5 ms·

Makes me think of Korean chopsticks. They're all stainless steel. At first you think, "that's weird, they're supposed to be wooden." Then you realize stainless

Makes me think of Korean chopsticks. They're all stainless steel. At first you think, "that's weird, they're supposed to be wooden." Then you realize stainless steel makes much more sense. More hygenic, reusable, durable, looks nice. I like the aesthetics of wooden chopsticks, but they aren't as practical as metal. Can't say I like the aesthetics of a rusty chain-link fence; I'd rather go with the stainless. This also reminds me of how after WW2 we seem to have forgotten how to make things look nice. Older architecture often had ornate detailing. Even traditional houses and clothing had details to accentuate its visual appeal. But look at houses rising up in cities lately and they look like giant Ikea filing cabinets. I appreciate the detailing on these fences.

mc32 4y ago
I don't like accidentally biting on metal chopsticks whereas wooden or plastic are a non issue.
- hyperhopper 4y ago
  Do you do that often? Do you bite metal forks as well? It might be due more to inexperience or an isolated incident being a higher percentage of your experiences due to less overall usage.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  The majority of the world uses metal spoons and forks fine? Just need to remember not to deep throat your utensils!
- darkerside 4y ago
  I don't know why people are giving you crap. Metal chopsticks just aren't as nice. They don't have as nice a feel. For some reason I don't care about that when I use a fork, but I sure do with chopsticks. Maybe just because I'm used to wood.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm not sure. Forks don't give me the same grief. Maybe it's the curved shape/entry angle. Also, stainless steel chopsticks are needle like at the ends and have very little surface for friction to pick things up, so they're kind of dainty in that respect --I struggle to pick up a good bite.
    - godrejsplend 4y ago
      [flagged]
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
Mine are titanium. Wonderfully light to hold, almost weightless.
- eru 4y ago
  Interesting. For forks, spoons and especially knives most people seem to prefer a little heft instead.
j_4 4y ago
Wood has a grippier texture which I'd consider the top factor when it comes to practicality of chopsticks.
- mgdlbp 4y ago
  Looks like there are steel ones with textured tips. The engraving doesn't look very pronounced, so not sure if there'll be much difference. I wonder why no ones makes them outright knurled--shouldn't be any harder to clean in a dishwasher.
  - eru 4y ago
    Well, once you add engravings and other texture stuff to make your metal chopsticks grippier, they are become grippier for bacteria. Thus eliminating one of the justifications brought up in favour of metal chopsticks.
    - j_4 4y ago
      Yeah. Also - it makes perfect sense in retrospect, but I was surprised to learn that wood tends to have decent antimicrobial properties. We had it right 10000 years ago, it's a great material for cutting boards and utensils. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=90527 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...
    - mgdlbp 4y ago
      Wouldn't that be another case for knurling like that common on metal knobs, where the grooves are too large a scale to trap clumps of bacteria? It'll prevent mechanical scrubbing, but if a dishwasher is acceptable for cleaning between fork tines where the surfaces are blocked from direct spray, then the shadowed parts of a knurled surface shouldn't be a problem. Total surface area would of course increase, but only around double.* That'd be all, but I found something interesting when trying to look up what threshold of roughness is too coarse for trapping bacteria. Didn't end up finding that; the interesting fact is that despite bacteria growth increasing in most surfaces when deviating from a smooth polish, stainless steel actually exhibits less bacterial growth when roughened very finely, on the order of tens of nanometres of Ra (mean absolute deviation of height of a cross section from the mean line, though it seems the fractal nature of roughness means the order of magnitude of measurement depends on the measurement method). That's according to [1][2] and their citations; one of them gives an explanation of the cell membrane being limited by bend radius, so that when roughening a surface at a sufficiently small scale, the contact area bacteria can make decreases rather than increases. No idea about the implications of nanoscale surface finishing on gripping food, though. [1] Ctrl+F "surface roughness" https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.643722 https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.643722 [2] https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00544 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00544 *nerdsnipe: By what factor of cut angle, pitch, and angle between passes does knurling increase surface area, if knurling is modelled as an extrude-cut along a line of a triangle wave profile into a face of the raw material, followed by a second pass of another at an angle to the first line, and completed by rolling the resulting face into a cylinder? The simple case of a 90 degree cut to full depth in only one direction increases profile length (and thus surface area) by sqrt(2), but does a second cut make something elegant like a tidy factor of 2?
wahern 4y ago
> This also reminds me of how after WW2 we seem to have forgotten how to make things look nice. Older architecture often had ornate detailing. Even traditional houses and clothing had details to accentuate its visual appeal. It's a matter of labor cost. Those ornate details look nice, but they're expensive to create, and expensive to maintain. When those details were popular, there existed a surfeit of skilled manual labor. Over time more complex aspects of construction shifted to or were replaced by pre-fabricated components, and manual labor became increasingly less skilled, or perhaps a better way of putting it is more specialized to working with pre-fabricated components. Ask someone who owns one of those old San Francisco Victorians--at least those which maintain the original aesthetic--how much a simple paint job costs. It'll quickly become obvious why so many were plastered over, covered in asbestos tiles, etc. Ditto for internal renovations--few people end of replacing waintscoting or other detailing, and those that do try to preserve some of that detail typically end up using faux, pre-fabricated components that lack much of the depth and richness. Labor costs are just too expensive to spend on those sorts of purchases, even for multi-millionaires. And those costs only continue to increase as knowledge and experience disappear. In the 21st century, most of that skill is pretty much gone forever. You can find people who know how to do these things at a technical level, but few to none that can bang them out as efficiently as people 100+ years ago who did it daily. The whole labor and supply chain ecosystem is simply incomparable.
- foobarian 4y ago
  > When those details were popular, there existed a surfeit of skilled manual labor I sure wonder if serf hovels had those ornate details. Something tells me it mostly showed up on a small fraction of structures.
- pottertheotter 4y ago
  This is not quite true. A major factor that led to styles such as Queen Anne Victorians was cheap, mass-produced ornamentation. Prior to that, a lot of detail had to be done by hand. That meant that a Queen Anne might cost considerably less to build than a less ornate Italianate. However, the biggest issue today is not a lack of ornamentation. Rather, it is a lack of thought. So many homes are now made without proportion, balance or scale. For instance, pull up a picture of a Victorian and, in your mind, strip away the ornamentation. You'll find that things just feel right, such as the size and distribution of windows, the height of each floor, the roofs, etc. So much of that is missing today, but it would be an insignificant cost to address (before a building is built). I think of it similar to food. There are some amazing things you can only experience at extremely expensive restaurants. But you can also find amazing food for a couple dollars. It comes down to similar things such as balance. Very simple food that is prepared the correct way and balanced can be both cheap and absolutely delicious. But too many people don't care, so you rarely see it.
zumu 4y ago
> hygenic, reusable, durable, looks nice Metal is probably a little more durable, but wooden chopsticks are plenty durable as well as hygienic and look great. Wooden chopsticks are also easier to use and don't transfer heat. Calling metal chopsticks more practical is highly dubious given everywhere uses wooden chopsticks and basically only Korea uses metal chopsticks. Moreover, even in Korea wooden and bamboo chopsticks are also used.
- epgui 4y ago
  Biochemist here: yes, wooden chopsticks are probably hygienic enough for all intents and purposes. However, metal chopsticks have a smoother, non-porous surface, and therefore will be inherently a less friendly environment for bacteria. Some metals further have antibacterial properties.
  - seszett 4y ago
    Actually, wood also has antibacterial properties which make it more hygienic than plastic for example. Probably not more than stainless steel though. edit I'm curious to know why I am being downvoted as I thought the antibacterial properties of wood vs. plastic for eg. cutting boards were a well known thing. Here is a paper about it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/
    - dismantlethesun 4y ago
      No one in the thread was talking about plastic until you mentioned it.
      - seszett 4y ago
        It was just an example of a material that doesn't have antibacterial properties. My point was simply that wood also has antibacterial properties, like steel, and probably shouldn't be considered less hygienic.
  - zumu 4y ago
JKCalhoun 4y ago
When I was in Seoul, seemed to me that Koreans were fairly obsessed with hygiene. Eating utensils: metal — kept in UV light-boxes.
car_analogy 4y ago
> This also reminds me of how after WW2 we seem to have forgotten how to make things look nice. We did not "forget". Take a look at what wins architecture awards [1] (or what they build when budget isn't strict) - "nice" is actively thwarted. The exact same happened in art, where one cannot hide behind "cost". [1] https://twitter.com/arch_crimes https://twitter.com/arch_crimes
samcheng 4y ago
The real status symbol chopstick material (although a bit gauche these days) is ivory, though. Those are grippy, light, nice to touch, and durable.
- solardev 4y ago
  Heh. There's something vaguely ironic -- and slightly sadistic? -- about feeding yourself using the tooth of another animal.
NegativeLatency 4y ago
Been reading this book recently and it seems to go back more to even earlier: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2785.The_Old_Way_of_Seeing https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2785.The_Old_Way_of_Seei...
eru 4y ago
> Then you realize stainless steel makes much more sense. More hygenic, reusable, durable, looks nice. Eh, they are much harder to use than bamboo or wooden chopsticks: stainless steel has a lot less grip, because it has less friction. (If you are good enough at using chopsticks, it doesn't matter too much.)
- solardev 4y ago
  In all seriousness... try a high-quality spork sometime (like one of those titanium or steel ones), especially if you're eating Asian food like bowls and stir-frys and such. You'll look ridiculous, but they work SO much better than chopsticks, spoons, or forks for meals that mix loose grains, sauces, and vegetables. Chopsticks may be more traditional, but they really aren't the most usable for a lot of food types.
  - eru 4y ago
    I live in Singapore these days, and people seem to be using a combination of fork-and-spoon for most meals; especially rice. Chopsticks are mainly used for noodles.

mc32 4y ago

I don't like accidentally biting on metal chopsticks whereas wooden or plastic are a non issue.

hyperhopper 4y ago
Do you do that often? Do you bite metal forks as well? It might be due more to inexperience or an isolated incident being a higher percentage of your experiences due to less overall usage.
ramraj07 4y ago
The majority of the world uses metal spoons and forks fine? Just need to remember not to deep throat your utensils!
darkerside 4y ago
I don't know why people are giving you crap. Metal chopsticks just aren't as nice. They don't have as nice a feel. For some reason I don't care about that when I use a fork, but I sure do with chopsticks. Maybe just because I'm used to wood.
- mc32 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure. Forks don't give me the same grief. Maybe it's the curved shape/entry angle. Also, stainless steel chopsticks are needle like at the ends and have very little surface for friction to pick things up, so they're kind of dainty in that respect --I struggle to pick up a good bite.
  - godrejsplend 4y ago
    [flagged]

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

Mine are titanium. Wonderfully light to hold, almost weightless.

eru 4y ago
Interesting. For forks, spoons and especially knives most people seem to prefer a little heft instead.

j_4 4y ago

Wood has a grippier texture which I'd consider the top factor when it comes to practicality of chopsticks.

mgdlbp 4y ago
Looks like there are steel ones with textured tips. The engraving doesn't look very pronounced, so not sure if there'll be much difference. I wonder why no ones makes them outright knurled--shouldn't be any harder to clean in a dishwasher.
- eru 4y ago
  Well, once you add engravings and other texture stuff to make your metal chopsticks grippier, they are become grippier for bacteria. Thus eliminating one of the justifications brought up in favour of metal chopsticks.
  - j_4 4y ago
    Yeah. Also - it makes perfect sense in retrospect, but I was surprised to learn that wood tends to have decent antimicrobial properties. We had it right 10000 years ago, it's a great material for cutting boards and utensils. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=90527 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...
  - mgdlbp 4y ago
    Wouldn't that be another case for knurling like that common on metal knobs, where the grooves are too large a scale to trap clumps of bacteria? It'll prevent mechanical scrubbing, but if a dishwasher is acceptable for cleaning between fork tines where the surfaces are blocked from direct spray, then the shadowed parts of a knurled surface shouldn't be a problem. Total surface area would of course increase, but only around double.* That'd be all, but I found something interesting when trying to look up what threshold of roughness is too coarse for trapping bacteria. Didn't end up finding that; the interesting fact is that despite bacteria growth increasing in most surfaces when deviating from a smooth polish, stainless steel actually exhibits less bacterial growth when roughened very finely, on the order of tens of nanometres of Ra (mean absolute deviation of height of a cross section from the mean line, though it seems the fractal nature of roughness means the order of magnitude of measurement depends on the measurement method). That's according to [1][2] and their citations; one of them gives an explanation of the cell membrane being limited by bend radius, so that when roughening a surface at a sufficiently small scale, the contact area bacteria can make decreases rather than increases. No idea about the implications of nanoscale surface finishing on gripping food, though. [1] Ctrl+F "surface roughness" https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.643722 https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.643722 [2] https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00544 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00544 *nerdsnipe: By what factor of cut angle, pitch, and angle between passes does knurling increase surface area, if knurling is modelled as an extrude-cut along a line of a triangle wave profile into a face of the raw material, followed by a second pass of another at an angle to the first line, and completed by rolling the resulting face into a cylinder? The simple case of a 90 degree cut to full depth in only one direction increases profile length (and thus surface area) by sqrt(2), but does a second cut make something elegant like a tidy factor of 2?

wahern 4y ago

> This also reminds me of how after WW2 we seem to have forgotten how to make things look nice. Older architecture often had ornate detailing. Even traditional houses and clothing had details to accentuate its visual appeal. It's a matter of labor cost. Those ornate details look nice, but they're expensive to create, and expensive to maintain. When those details were popular, there existed a surfeit of skilled manual labor. Over time more complex aspects of construction shifted to or were replaced by pre-fabricated components, and manual labor became increasingly less skilled, or perhaps a better way of putting it is more specialized to working with pre-fabricated components. Ask someone who owns one of those old San Francisco Victorians--at least those which maintain the original aesthetic--how much a simple paint job costs. It'll quickly become obvious why so many were plastered over, covered in asbestos tiles, etc. Ditto for internal renovations--few people end of replacing waintscoting or other detailing, and those that do try to preserve some of that detail typically end up using faux, pre-fabricated components that lack much of the depth and richness. Labor costs are just too expensive to spend on those sorts of purchases, even for multi-millionaires. And those costs only continue to increase as knowledge and experience disappear. In the 21st century, most of that skill is pretty much gone forever. You can find people who know how to do these things at a technical level, but few to none that can bang them out as efficiently as people 100+ years ago who did it daily. The whole labor and supply chain ecosystem is simply incomparable.

foobarian 4y ago
> When those details were popular, there existed a surfeit of skilled manual labor I sure wonder if serf hovels had those ornate details. Something tells me it mostly showed up on a small fraction of structures.
pottertheotter 4y ago
This is not quite true. A major factor that led to styles such as Queen Anne Victorians was cheap, mass-produced ornamentation. Prior to that, a lot of detail had to be done by hand. That meant that a Queen Anne might cost considerably less to build than a less ornate Italianate. However, the biggest issue today is not a lack of ornamentation. Rather, it is a lack of thought. So many homes are now made without proportion, balance or scale. For instance, pull up a picture of a Victorian and, in your mind, strip away the ornamentation. You'll find that things just feel right, such as the size and distribution of windows, the height of each floor, the roofs, etc. So much of that is missing today, but it would be an insignificant cost to address (before a building is built). I think of it similar to food. There are some amazing things you can only experience at extremely expensive restaurants. But you can also find amazing food for a couple dollars. It comes down to similar things such as balance. Very simple food that is prepared the correct way and balanced can be both cheap and absolutely delicious. But too many people don't care, so you rarely see it.

zumu 4y ago

> hygenic, reusable, durable, looks nice Metal is probably a little more durable, but wooden chopsticks are plenty durable as well as hygienic and look great. Wooden chopsticks are also easier to use and don't transfer heat. Calling metal chopsticks more practical is highly dubious given everywhere uses wooden chopsticks and basically only Korea uses metal chopsticks. Moreover, even in Korea wooden and bamboo chopsticks are also used.

epgui 4y ago
Biochemist here: yes, wooden chopsticks are probably hygienic enough for all intents and purposes. However, metal chopsticks have a smoother, non-porous surface, and therefore will be inherently a less friendly environment for bacteria. Some metals further have antibacterial properties.
- seszett 4y ago
  Actually, wood also has antibacterial properties which make it more hygienic than plastic for example. Probably not more than stainless steel though. edit I'm curious to know why I am being downvoted as I thought the antibacterial properties of wood vs. plastic for eg. cutting boards were a well known thing. Here is a paper about it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/
  - dismantlethesun 4y ago
    No one in the thread was talking about plastic until you mentioned it.
    - seszett 4y ago
      It was just an example of a material that doesn't have antibacterial properties. My point was simply that wood also has antibacterial properties, like steel, and probably shouldn't be considered less hygienic.
- zumu 4y ago

JKCalhoun 4y ago

When I was in Seoul, seemed to me that Koreans were fairly obsessed with hygiene. Eating utensils: metal — kept in UV light-boxes.

car_analogy 4y ago

> This also reminds me of how after WW2 we seem to have forgotten how to make things look nice. We did not "forget". Take a look at what wins architecture awards [1] (or what they build when budget isn't strict) - "nice" is actively thwarted. The exact same happened in art, where one cannot hide behind "cost". [1] https://twitter.com/arch_crimes https://twitter.com/arch_crimes

samcheng 4y ago

The real status symbol chopstick material (although a bit gauche these days) is ivory, though. Those are grippy, light, nice to touch, and durable.

solardev 4y ago
Heh. There's something vaguely ironic -- and slightly sadistic? -- about feeding yourself using the tooth of another animal.

NegativeLatency 4y ago

Been reading this book recently and it seems to go back more to even earlier: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2785.The_Old_Way_of_Seeing https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2785.The_Old_Way_of_Seei...

eru 4y ago

> Then you realize stainless steel makes much more sense. More hygenic, reusable, durable, looks nice. Eh, they are much harder to use than bamboo or wooden chopsticks: stainless steel has a lot less grip, because it has less friction. (If you are good enough at using chopsticks, it doesn't matter too much.)

solardev 4y ago
In all seriousness... try a high-quality spork sometime (like one of those titanium or steel ones), especially if you're eating Asian food like bowls and stir-frys and such. You'll look ridiculous, but they work SO much better than chopsticks, spoons, or forks for meals that mix loose grains, sauces, and vegetables. Chopsticks may be more traditional, but they really aren't the most usable for a lot of food types.
- eru 4y ago
  I live in Singapore these days, and people seem to be using a combination of fork-and-spoon for most meals; especially rice. Chopsticks are mainly used for noodles.