13 points
*

I know how disastrously unhealthy french fries are, I also know how delicious and addictive they are. So I’ve learned to just not eat any at all. Because it’s impossible to eat just one. or six.

permalink
report
reply
16 points
*

Just go for the really chunky Belgium “pommes frittes” (something which the Dutch call “patates”) to follow the letter of the rule but not quite the spirit of it.

Also, they’re amazing!

Edit: turns out the Dutch call them “patate” (also friet and frieten) which I incorrectly pluralized in the French way because I also speak French so it just sounded wrong to me in the singular form and I assumed I recalled it wrong. Thanks to all that corrected me and explained it.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

It’s patat or friet in Dutch. I think it depends on region mostly?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I was under the impression that the plural of that word in Dutch was “patates” since it’s originally a French word so the plural is done the French way rather than the Germanic-way (which would yield the word “pataten”).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Like the other commenter said, we generally use the singular form. Though I have heard plural, usually to refer to Vlaamse frieten or Flemish fries. I believe in those cases it’s generally meant to be a fun thing to say though

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That would be patatten. The Dutch call fries friet or patat (always singular), we (Flemish) call them frieten (plural). The Walloon probably call them frites?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

(something which the Dutch call “patates”)

we do not

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

That’s how were called in Dutch the delicious chunky, soft french fries that came with a big serving ot mayonaise, which I used to buy back whem I was living in A’dam.

Maybe I incorrectly pluralised it from “patate” or we’re both thinking of different kinds of french fries?!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Patat. Just Patat. One Patatje maybe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Serving sizes are always a fucking joke.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Nutritional stats per 100g is the only way

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Reminder: Pam Cooking Spray is zero calorie, zero fat, and zero carb

Because there are 746 Servings in a single can of Pam. A serving size of 1/4 a second - which is small enough I’m not sure most people could do it. Just enough to round down from a tiny fraction to zero.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Tic-tacs say they are “sugar free” even though they’re almost entirely made of sugar, they’re just small enough that they fall under the report regulations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Not a great example. Cooking spray is for making a pan or cover non-stick. You ingest very little of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You’ve obviously not spent enough time around gym bros. I have on multiple occasions overheard conversations about using it as a butter substitute because, "…it has no calories. "

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Image Transcription: Twitter Posts


CBS46, @cbs46

You should only eat 6 fries per serving, Harvard professor says. bit.ly/2FVZq4M

[A stock image of french fries]

O Coley Night, @ColeyMick

Shut the fuck up, nerd

permalink
report
reply
13 points

I’ll take 40 servings of fries in one plate please.

permalink
report
reply

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 54K

    Comments