On the habaneros I've bought it says "add at the end of cooking"
Why? Doesn't that make less of the flavor spread in whatever you're making. Also I expected them to be like 10 times hotter than normal chili with all the shit people say. It's more like 2. And they're smaller.
>Doesn't that make less of the flavor spread in whatever you're making.
Add them in the beginning, the heat gets distributed for a nice even burn.
At the end, the heat tends to be concentrated in the peppers themselves.
1 larger pepper provides a nice flavor with a very even and manageable burn.
2 larger peppers creates a lot of heat, flavor, and is still enjoyable.
3 or more starts to take too much flavor away from the rest of the meal.
>being so afraid of a pig that you need an assult rifle
What is it with americans and guns?
My dad made some kind of pumpkin soup once with habaneros in it once. The recipe called for two of them to be added whole near the end of cooking and then pulled out just to add the flavor and some heat. He figured that since he liked spicy food and hanbaneros were small, he'd add six or eight of them and he added them at the start. The habaneros basically just disintegrated into the soup as it was cooking.
I tried some of it and it was literally like trying to eat a bowl of hot sauce, not enjoyable at all to me. I'll give my dad credit though, he refused to admit defeat and ended up eating it all himself over the next few days.
Probably a cover your ass move on their part because some people can't handle the heat of even one.
I think the habenero has the perfect amount of heat for cooking, great flavor, and they're my go to peppers in any meal I want to add heat to....which is most.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't one of the first successful intermediate cartridge fed select fire rifles get named literally "assault rifle 44"?
Why do gun nuts go ballistic when someone correctly acknowledges the military roots of say, the 5.56mm NATO cartridge?
Suppose one accepts that having davy crockett tactical nukes and anthrax dispensing mortars is enshrined by the Founding Faters in the Second Amendment because this is the only way we can avoid tyranny.
That means that the Second Amendment was about shooting people with a gun. Oh sorry "rifle" before you go all /k/ spergy on me.
So in what way does it detract from the gun rights position, if you say "assault rifle"?
Why pretend it's not for shooting people, if we're supposed to say that shooting people is a virtuous thing for Real Patriots to do?
Why is "assault rifle" a dirty word?
You people sound like Stallman going off about GNU/Linux. Calm the fuck down.
Full auto assault weapon vs semi auto rifle. The liberals love to blur the lines to make it easier to get sheeple behind their gun ban efforts.
And are you trying to refer to the STG-44?
Because an actual assault rifle is already illegal to sell to the public if it was made after 86. Anti-gun gun arguments are rife with ignorance and loaded terminology, so people tended to get a little thin skinned about it.
But this shit isn't /ck/.
>Full auto assault weapon vs semi auto rifle.
Get your story straight. A semi auto rifle can be an assault weapon. There is no debate here, that is now a legal term like it or not. An assault rifle is normally a select fire rifle, in an intermediate cartridge. Although it's common to say "assault rifle" when referring to the semiauto-only version of the same weapon, since, for most people, automatic fire is pretty much just for fun.
Unfortunately gun nuts in their zeal to make guns appealing to all possible points of view simultaneously (a goal which is impossible but that doesn't stop them from trying), have decided that "assault" is no longer acceptable in the lexicon because guns are "just tools" (except when they acquire quasi-religious significance in the bizarre religion of Founding Fathers worship, where people make up clever-sounding quotes and attribute them to dead people, which is approximately as hilarious as Vietnamese Cao Dai).
So they've become professional revisionists, trying to make everyone forget that assault rifle was ideologically correct for most of the 20th century.
>it's incorrect even though it was perfectly correct for nearly 50 years
There really is a Linux
You are like an assembly line stamped anti-gun robot, pre-loaded with the same bullshit the rest of you are brainwashed to believe.
It's comical. Since this isn't /k/, I won't continue. But if you'd like your ass handed to you by a barrage of facts (something quite foreign to gun haters) then head on over to the weapons board. We'll be waiting.
Oh I'm well aware of how things are on /k/
There are regular people who think guns are neat but actually have lives and non-insane political beliefs (you call them "fudds"), and then there are people who think that the wrong clicking noise in some action movie is a sign of a secret liberal plot to steal your precious semen and mix it with flouride toothpaste.
I would be one of the "fudds". I'm sure we've clashed before.
>Why? Doesn't that make less of the flavor spread in whatever you're making
Cooking hot peppers near the beginning makes them lose their flavor, so as long as you chop them finely and toss whatever you're making, putting them in at the end makes more sense.
sometimes you want the flavour of something to spread evenly throughout the dish, and sometimes you don't. do you want the flavour of pickles and ketchup *inside* your hot dog? do you want the flavour of sauerkraut *inside* your bread?
flavour encapsulation is a thing. habaneros have a subtle flavour and they taste really good fresh. it's good sometimes not to obliterate that by cooking them into a dish, especially if you aren't generating new flavour compounds such as those from roasting. just dumping them into a stew is only gonna make the stew hot and taste very vaguely of habanero. sprinkling them finely chopped over the top is gonna make the habanero flavour a big part of the dish. it's basically the same principle as with tender herbs like parsley or tarragon.