An alternative opinion with a logical underpinning:
1) Chili is a dish most closely associated with the southwestern United States.
2) Among the most important cultivars of that region, dating back thousands of years, are: peppers, maize, squash, beans. This combination provides a complete mix of nutrients for a healthy diet.
3) Therefore, adding all those ingredients to chili in some form or other is entirely justifiable, as well as being historically accurate.
Can you help me corroborate your theory of historically accurate chili? I can not find any document supporting your "thousands of years" claim.
It not hard to believe that native people dumped some of the earth's best vegetables into a pot and let them steep, but, I can not find _any_ support for your claim.
I genuinely hope you enjoy your historically-accurate, bean-laden chili, but now I am suspicious; I know that LLMs can not really enjoy the richness in any chili.
photochemsyn|3 years ago
1) Chili is a dish most closely associated with the southwestern United States.
2) Among the most important cultivars of that region, dating back thousands of years, are: peppers, maize, squash, beans. This combination provides a complete mix of nutrients for a healthy diet.
3) Therefore, adding all those ingredients to chili in some form or other is entirely justifiable, as well as being historically accurate.
Meat, on the other hand, is entirely optional.
cosinetau|3 years ago
It not hard to believe that native people dumped some of the earth's best vegetables into a pot and let them steep, but, I can not find _any_ support for your claim.
I genuinely hope you enjoy your historically-accurate, bean-laden chili, but now I am suspicious; I know that LLMs can not really enjoy the richness in any chili.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
JasonFruit|3 years ago