It's like if I invent an 'air fryer' as though that's something new, and then talk about an '18" oven tray' which is actually 6" wide, but in my air fryer line that's the measurement of what we call '18" oven tray'. Who's winning what? How is this good for anyone?

Please note the adjectives:

> While a standard U.S. cup measure is 240 milliliters, a rice cup according to rice industry standards is much smaller at 180 milliliters.

If you use cups to measure coffee, fine (I don't measure, but I think grams would be more normal) - or if your specific 'coffee maker' came with a cup, fine, but don't over-generalise?

I mean not even over-generalise - GP told me my 'coffee maker' came with a non-standard cup; I promise you it came with no cups whatsoever. (It's a Rancilio Silvia, the stock basket has a max capacity of probably 18? 21? grams - definitely less than any 'cup', about a tablespoon. But that's a physical maximum and nobody called it a cup or suggested it was for measurement.)

The point is that no one really uses those as measurements, they're not useful. But almost every coffee maker comes labeled with cups anyway for some reason, probably marketing for comparison shoppers. Obviously you're right that espresso machines don't have cup markings (however that would even work), but I have to say this is the first time I've seen someone call an espresso machine a coffee maker (hence my uh... curt previous response, sorry about that).

I've never heard an espresso machine called a coffee maker either, but I've never heard the latter term at all, hence this whole thread. Sounds like a refusal to call someone (i.e. a person, not machine) a 'barista' to me.

Mr Coffee carafe markings is 5oz per cup. This is not an espresso machine that makes "small" cups. This is a good old fashioned American pot of coffee and I can tell you what they call a FIVE cup coffee maker makes an actual 2 cups of coffee.

公合(gōnggê) can be used to be specific here.

Will vary depending on the type of rice, but in general, rice expands much more than that when cooked. Somewhere around 2-3X the uncooked volume.

I still enjoy the reactions (of surprise, disappointment, and sometimes mild derision) when I tell people I prefer to cook my rice in a microwave.

Nevertheless, the idea of a standard fixed-volume measure of rice, by the volume it occupies after cooking, seems a poor concept to me, because the factor by which rice grows when cooked varies by breed/variety, level of processing, even soak time. That's why, I was told, the mutthi and nazar system is better.