Which would probably reach a wider audience and maybe give the creator a few quid to try other things. I love these kinds of articles (and wrote a few back in the day), but it's hard to see YouTube as a regression.
If this was a few years ago, I would argue it breaks indexability but today it would automatically get transcribed anyway. Though I still find reading a page like this more practical than watching a video except when eating as watching a video becomes easier then.
>"Which would probably reach a wider audience and maybe give the creator a few quid to try other things. ... it's hard to see YouTube as a regression."
Doing something purely for fun vs doing something with the expectation of profit is the big difference - it is essentially the difference between work and play.
Very reasonable ‘license’ at the bottom of this page:
…you're allowed to do with this page anything you wouldn't mind me doing with your cat. So yes, you can photoshop it for comedy effect, you can copy bits of it for illustrative purposes and so on, but you can't steal it and pass it off as your own.
This was updated today, by removing old links. But that's not a good way to fix linkrot; it's better to keep the broken links, so people can look them up on the wayback machine if they wish.
The mention of boingboing caught me by surprise, I haven't thought about that site in such a long time. Turns out it's still going, and the adds on it are /horrible/ :-(
I participated in a competition in middle school to see who could formulate jello that would stay up the longest when nailed to a wall. The one rule was that your jello could only contain ingredients that normally show up in jello. The deciding factor turned out to be not what the jello contained but how it was hammered. If the jello ended up flush to the wall then it would stick, eventually harden, and stay there indefinitely.
On the other hand, I took a more unique approach: I pointed out that fruit was an ingredient that commonly shows up in jellos. So I nailed my jello to the wall through a ring of apple and relied on that to hold it up.
> Do not eat any of the neat jelly cubes, no matter how nice they look. They're incredibly sweet and probably addictive; if you eat them all you won't have any left for the experiment.
I've heard of using the raw jelly (jell-o for the U.S.) blocks as an emergency food whilst hiking etc. It has a very long shelf life, is cheap and you're unlikely to want to eat it unless it's an emergency whereas a bar of chocolate might be eaten before you've finished putting your boots on.
You haven't forgotten about thing in the fridge, have you. It's scary looking back there ... forgotten. alone. unloved. Everything nails up to the wall back there. Check your fridge often.
The whole jam shelf at Tesco, including "Strawberry Seedless Jam" (shouldn't that be "Seedless strawberry jam"? The adjective order sounds wrong otherwise) and "Strawberry jam": https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/search?query=jam
i don't think american-style jelly really exists in britain. british jam and american jam are mostly the same thing, if encountered it would probably be called filtered jam or clear jam.
Conserve is the antiquated term the British would probably use if 'filtered jam' existed there.
Jam has small bits of fruit (usually like strawberry/raspberry seeds). US jelly does not since it's made from juice or syrup. Preserves are the kind with bigger chunks of fruit.
There was a band called Green Jello that used the name for a decade until one of their songs became popular, then Kraft Foods sent them a C&D for trademark infringement and they had to change their name to Green Jelly.
There's a bagel shop in NYC that used to be called "F Line Bagels" but changed to "Line Bagels" to satisfy the transit authority. One could probably populate a small town with all the world's various proper nouns (bagel shops, bands, etc) that had to be changed after a C&D. That would be quite fun!
