• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m pretty sure the pan has a finite volume, unless it has some sort of space-folding technology.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Okay so this doesn’t matter and I don’t want to argue, so I’ll just honestly ask - what do you mean? I am genuinely confused.

        • Glemek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Originally bringing total pan volume into it confused me, a baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it, but by the time you are anywhere near that limit you are probably already better off using a second pan.

          The example brownies from the picture are nowhere near that limit, so if there was a moderate but significant decrease in the volume of the pan in the change to the squares It doesn’t seem like it should be a problem even on a per cycle basis. Even so, the cost of doing an additional cycle of baking is not that high anyways.

          The main factor in how much volume of brownie you make will be the amount of brownie batter you make. Non-euclidean space isn’t required to bake an additional 25% or so of brownies by volume in that pan, and so your reply seemed snide, and I responded kurtly.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it

            Okay, and I just want to check - do you think that this limit - which I assume would be measured in volume - might be what the person was referring to by the “volume” of the pan? Or do you think they meant something else? If so, what?

            your reply seemed snide

            That’s probably because it was.