystallized and handed down. Perhaps even formalized and written up if it's important enough, but often not. There's a word in tech for people who are good at this sort of "grey/black box observe the world and make it work without really knowing why" skillset. That word is hacking.

agumonkey 5y ago
Yeah, I'm a bit confused about modern time versus the (unscientific) past. Because people trying stuff and keeping what works is not far from scientific process. It's blind and primitive but structurally too similar to ignore. There's also something nicer about the past, they could only focus on important ideas to share and save. People had direct interactions with life critical knowledge. I find that better than the current system where science is a far away field that people only see materialize as shiny devices.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  The cost of progress is specialization. I can't even keep up with everything in my own subfield. There are enormous scientific enterprises dedicated to diseases that will never touch my life and mean nothing to me, but constitute actual miracles to another community.
Gravityloss 5y ago
Yes, there was a great podcast with the Electrochemical Society's Doron Aurbach. A very senior scientist, who has been working with lithium batteries. Basically the labs all over the world need to test all the possible combinations. And there are so many of them. That's why sharing your results is so important. Too bad it was in Soundcloud and it's been removed: https://www.electrochem.org/ecsnews/doron-aurbach-commercial-li-ion-batteries/ https://www.electrochem.org/ecsnews/doron-aurbach-commercial...

ggm 5y ago

Absent a reason, the only path to WHICH thing fixes some problem in food is to do ALL OF THEM, maybe suffer some nutritional deficiency from washing the good stuff out with the polysacceride poison, and then very carefully experiment with removing one treatment at a time. Which would butt hurt if it took BOTH heat AND acid to do the thing (tm) Survival guides for 'crashed in the rainforest' have instructions which pretty much is "do all of it. pound it, wash it, drain it, look at the bubbles, if fish die in the water its pretty toxic, dry it, cook it, taste a tiny bit, wait until the dysentery passes, try again..."