3 ms·

In Finland, we call this taste the taste of "salmiakki" or "salmiak salt" in English. It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies, but it's an acquired taste. Mo

In Finland, we call this taste the taste of "salmiakki" or "salmiak salt" in English. It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies, but it's an acquired taste. Most people who taste it for the first time as adults, hate it.

the-dude 3y ago
Salmiak was sold as a powder in a tube as candy in The Netherlands ( at least in 70s and 80s ).
- eterps 3y ago
  It's difficult to find pictures of it, but this one is close to how I remember it: https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23af3922b5.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23...
  - the-dude 3y ago
    Except for the pixelation! That didn't exist back then. But this is the stuff I was talking about, thanks.
globular-toast 3y ago
I love it. It's my favourite type of sweet but it's quite hard to find in the UK (not that I go to great lengths to find such things). I find it funny that in British English we would call such a thing a "sweet" even though it's not actually very sweet (which is why I like it). Sweet is roughly equivalent to candy in American English, but with a notable exception: chocolate is not considered a sweet but falls instead into the broader category of confectionery.
qball 3y ago
>It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies It's also the "salt" in salted licorice. >but it's an acquired taste Yes, because it's objectively unpleasant (if it tasted good there would naturally be no need to acquire a taste for it). Of course, that's not to say it's pointless to add it- provided it's done properly you can add a salty flavor to places it can't normally be (chocolate covered black licorice being one of those places)- but it's also a taste that imposes a relatively small n where (enjoyment gained from eating n+1 pieces) < (enjoyment gained from eating n pieces) compared to candy that's actually designed to taste good.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  > Yes, because it's objectively unpleasant (if it tasted good there would naturally be no need to acquire a taste for it) Who gets to decide what is "objectively unpleasant"?

the-dude 3y ago

Salmiak was sold as a powder in a tube as candy in The Netherlands ( at least in 70s and 80s ).

eterps 3y ago
It's difficult to find pictures of it, but this one is close to how I remember it: https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23af3922b5.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/b3/0d/94/b30d94aaec9669bc45fd0f23...
- the-dude 3y ago
  Except for the pixelation! That didn't exist back then. But this is the stuff I was talking about, thanks.

globular-toast 3y ago

I love it. It's my favourite type of sweet but it's quite hard to find in the UK (not that I go to great lengths to find such things). I find it funny that in British English we would call such a thing a "sweet" even though it's not actually very sweet (which is why I like it). Sweet is roughly equivalent to candy in American English, but with a notable exception: chocolate is not considered a sweet but falls instead into the broader category of confectionery.

qball 3y ago

>It's a popular taste in gummy-like candies It's also the "salt" in salted licorice. >but it's an acquired taste Yes, because it's objectively unpleasant (if it tasted good there would naturally be no need to acquire a taste for it). Of course, that's not to say it's pointless to add it- provided it's done properly you can add a salty flavor to places it can't normally be (chocolate covered black licorice being one of those places)- but it's also a taste that imposes a relatively small n where (enjoyment gained from eating n+1 pieces) < (enjoyment gained from eating n pieces) compared to candy that's actually designed to taste good.

seanhunter 3y ago
> Yes, because it's objectively unpleasant (if it tasted good there would naturally be no need to acquire a taste for it) Who gets to decide what is "objectively unpleasant"?