Originally bringing total pan volume into it confused me, a baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it, but by the time you are anywhere near that limit you are probably already better off using a second pan.
The example brownies from the picture are nowhere near that limit, so if there was a moderate but significant decrease in the volume of the pan in the change to the squares It doesn’t seem like it should be a problem even on a per cycle basis. Even so, the cost of doing an additional cycle of baking is not that high anyways.
The main factor in how much volume of brownie you make will be the amount of brownie batter you make. Non-euclidean space isn’t required to bake an additional 25% or so of brownies by volume in that pan, and so your reply seemed snide, and I responded kurtly.
baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it
Okay, and I just want to check - do you think that this limit - which I assume would be measured in volume - might be what the person was referring to by the “volume” of the pan? Or do you think they meant something else? If so, what?
Okay so this doesn’t matter and I don’t want to argue, so I’ll just honestly ask - what do you mean? I am genuinely confused.
Originally bringing total pan volume into it confused me, a baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it, but by the time you are anywhere near that limit you are probably already better off using a second pan.
The example brownies from the picture are nowhere near that limit, so if there was a moderate but significant decrease in the volume of the pan in the change to the squares It doesn’t seem like it should be a problem even on a per cycle basis. Even so, the cost of doing an additional cycle of baking is not that high anyways.
The main factor in how much volume of brownie you make will be the amount of brownie batter you make. Non-euclidean space isn’t required to bake an additional 25% or so of brownies by volume in that pan, and so your reply seemed snide, and I responded kurtly.
Okay, and I just want to check - do you think that this limit - which I assume would be measured in volume - might be what the person was referring to by the “volume” of the pan? Or do you think they meant something else? If so, what?
That’s probably because it was.