In Star Trek people often complain that replicated food is not as good as naturally produced food, which is weird when replicators are presumably using the same technology as transporters, which can perfectly replicate Spock every time.
-
@aoanla @MostlyHarmless I *seem* to recall a mention that replicated food will turn into mush if you let it sit for too long? That would also speak for a "lower resolution," I suppose.
@chrpistorius @aoanla @MostlyHarmless to be fair, regular food will also turn into mush if you let it sit for too long
-
In Star Trek people often complain that replicated food is not as good as naturally produced food, which is weird when replicators are presumably using the same technology as transporters, which can perfectly replicate Spock every time. But is Spock getting less flavoursome over time? In this essay I shall…
@MostlyHarmless honestly it's really pretty simple. Humans are irrational creatures and so the story of the food affects our perception of how it tastes. It's why home-grown produce tastes better even when it's basically identical to the storebought kind.
This does not apply to tomatoes. Homegrown tomatoes are actually better for actual material reasons (you can let them fully ripen, unlike commercial farmers who need to pick them early so they stay firm enough to ship)
-
@MostlyHarmless I recall reading in some "Star Trek Tech Manual" back in the 90s that the replicators have way less fidelity in order to make them use less power and because, frankly, they don't need it since they're not expected to produce living things.
@OrionKidder @MostlyHarmless that actually makes a lot of sense. a food replicator is probably called upon to crank through a lot more stuff too. people are always eating, and aren't they using replicators for manufacturing?
-
@OrionKidder @MostlyHarmless that actually makes a lot of sense. a food replicator is probably called upon to crank through a lot more stuff too. people are always eating, and aren't they using replicators for manufacturing?
@mxchara @MostlyHarmless Exactly. It's about tolerances. The tolerance for a durilium I-beam are totally different than the tolerances for, like, Nancy from hydroponics.
-
In Star Trek people often complain that replicated food is not as good as naturally produced food, which is weird when replicators are presumably using the same technology as transporters, which can perfectly replicate Spock every time. But is Spock getting less flavoursome over time? In this essay I shall…
@MostlyHarmless maybe the replicated food is too precise? That is, it tastes good, but every replicated meal tastes EXACTLY the same. There's no novelty, no slightly different blend of spices or mix of textures, no surprise. After enough time, even "good" food becomes samey even if you do have a list of options to alternate between.
-
In Star Trek people often complain that replicated food is not as good as naturally produced food, which is weird when replicators are presumably using the same technology as transporters, which can perfectly replicate Spock every time. But is Spock getting less flavoursome over time? In this essay I shall…
@MostlyHarmless if replicators were the same tech as transporters, you could make ten Spocks the same way you can make ten burgers.
Insert some technobabbly about pattern buffers degrading yada yada.
-
In Star Trek people often complain that replicated food is not as good as naturally produced food, which is weird when replicators are presumably using the same technology as transporters, which can perfectly replicate Spock every time. But is Spock getting less flavoursome over time? In this essay I shall…
@MostlyHarmless My head cannon is that is lke airline food mixed with AI slop. The programmed recipees are so bland without character, always tasting the same. It's functional, quick, but it's lacking the personal ingredient, the randomness, the (lucky) surprise, the imperfections, that change food from pure nurishment to enjoyment.
-
@scottgal @MostlyHarmless First rule of transporter club is you don't mention transporter club member's smell and you don't lick any other member of transport club
Second rule of transporter club is you don't mention transporter club member's smell and you don't lick any other member of transport club
Third rule of transporter club is Dr Pulaski is not on the club, so you may sniff and lick her consensually@shaedrich @scottgal @MostlyHarmless fourth rule is to not talk to the Barclay truthers even if they claim he hugged them.
I shall now ponder what the club of the people who had sex on a transport pad is called.
-
@mxchara @MostlyHarmless Exactly. It's about tolerances. The tolerance for a durilium I-beam are totally different than the tolerances for, like, Nancy from hydroponics.
@OrionKidder @mxchara @MostlyHarmless *exasperated engineering sigh* yes, the I-beam has way lower tolerances.
-
In Star Trek people often complain that replicated food is not as good as naturally produced food, which is weird when replicators are presumably using the same technology as transporters, which can perfectly replicate Spock every time. But is Spock getting less flavoursome over time? In this essay I shall…
@MostlyHarmless to be fair, the Technical Manual of the Enterprise D states that the replicators only use molecular resolution while the transporters use atomar resolution (and use devices like Heisenberg compensators to account for the Uncertainty Principle which the replicators also don't need to account for). Not to mention that replicators convert raw matter resources into food while the transporter need to recreate the previously existing matter as exactly as possible.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
