Carbon steel pans are seasoned and generally will be stored with a light coat of oil. You'll add oil while cooking, as well. My carbon steel pans don't stick – an egg will happily glide on the surface.
Stainless steel pans are not seasoned, but can still be relatively non-stick as long as they are heated properly prior to use. Heating them closes the pores in the pan's surface, making the surface smoother. Add oil after the pan is properly heated. This youtube video explains the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB-SCA1reqE&t=1s
There is no oil used in the video that I linked. Did you watch another video?
The water glides across the pan due to the Leidenfrost effect. That’s the point when you add the oil.
I suspect there are some truisms involved here, but the common wisdom is that there is a combination of contractions in microscopic imperfections of the surface of the pan from the heat (more accurately, expansion causing the gaps to close) and the laidenfrost effect keeping the food from sticking once the pan has reached sufficient temperature.
Regardless of the true mechanism, my own experience suggests that most complaints about sticking with stainless steel can be avoided by properly heating the pan before adding the oil and food.
For what it’s worth, here is one manufacturer referencing a porous surface:
Ah, forgive me. I was going off memory and thought you meant during the heat testing portion which only used water for the test.
It seems you take issue with calling it non-stick when oil is involved? To that end, sure, Teflon-like pans beat everything. But I don’t know many people cooking without oil even in Teflon-like pans.
When people say that properly heating a stainless steel pan will allow non-stick cooking there is certainly an implied asterisk involved re: oil. That’s because it is in direct contrast to a cold stainless steel pan which will cause foods to stick even with oil.
This reminded me of this funny skit video I saw recently about cast iron seasoning [0].
I also mostly use stainless steel, carbon steel and enameled cast iron pans, but do still occasionally reach for the non-stick for more sensitive things like an omelettes.
I suffer from seasonal allergies that last anywhere from 2-4 months out of the year. During the height of allergy season, I take Claritin-D – a mixture of loratadine and pseudoephedrine.
Claritin-D 24-hour caplets come in boxes of 10.
You need 3 boxes to get a full month's supply.
Each caplet has 240mg of pseudoephedrine – 2.4g per box.
In my state, individuals can purchase up to 9g of pseduoephedrine per month, but only up to 3.6g per day.
So, while I can technically purchase a full month's supply of Claritin-D, I can't buy more than one box at a time.
These sorts of rules are minor inconveniences for an individual compared to the rest of life's challenges, but they exist in a special category of stupid that make them all the more frustrating.
But, here's a thought: what if I had children who needed the same medication? Who's going without?
Tangent; you reminded me about the Robitussin liquid (Dextromethorphan) in my pantry. It prescribes 20 mL doses but the bottle contains 118 mL total. Really grinds my gears this is legal.
It makes sense in so much as "it's a risk to our business to endorse Harris because of the risk of falling afoul of Trump's vindictive nature should he win."
From a fiduciary standpoint, I agree with that assessment. From the standpoint of a citizen, I find the implication alarming.
I do believe that this is the reasoning behind the decision, but it is certainly speculation on my part.
If you own a paper money isn't the point. Just like in a hospital or a law firm or even a bank. You do the right thing because society trusts you and making money comes from that. Do the wrong thing, and your business will vanish.
The problem extends beyond WaPo, though. He is connected with other companies that rely on government contracts or are otherwise subject to current and/or future government regulation, e.g., Amazon, Blue Origin, etc. WaPo may be the one he's willing to risk in this instance?
You are forgetting that the ftc is looking at amazon under biden, one would hope that harris will keep kahn in the post (because she's kicking asses that have been needed to be kicked for 30+ years).
I think he's in a bad place. If he endorses trump he's endorsing a potential fascist dictator. If he endorses harris he's contributing to amazon's anti-trust peril.
A billionaire personally intervening in the endorsement of a major newspaper on the basis of profit motive seems like the sort of thing that would contribute to anti-trust peril.
This is why we need to repeal and replace the First Amendment with an amendment that guarantees freedom of expression within the bounds of civilized discourse (e.g., open Nazism=crime) and severely punishes government officials who use their power to stifle such expression. The First Amendment, as written, protects speech that oughtn't be protected, and fails to protect speech that ought to be protected, hence the current situation with the Washington Post being cowed into withdrawing their endorsement by the threat of a vindictive Trump.
Countries with no First Amendment, where hate speech is in fact criminalized, routinely score higher on international free-speech indices than the USA because in the USA the government, especially the Republican Party, has the means and the will to intimidate the press into silence or capitulation.
We need to do no such thing. All speech, even speech which is vile, must be equally protected under the law or else the protections are meaningless. In your preferred policy regime, it's entirely too easy for the people in charge of government to declare "this is outside the bounds of civilized discourse" about perfectly legitimate speech which they don't like. History has shown us, time and time and time again, that this will happen once you give people the power to censor. It may take 5 years or 100, but it is inevitable. I'm not willing to open that door, and if the price is that I have to deal with some jerks who are Nazis, I call that a bargain.
I generally align with your viewpoint here. I do think what we need are better ways to regulate the way free speech flows in a constantly online world. That's hand wavy and non-specific, I know, but one example might be some regulation around algorithmic outcomes re: echo chambers. Though, I did recently come across a paper that strongly suggested such regulation was futile. In any case, for the betterment of society, we need some creative solution to combat the fact that technology has given us the means for propaganda to spread effortlessly and without consequence for those behind the grift.
To be clear: you're suggesting that there is scant evidence that any forms of disease arise from pathogens? Or do you have a more narrow definition of disease?
For instance, is a strep throat caused by a colonization of strep bacteria in one's throat, based on your understanding?
The book Waves in an Impossible Sea really goes into some depth on this (for a layman -- which I am) and tries to drive home the point that there are two perspectives one might take. There's the perspective of the medium and the perspective of the field.
Using wind, as an example, we can measure the wind speed/direction at various points in a given space. We don't need to know what wind is to feel its effects. Instead, we might view it as a force wave that propagates through space and interacts with everyday objects. The measurements of this force that we take at various points in space across a given area form what we might call the Wind Field. We don't need to know the nature of the medium these wind waves propagate through in order to study wind and how it interacts with other objects. This is the field perspective.
Of course, we know that wind is really an effect of air molecules moving through space. That is, the medium for wind is the atmosphere. This gives us deeper insight into what wind is and how it works. This is the medium perspective.
According to the book, we don't know what the media for the elementary particles are or if there even are any. Our intuition based on waves that we see in everyday life tell us that there must be some medium through which the wave can propagate, but thus far we have found no such medium for waves such as light.
We just know there are measurable properties that we can measure across points in space and we have created mathematical objects (fields) to represent this. From there, we can construct theories and make predictions based on these models.
Stainless steel pans are not seasoned, but can still be relatively non-stick as long as they are heated properly prior to use. Heating them closes the pores in the pan's surface, making the surface smoother. Add oil after the pan is properly heated. This youtube video explains the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB-SCA1reqE&t=1s