> I use jarred garlic (a lot!) and buy it in quart (~900ml) containers.

I want to use it, because it seems like such a convenience, but every time I buy a jar it tastes...weird/bad. I think because it's always mixed with citric acid to keep from oxidizing aggressively? But then it doesn't taste like garlic anymore. Is that something you experience too? Is there a remedy? Does it vary by brand?

Fresh garlic contains alliin (two Ls, two Is) and alliinase. Cutting or crushing garlic mixes the two, which starts a chemical reaction that turns them into allicin. Allicin has an incredibly powerful flavor--it's overwhelming, even. Jarred garlic has lots of allicin and there's not really anything you can do to prevent it. To prevent the chemical reaction, you prevent the alliin and alliinase from mixing, and to do that, you keep the garlic whole. I honestly don't think that choosing a different brand or different method of preparation is going to get you any advantages here, this is just how garlic works.

This chemical reaction explains why every method of preparing garlic tastes different. If you use a sharp knife and cut garlic into thin slices, you'll get less allicin and once you cook the garlic, it will be more sweet. The sharp knife doesn't crush as much of the garlic's cell walls. If you crush garlic in a press, the chemical reaction happens at just about maximum speed, and you get a very pungent garlic flavor.

This chemical reaction evolved as a defense mechanism against animals who would eat the garlic bulb. Bulbs in the same family--onions, garlic, shallots, scallions, etc--basically engage in chemical warfare. Humans (and certain other animals) have a number of adaptations which allow use to eat these foods anyway.

Speaking of that chemical reaction, J. Kenji López-Alt says that if the garlic is cut or crushed in lemon juice (and I'd guess a citric acid solution would work by itself), the conversion to allicin doesn't happen. It's the basis of his tahini recipe[0].

No idea if jarred garlic bits are cut in citric acid or if it's added later to prevent botulism. I'd guess the latter based on how it tastes.

[0]https://www.seriouseats.com/israeli-style-tahini-sauce-recip...

Isn't that basically true of most spices? They're things we're immune to that other animals/bacteria/etc. aren't?

See if you can find Dorot Garden’s crush garlic in little frozen cubes. It retains the flavor of fresh crushed garlic. I get it a Trade Joes. https://dorotgardens.com/product-crushed-garlic/

That weird taste is probably just the taste of Chinese prison workers’ melted fingernails.

https://www.ft.com/content/1416a056-833b-11e7-94e2-c5b903247...

>I want to use it, because it seems like such a convenience, but every time I buy a jar it tastes...weird/bad.

I suggest that you do whatever you want/prefer.

As I said in a previous comment[0]:

   It's not that I find mincing fresh garlic onerous. Rather 
   the taste difference (feel free to disagree, I don't mind 
   -- please do exactly what you want to do) for me isn't big 
   enough to compensate for the convenience (and lower cost) 
   of dumping a couple spoonfuls of pre-minced (in water, not 
   oil -- although if you prefer oil, then have at it) garlic 
   and off you go. 

> Is that something you experience too? Is there a remedy? Does it vary by brand?

Sort of. Yes, the flavor (if I eat it out of the jar) is a bit different, but once it's mixed into the dish I'm cooking, the difference isn't big enough for me to care.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31950407

In case you're wondering, you're likely being downvoted because the person you responded to asked, seemingly in good faith, if you had any tricks or tips for improving jarred garlic (e.g. by preparation or brand choice.)

To respond by quoting the very comment they replied to comes off as unnecessarily defensive and doesn't seem to assume good faith.

>In case you're wondering, you're likely being downvoted because the person you responded to asked, seemingly in good faith, if you had any tricks or tips for improving jarred garlic (e.g. by preparation or brand choice.)

I don't have any useful suggestions and said so. Should I lie?

>To respond by quoting the very comment they replied to comes off as unnecessarily defensive and doesn't seem to assume good faith.

Except the comment they replied to was this one[0] (I checked to make sure before responding), not the one I quoted[1]. In fact, GP posted their comment before I posted the comment I quoted.

I will say that clicking the "parent" link in GP's post (as I did) would have confirmed the above for you.

I know what's in my mind and I wrote in good faith only to express my thoughts and ideas.

If other folks don't like what I say or how I say it, so be it. I don't require their (or yours, for that matter) approval.

That's not an attack on you (or anyone else) or an attempt to be mean or unpleasant. It's just how I see it.

I don't even resent the downvotes. People wiil do as they do, and unless there's a material impact on me, I don't really care.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31949856

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31950407

>I don't have any useful suggestions and said so. Should I lie?

You are not required to reply to every comment on HN.

My CIA handler told me that I have to respond to every response, no matter how inane (kinda like yours).

I really hate it, but I don't want to go back to Gitmo.

FWIW, I don't want you to go back to gitmo either.

It strikes me as weird to go from a long well worded post describing how different personal opinions are legitimate, to seemingly dismissing someone for having an opinion.

>It strikes me as weird to go from a long well worded post describing how different personal opinions legitimate, to seemingly dismissing someone for having an opinion.

I guess my writing style isn't conducive to conveying my meaning. I won't rehash what I said previously[0] about this, but I answered (without much detail as I couldn't answer their question reasonably as I just don't know).

Perhaps that's something I might think about.

I am a little taken aback with this, not because folks are downvoting me, but because the first assumption folks seem to be making is that I'm writing in bad faith.

Aren't we supposed to (I know I try -- not always successfully -- which doesn't reflect well on me when I don't) to read others' comments in the most charitable way/assume good faith?

I'm not really sure what seemed dismissive there, I certainly didn't intend it to be so. Thank you for taking the time to express this.

If I could impose upon you to clarify what, exactly, seemed dismissive, perhaps I could express myself without that impression in the future. Thanks!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31951326

Edit: Added the missing link.

From your other posts, it seems pretty clear that sentiment received was different than the sentiment intended.

I think the confusion stems from a response that seems to be a non-sequitur/ orthogonal to the parent statement. Because of this, readers struggle to fill in the intent, charitable or not.

>>I want to use it, because it seems like such a convenience, but every time I buy a jar it tastes...weird/bad.

>I suggest that you do whatever you want/prefer.

The parent comment is already trying to do what they want, but encountering a challenge.

Telling someone to do what they are already doing and ignoring the challenge/question comes off as inattentive and/or dismissive.

for example:

"Every time I restart my computer, I get a blue screen error code. do you have advice? "

"Just restart your computer"

It is hard to read a logical but charitable intent. The most charitable I can get is not understanding the question, or an error in the response.

Hope this helps

>>I suggest that you do whatever you want/prefer.

>The parent comment is already trying to do what they want, but encountering a challenge.

>Telling someone to do what they are already doing and ignoring the question comes off as inattentive and/or dismissive.

That makes sense. Thank you. That said, it was pretty clear in my mind that I meant they should use their own best judgement as that's likely the best way to get what you want.

Perhaps what I should have said was:

  Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for you about 
  that, but if you find that jarred garlic tastes weird/bad, 
  then I imagine you'd prefer just to use the fresh stuff.

  That said, I don't know if it's jarred garlic in general or 
  just the stuff you purchased, but the jarred stuff 
  *definitely* tastes different than fresh garlic.

The comment that has been poorly received was lower effort than my previous comment (the one replied to by GP) and I made assumptions (that my thought process there was clear) that were unwarranted.

I appreciate your time and effort in explaining this to me.

I can't change the past, but I can try to do better in the future. I hope to do so.

> "Every time I restart my computer, I get a blue screen error code. do you have advice? "

> "Just restart your computer"

I'm reminded of one of the Jargon File's "AI Koans":

----

A novice was trying to fix a broken Lisp machine by turning the power off and on.

Knight, seeing what the student was doing, spoke sternly: “You cannot fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no understanding of what is going wrong.”

Knight turned the machine off and on.

The machine worked.

Just a quick note, something my dad taught me. Break apart the garlic into segments, peel them then use a broad, flat kitchen knife and crush the garlic with the heel of your hand. Once crushed, gather together and finely chop.

I've never gotten along with garlic crushers, they leave too much of the garlic in the tool and washing them is difficult.

>Just a quick note, something my dad taught me. Break apart the garlic into segments, peel them then use a broad, flat kitchen knife and crush the garlic with the heel of your hand. Once crushed, gather together and finely chop.

Thank you for the suggestion. I am already aware of that method (as well as several others).

It's not that I find mincing fresh garlic onerous. Rather the taste difference (feel free to disagree, I don't mind -- please do exactly what you want to do) for me isn't big enough to compensate for the convenience (and lower cost) of dumping a couple spoonfuls of pre-minced (in water, not oil -- although if you prefer oil, then have at it) garlic and off you go.

> feel free to disagree, I don't mind -- please do exactly what you want to do

Meta: I think it goes without saying that readers will do whatever they want to. You telling the reader explicitly that they should do what they want can come across as passive-aggressive. Paradoxically, you _are_ telling them how they should behave by writing that.

Not GP but I just see it as preemptive defense as is so often needed online. "I like it this way" will often be interpreted as "I like it this way and if you disagree you're wrong!" leading to pointless flamewars.

To me it seems that people who take "I like it this way" and extend it in their minds to include "…and if you disagree you're wrong!" when no such intent is likely are just actively looking for any excuse for an argument. Those people aren't worth engaging with further in my opinion. Just wasted energy/effort, and unwanted/unnecessary stress.

>>> feel free to disagree, I don't mind -- please do exactly what you want to do

>Meta: I think it goes without saying that readers will do whatever they want to. You telling the reader explicitly that they should do what they want can come across as passive-aggressive. Paradoxically, you _are_ telling them how they should behave by writing that.

It's funny (as in disturbing -- at least to me) that you took my statement that way.

I intentionally used those words to point up my main thesis WRT this entire discussion:

  What I think is what *I* think, and is *not* a prescription
  (or proscription) for others.  Rather, it's my take and I 
  have no interest in telling *anyone* (nor should others do 
  so) what to do, think or say.

The idea that I thought I was giving folks permission in some form or fashion doesn't make much sense (IMHO) unless you assume I'm one of the people I decry in my initial post[0] in this thread, which is not assuming good faith on my part.

I'd be offended if I cared what you think/do/say. In fact, I'm only responding as it appears you think that I'm somehow acting in bad faith.

If you find my writing to be "passive aggressive," please note my username and ignore (or downvote) everything I write.

I wish you health, happiness and success. Have a good day.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nobody9999

> If you find my writing to be "passive aggressive," please note my username and ignore (or downvote) everything I write.

I'm playing armchair psychologist here at 1am (not the only one), but this kind of comment is the definition of passive-aggressive.

You started on a good samaritan stance but upon being challenged, their comment is 'disturbing', doesn't make sense, and is in bad faith. Then you say you don't give a shit, but evidently you do enough to write a long response, ending on sarcastic good wishes for dramatic effect.

    "Passive-aggressive behavior is a pattern of indirectly 
     expressing negative feelings instead of openly addressing 
     them. There's a disconnect between what a person who 
     exhibits passive-aggressive behavior says and what he or she does."

If you really cared about people doing whatever they want, one would expect you to happily chat about their preferences and findings; instead, your default answers read dismissive and as a polite "fuck off". In that case everyone would be better off by not commenting at all. What are we here for anyway?

This:

  I wish you health, happiness and success. Have a good day.

Was not sarcastic at all.

I have no issue with GP that would cause me to wish them ill.

In fact, illustrating that was the reason I wished them well.

> If you find my writing to be "passive aggressive," please note my username and ignore (or downvote) everything I write.

I admit I haven't really looked to see if this already exists, but I've occasionally considered writing a filter for HN that would allow users to blackhole other users. And not just hiding with a thin layer, but making them cease to exist. In a hierarchical enivronment like HN it would have the effect of blackholing other people by extension, if they reply, but it's the ultimate way to curate your bubble.

Now I'm wondering if I would give it the option to auto-downvote. Ha! Call it the Spite List.

Though I do wonder if HN voting algorithms are able to recognize voting patterns like that and discount them. More than just saying "You only get X actual downvotes per day, beyond that the value of each existing downvote decreases as you add more." It should be easy to notice that user X has downvoted user Y multiple times, especially in unrelated conversations.

I don’t think Hn’s algorithm would take kindly to that kind of downvoting behavior.

I didn’t intend to disturb you. I almost never assume negative intent, so I gave feedback in case you want to take it up and prevent readers from getting that impression.

Thank you.

I didn't take it that way. My interpretation is that GP is acutely aware of how comment sections quickly devolve into back-and-forth arguments about why one person likes their own way better. People seem to constantly forget that most of what we do is subject to differing opinions.

So preemptively reminding people that he doesn't want to argue it, because he doesn't feel like it merits an argument ... well, that's totally understandable IMO.

I think it's useful in the context of the original article, which is about it being okay to disagree about cooking methods.

Huh, I always crush with the knife edge _before_ peeling, then the skins come off easy as pie.

This is after washing the garlic segments I plan to use, then I save the skins along with other washed refuse from carrots, onions, celery, etc and use that when I make broths with bones I've collected.

Then from those broths you can reserve the fat layer that accumulates at the top and use that to sautee veggies, mm mm mm!

You're sounding a lot like a right proper cook. All the great tricks granny taught…

Not much greater a compliment I could ever expect to hear in this lifetime :-)

There's one company (Joseph & Joseph) which makes a garlic 'rocker' and with a soft silicone spatula you get all the garlic back, from a device which is as easy to clean as any normal utensil.

Yup, grew up with garlic crushers and have one in the kitchen but mostly do this, it's not much longer once you factor in the time to find the garlic crusher.

> they leave too much of the garlic in the tool and washing them is difficult.

if you peel the garlic first you can just scrape the rest of the bit into the dish and while it's not as finely crushed and separated as the other parts... it tends to meld in just fine(mostly) and you don't waste anything.

i find that lightly crushing the garlic before peeling helps separate the skin and makes peeling easier.

also, touching stainless steel helps remove the garlic scent from your hands.

I started using garlic crushers when I learned that you don't need to peel the cloves to use it. Plus, if you don't peel them, clean up is actually pretty easy. As for leaving garlic behind; yes, that's true, but garlic is also cheap, so you can just crush more.

This is actually the same method I was taught, and I find it simpler and faster and just generally better all around over using any "special tool" made for the purpose. Lay the flat of the blade across a hunk of garlic, smack you're done. Fast and easy.

You can also do this: turn the blade so that it is facing you and "chop" the garlic with the backside of the knife. It will crush the garlic into bits.

> But as I said, I'm not buying that it's somehow "ableist," in that I'm sure that most folks don't know (or care, for that matter) that the author of TFA has a physical issue that limits what she can do.

Well, you know, it's both.

We should be tolerant and more welcoming of other peoples' choices that don't affect us.

And sometimes we're being even worse-- being a real asshole because other people aren't able to make the choices we're sneering at them for-- because of reasons of ability, or economics, or what's possible in the place they live, etc.

When we are ready to form snap judgments of people for what appears to be their preference, we may actually be judging them for ability or economics or location or cultural background. We may be judging them for something they have little ability to control.

> Don't like pre-minced garlic? Don't use it.

There's a million things you can do to make food better. Yes, fresh ingredients are better, hand-prepared with no wait, etc.

But unless you are spending all day and oodles of money making a Michelin-class meal, you're making some tradeoffs-- tradeoffs of cost, time, effort, learned skills. And you can still make a fantastic meal that's much better than what people typically eat with pre-minced garlic and shredded commodity cheese.

But it's pretty easy for us to collectively turn judgey on small specific things.

>But it's pretty easy for us to collectively turn judgey on small specific things

That was the entire point I was trying to make. That, and that doing so is douchebaggery.

As to the ableist bit, it's not (as I explicitly stated) that ableism isn't a nasty thing -- it is -- but that those who engage in the activity discussed in TFA aren't specifically being ableist, they're just being douchebags and are insulting and nasty not because of ableism, but because they're assholes.

I guess what I'm trying to clarify is: one may think they're just making a value judgment about someone's choices, but they very easily can be actually also judging based on shortfalls in ability or income... or different backgrounds, location, culture, etc.

I agree judging based on peoples' superficial choices isn't great. But I think judging people based on things they can't change or that are close to intrinsic is even worse.

>I agree judging based on peoples' superficial choices isn't great. But I think judging people based on things they can't change or that are close to intrinsic is even worse.

An excellent point. And I agree.

That said, I didn't distinguish between those types of "judgement," because they're both dick moves.

I'd go one step further: most of the people responding are probably not jerks or assholes, just people sharing their own opinions in a playfully exaggerated way which, when done in person and accompanied by grins or laughter rarely causes offense. "You like THAT movie?! That movie is the WORST! I've lost all respect for you!" They have no way of knowing that the author of the original tweet is expressing something that has real significance to them.

> "You like THAT movie?! That movie is the WORST! I've lost all respect for you!"

I don't know, this is still pretty jerky behavior when you're on the receiving end of it, even if the person speaking is "joking". Even if the entire goal is to have fun, at whose expense? Why can't I just like a bad movie and not have to catch shit for it? I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but I think there's more to it.

In 2022, it's not enough to have an opinion. You must have THE opinion. You must be passionate about it. You must attack others who do not share it. Anything less makes you a Bad Person. This is modern online discourse. I hate it.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but only a bit. There is something about online social interaction today that goes far beyond "the playfulness is lost to the medium". I'd argue that the playfulness in many cases no longer exists. And if it does, it's indistinguishable. Hidden among 10 other opinions that are also unnecessarily aggressive, and are not attempting to joke about it.

> Why can't I just like a bad movie and not have to catch shit for it?

I don't know anything about movies, but I know a thing about wine, food and spirits.

A thing most people don't understand is that liking a thing != the thing is actually good and vice versa. A good critic always says enjoy what you like, and their job is aiding your way to find it. Often there are objective-ish criteria to judge a thing (e.g. balance or complexity in a wine). But nobody knows what you personally enjoy. If you enjoy the taste of burned meat, a medium rare steak may not be what you like, but you can't say it's not good.

Same is probably true for movies as well. Just because a movie is bad, you can still like it. And you can dislike a good movie as well. Those two things are not the same.

>I'd go one step further: most of the people responding are probably not jerks or assholes, just people sharing their own opinions in a playfully exaggerated way which, when done in person and accompanied by grins or laughter rarely causes offense. "You like THAT movie?! That movie is the WORST! I've lost all respect for you!" They have no way of knowing that the author of the original tweet is expressing something that has real significance to them.

You may well be correct -- in fact, I'd say you certainly are for some folks.

That said, given the ubiquity of Poe's Law[0], it's an iffy proposition to engage in irony/satire/sarcasm in text-only forums.

That's a sad truth about online discourse. And it pains me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

One Christmas, my SO gave me the book _A Confederacy of Dunces_. I hated it, and only finished reading it because it was a gift (and I wanted to at least give it a fair chance). I talked to a friend of mine (a former English teacher at the University of Alabama) about the book, and it turned out it was one of his favorite books. We ended up having a great discussion about it.

I think it's important to keep in mind that others aren't you, they have their likes and dislikes and it might be a good thing to learn why they have the opinions they have.

Eh. I think what you're describing is step 1.

Step 2 is people online hearing other people talking like it has real significance to them, perceiving it as a real important norm, and then persecuting others for it.

> (and better things to spend my money on -- fresh garlic is significantly more expensive) than minced (or chopped) garlic when I'm cooking.

This sounds like one of those few weird things in the US where the processed version's somehow cheaper.

Fresh [1] garlic is around 1/2 the price of minced [2] here in Singapore.

[1] https://www.amazon.sg/Thygrace-Whole-Garlic-200g-packaging/d...

[2] https://www.amazon.sg/Jia-Wang-Chopped-Garlic-250/dp/B08NVRY...

>This sounds like one of those few weird things in the US where the processed version's somehow cheaper.

If you buy it in a supermarket, minced/chopped garlic is more expensive. Mostly (I surmise) because they charge a lot for the tiny jars and don't sell the big ones.

I buy my garlic online from folks who generally sell to restaurants/food service companies. As such, I pay much, much less than from the supermarket.

If I couldn't get the big jars at a good price, I'd use the fresh stuff more often.

I often wonder if it's also due to different communication styles. I remember in high school a friend and I would always chat about movies and tell each other what we thought after seeing one. My friend would always use language like "X movie sucked" or "Y movie was boring".

For some reason whenever he would talk about his opinion of movies, it got me a little bit annoyed, because his statements always came across as objective truth. He didn't say, "I thought X movie sucked" or "I felt that movie Y was boring... for these reasons", he just said what he thought.

My communication style was always, "I feel this..." or "I think this..." or "In my opinion, X was..." Whenever I get into arguments with people nowadays, I often notice it's because I want there to be the option for subjective opinion on things and some people don't like that. They want an objective truth that they can walk away with and say, "Well, after that conversation, we came to the conclusion that Z was awful."

Since noticing my preferences for communications, I'm more okay with people trying to say something is an objective truth. To them, sure, there's one truth but I'm not going to waste my time arguing beyond a certain point. It's not my job to convince someone else two truths may exist simultaneously.

I think it’s merely a style as you mention in your first sentence. Some people who speak using the objective style are just being loose with language. They still realize what they are saying is subjective.

I talk like this even when I'm being subjective. In fact, I largely talk like this because I used to talk and write more subjectively but I was dinged in an English class for not sounding convincing.

My partner is impatiently waiting for me to pull up the garlic I planted, which is not ready yet. First hot spell turned some leaves brown but that doesn't mean it's ready.

She does use jarred garlic for some dishes, we still go through a lot of store bought garlic, but she says it's rather bland compared to the stuff from the garden. I haven't done a side by side comparison but I don't have any reason to doubt her. Transport stable crops tend to be lacking in other characters so that probably is a lot of it. But most heirloom and landrace garlic has to survive at least 4 months and preferably 6 in storage to be viable as seed garlic, so it's not like peaches or mulberries where you have to eat, cook or can them by day 2 or they're mush.

my mom says, "don't yuck my yum"

my family applies this to much more than food. helps make me less judgmental.

>I use jarred garlic (a lot!) and buy it in quart (~900ml) containers. I don't have the physical issues the author of TFA has,

It's been so long I'm afraid to ask... But what does TFA mean?

I thought it might mean the The Fucking Article... As in "Did you read TFA? You moron." But that seems out of place for someone who wrote their edit to be "Improved my prose."

>It's been so long I'm afraid to ask... But what does TFA mean?

>I thought it might mean the The Fucking Article... As in "Did you read TFA? You moron." But that seems out of place for someone who wrote their edit to be "Improved my prose."

Just as RTFM == Read The [Fine|Fucking] Manual, the 'F' in TFA can mean either one.

I suppose that the quality of the article might impact how you think about it, but personally it's 'The Fine Article' to me. That can be ironic, but isn't necessarily.

As with most things, whatever works for you is just fine.

The Fine Article.

The fine article?