Skip to main content

Baker's Dozen

Why is a baker's dozen 13 of something? I think it should be 11. I realized this today as I was making cookies...for every 12 I put into the oven, only 11 made it into the cookie jar. Warm and gooey cookies are just too good to resist, and I wouldn't blame any baker for eating a few of them soon after they come out of the oven. Finishing with groups of 11 is easy - put 12 on the cookie sheet (which fits really well, 3 rows by 4 columns), bake them, take them out, eat one, and put the other 11 in the cookie jar. How could you end up with 13? Put 14 on each cookie sheet? What's that, 2 rows by 7 columns? That wouldn't fit most cookie sheets very well. A checkerboard pattern of 3-2-3-2-3 might fit pretty well, but that is exactly 13, so then you can't eat any of them. As the baker in this case, I find this unacceptable. I suppose you could just make as many cookies as the batch allows, then eat however many it takes to leave youself with a total that is a multiple of 13 - like making 60 cookies and eating 8 of them for 4x13=52 cookies. But to do that you'd probably have to wait until all the cookies are baked, and there are all sorts of reasons for this being a bad idea: 1) You might be eating way too many cookies all at once. 2) If by some chance you make 13 dozen (or some other common multiple of 12 and 13), then you wouldn't get any cookies. 3) You don't get to sample one from each "sub-batch" that comes out of the oven. 4) You're never more "the baker" than while you're actually baking, and if it's "your" dozen, you shouldn't have to wait for the final count. Wouldn't this all be easier if baker's dozens were groups of 11? Maybe we could call groups of 13 "eater's dozens", since that's who they really seem to benefit in the first place. Or maybe I should just find something productive to do while making cookies instead of counting and overanalyzing...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The 15-Year Blogoversary

15 years and 1,213 posts! My first experience with the World Wide Web came in 1995, and by 1997 I had my own web page. The first web authoring tool I remember using was Composer, an HTML editor built into the Netscape Communicator suite. That helped me learn some HTML, and later I used Microsoft Word 97 and then FrontPage 98 and later Macromedia Dreamweaver to design more elaborate pages. Some of my FrontPage-built sites are still on the web. As I learned more about HTML standards and validation I wrote more HTML by hand, but I still wanted a way to make publishing to the web easier.

By 2001 I understood that (a) sites should be updated regularly and (b) FTP'ing sites and pages from my desktop to a server was a bit of a pain. I had heard about some early blogging platforms and chose one, Blogger, to try out. As you can see, I'm still here.
My first post using Blogger came on December 8, 2001. A few months later I paid for Blogger Pro, which offered additional authoring tools, l…

Last.fm and Ten Years of Web 2.0

Ten years ago yesterday I scrobbled my first tracks to last.fm. What's scrobbling? On last.fm, scrobbling refers to automatic music track logging to the internet. For me, uploading a record of my music listening habits was my first real experience with "Web 2.0." Remember Web 2.0? It referred to websites of user-generated content that enabled virtual communities and interoperability. Now such sites are too ubiquitous on the web to warrant a special designation — they're just the web. But that wasn't true in 2006, and even though I'd been putting content on the internet since 1996, at the time it was enough to make me a little nervous. What did these strangers want with my data, and what was in it for me?

Ten years and 24,941 scrobbles later, I have my answer: I have a really cool record of all the music I've listened to the past 10 years! Well, not "all," technically: I've certainly listened to music in places and on devices that didn't …

Why Eleanor Roosevelt Would Have Liked Google+

And why Google+ won't be replacing Twitter or Facebook for most of us anytime soon
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

I know too much already has been written about Google+ and its place in the world of social networking, but I've recently developed a new perspective which might help some of you who are trying to decide how and when to use Google+ versus Twitter or Facebook.

Eleanor might have said "small minds discuss people," but there's more than one way to discuss people and none of us are consistently small-minded. People are important, and the people who are most important to us are those with which we have mutual friendships or family relationships. This is why Facebook is best at people: it enforces (if we ignore fan pages) a symmetric follower model, ensuring that we are connected to people who want to also be connected to us. Those connections, often with people who we don&…