This is lead acetate. It looks like sugar and tastes like sugar, yet it’s as toxic as lead.
Have a good day!

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

Used to form in ancient Roman wine vessels.

@netikras we should add "kills as a duck" in sense of security.

Who tried what it tastes like?

Probably not quite as addicitve as sugar.

@electrineer who didn't, it's one of the first things you do if you see an unknown substance that doesn't smell too weird. It's a less weird to find out than that a potato has to be cooked. How the fuck did we invent cooking.

@TerriToniAX we'll never find out if it is as addicting as cooking bevause you prolly die before having a redrawal symptom. It's hard to test.

@electrineer the entire nation of Rome

Feed it to the bots!

.

This is a good example why duck typing is fucking idiotic!

@retoor

That's precisely what I meant :) One will die before developing an addiction.

Cosmetics are usually claimed to keep you young, but you can turn it around, never to become old, and that's where lead and all of its derivatives come in handy.

@Lensflare “I can swallows sugar then if I can swallows it then it is sugar” is an idiotic example of duck typing. But “If it looks like sugar, if it tastes like sugar, and if it doesn’t poison me as quickly as sugar does, then it’s sugar” works in my case. Don’t blame the concept of duck typing for downsides of bad implementations

@Lensflare in the end, you only really care about properties, not entity names. The difference between that is a game of resolution.

@kiki no, I care about types, not properties.
It‘s not about entity names but types. It‘s called duck typing, not duck naming.
If you go by properties, you poison yourself.

This was a joke anyways. There is no point in seriously comparing duck typing with the real world.

@Lensflare properties make a type, as accessing properties is the only way you can interact with a type. A type with no properties might as well not exist at all. And yes, type’s name is a property too.

@kiki That‘s not true at all. A type is more than its properties.
A very basic example is a person with the property name and a a planet with the property name.
A person is very different from a planet, even if both have the same properties.

Also, a type can have functions/methods and other stuff like nested types, generics and interface conformances.

@Lensflare person and planet have a lot in common. They have names, they have masses, they’re made of atoms, etc. Methods are just callable properties