For 2-3 hours per day is what you mean I guess?

Because 400 is pretty close to the amount of days in a year, meaning you would have a bit more than a buck per day.

Oh I see, we’re talking acceleration vs top speed.

Yeah no doubt from me if we’re talking about heating up a full pot of water. I do that in a water boiler instead, which is also electric. I was talking more about how quick a chicken filet starts to sizzle if I put it in a pan - and then I definitely do NOT want to proceed to go to max heat! And that’s what I meant is (pretty much) instant, couple of seconds maybe (sorry I don’t have any chicken filet right now and it isn’t dinner time either).

Which, in the end, also falls back to theoretical vs practical a little bit. If I need a lot of water e.g. for noodles, I use the water boiler first - but either way waiting for the water to boil is in the range of minutes. A minute more or less wouldn’t make a difference in the process of cooking.

OTOH, if I put a chicken filet in my pan, I already know I’ll instantly add salt and spices, and I don’t have time to do anything else in the next minute or so. Reaction time is in seconds.

I mean, I don’t have it in my home either, that’s why I’m curious if my experiences from a decade ago are outdated.

But I DO have gas and people here saying it’s the slowest way with such confidence makes me think they are AI bots.

Oh, no, it takes more careful reading than that to understand what I said

I guess? If you’re talking theoretical? But i actually cook, then it doesn’t really matter that a pan would theoretically be faster if it was able to be produced thinner?

Well, what one could argue is that “Tetris isn’t number one” was the untenable position, and “capitalism has sold more overall” was the irrefutable one.

Oh well, the 2 fallacies are very similar with a big overlap, but if I may summarize it down to the point that I find most important:

If someone is proven wrong and they don’t take full responsibility for that (e.g. by trying to quickly push the discussion somewhere else where they’re not wrong), talking to them won’t lead you to the truth.

For anybody else reading this, this fallacy is called “moving the goalpost”.

One could also argue for “motte and bailey”, but that’s less clear.

Yeah, I just assumed English isn’t their first language? But that’s hardly the point

Don’t induction pans have these thick bottoms, which are simply more mass that needs to be heated up? That always took longer than gas with a thin pan for me.

???

I got gas and it’s faster than any induction I’ve encountered. Like, it’s INSTANT.

So you’re saying those are true, and not absolute BS?

Yeah so Ruth Ben Ghiat is complaining about fascism by paying a fascist

Can’t prove a negative, but a cost benefit analysis says it’s set unlikely. Think of what you need:

• big enough so your victim can’t hold onto the edge
• well engineered mechanism - quick, but also able to carry a (potentially fat) person
• well hidden, e.g. fine working of the edges. Or a carpet over it, but that’s additional work to make sure it doesn’t get stuck anywhere. And then carpets are your “ammo”, and the type of people to have this probably aren’t gonna have a cheapass ikea rug in their personal office.
• the whole structure of the building, below that office, needs to accommodate that functionality.
• And what even happens at the end? Is it so deep they die from fall damage? That means it needs to be tall enough. Are there spikes at the bottom? That’s a mess to clean up.
• And forget about non-lethal because then word is gonna get out and it’s just gonna become real awkward.
• Speaking of cleaning up, one way or the other there’s a body in your house now. If you need henchmen to clean that up anyway, they could just do the killing directly.

Those are all not unsolvable issues, but they all make it more expensive. And what’s the benefit that justifies that cost?

You’d get bored of the novelty long before you kill the amount of people that justifies the expense.