Google Sheets IMPORTRANGE + QUERY won't import IMAGE

I use Sheets in my business to create product catalogs for wholesale prices. I have different sheets for different companies but the data in many of them is the same. I’d like these sheets to sync from the main document. I’ve found a solution on here, however when I use the following function, the image imported in the main sheet using the IMAGE function doesn’t get imported:

=QUERY(IMPORTRANGE("key","All!A2:M130"),"SELECT * WHERE Col1 contains 'Home&Beauty&Fashion'")

I hope this is not so confusing, any help appreciated. Is it possible at all?

What is the purpose of a serial number?

It seems like pretty much everywhere I look, serial numbers can’t do the things that it seems they should be able to do.

They can’t help people figure out what bike they have.

They can’t help at all when recovering a stolen bike, unless you have the bike’s number linked to your identity somehow (good luck finding the bike in the first place).

It seems like the only thing they’re useful for is warranty fulfillment. You take your bike to the shop, and they check the serial number to make sure that it’s the same one you bought from them three months ago. Is this the only intended purpose of a serial number?

What are the differences between a Dutch oven and ceramic casserole?

I’ve been looking for information about the difference between cast iron Dutch ovens and ceramic casseroles.

I use my Dutch oven for baking bread and would like to know if ceramic will have the same effect on the crust.

Aside from the fact that cast iron and ceramic require different care, I have found little information about the relative properties of the materials.

I imagine that cast iron is a conductor and ceramic is an insulator potentially leading to different effects during cooking. However, both have been traditionally used for slow roasting and baking.

Is there any difference and if there is, what is it?

How do I bake chocolate chip cookies like Subway?

I want a chocolate chip cookie like the ones Subway has. Those cookies have a smooth top and chewy texture.

I have a recipe for 3/4 cup fat, 0.5 cup sugar 0,5 cup brown sugar, 3/4 cup flour, 1 egg, 2 tsp extract. I get a semi stiff dough, but also an airy cookie, not as dense like Subway. I use room temperature margarine.

I have tried to bake cookies with 2 eggs and with 1 egg, but they always come out wrinkly on top, not as stiff. Is it possible that using an egg and a yolk would work? (But wouldn’t that waste a lot of whites if that’s how they do it?)

I think as part of this I want a stiff dough, that’ll leave the bowl clean, to minimize spread and keep the tops from getting wrinkly as stiffness will keep the the cookies from expanding and contracting. Is that true? If so, I’m afraid that if I add more flour to stiffen the dough will make the cookies cakey – is that the case? How would I avoid that?

Canned yams vs. fresh

There is a family recipe which calls for either canned or fresh sweet potatoes or yams. Is there any practical difference in preparation? Sweetness level? Does the cooking process matter (it’s a baked pan of mashed potatoes)?

Science of fast (high heat) vs. slow (low heat) scrambled eggs and omelets

There seems to be a lot of disagreement about cooking “light” (as in texture) scrambled eggs, which would seem to be one of the simplest of foods. (To be clear, I’m specifically asking about the “standard” light and puffy variety of scrambled eggs here, rather than the creamy, very small-curd, slow-cooked scrambled eggs which are often served wetter and heavier.)

There seem to be two main camps: (1) cook your eggs in a blazing hot pan as quickly as possible, or (2) cook over low or medium-low heat and stir frequently until the eggs come up to temperature over anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes. Adherents of the first method claim that the fast cooking time will keep the eggs tender and the hot pan and burst of initial steam created will puff them up. Adherents of the second method claim that gentle cooking will keep the eggs tender and the long cooking time will give more opportunity for steam to gradually increase lightness and texture.

The goals of both camps appear to be similar, but they suggest radically different techniques to achieve them. (For some examples of this disagreement in answers on this site, see here for a question whose top-rated answer argues for cooking in “seconds not minutes,” and here for a similar question whose top-rated answer says the solution is “at least ten minutes of slow cooking.”)

Note that this question also applies to omelet technique, where some chefs insist that the only way to produce a light tender omelet is cooking slowly over low heat, while others seem to follow the Julia Child method of cooking a thin layer of egg in a very hot pan for only a matter of seconds.

In any case, my question: Is there any scientific rationale to resolve this dispute? Is one method actually proven better than the other through experiment? (Or do both methods have proven advantages? Or maybe other aspects of technique can influence results and allow both methods to be successful, but under different conditions?)

EDIT: Based on discussion in comments, let me try to make this more specific. We can look at, for example, the editors of Cooks Illustrated, who present in their experiments to produce “Fluffy Scrambled Eggs”:

We’ve tried cooking scrambled eggs over medium heat but the eggs got
tough, dried out, and overcoagulated, like a badly made meringue that
“weeps.” A hot pan will begin to cook eggs instantaneously, for the
quickest coagulation…. Two eggs should cook into big curds in about
30 seconds. The larger the curds, the more steam is pocketed inside,
and the more the eggs will continue to cook once off the heat. We
like scrambled eggs soft and juicy, so they look positively underdone
when we make that final fold and push them out of the pan.

On the other hand, Harold McGee in On Food and Cooking states:

The Key to Scrambled Eggs: Slow Cooking Scrambled eggs made in the usual quick, offhand way are usually hard and forgettable. The key to
moist scrambled eggs is low heat and patience; they will take several
minutes to cook…. Texture is determined by how and when the eggs are
disturbed. Large irregular curds result if the cook lets the bottom layer set for some time before scraping to distribute the heat.

McGee doesn’t explicitly mention fluffiness or lightness, but I’ve seen other proponents of the slow method mention it. What these two sources do agree on is that the opposing method makes eggs “tough,” “hard,” and “dried out,” but their chosen method keeps eggs “moist” and “juicy” as well as “soft” and “tender.” (Notably, after discounting the fast method for scrambled eggs, McGee goes on immediately to point out how a hot, fast cooking method is a requirement for good omelets.)

These are two sources which explicitly tend to base their claims on detailed experiment and food science. Other than McGee’s mentioning of the ability to alter final curd size for slower eggs, there seems to be little distinction in the rhetoric for these opposing methods.

So, are there actual advantages for one method over the other (aside from time for fast eggs and better ability to vary curd size for slow eggs)? If no, why do even food science experts make such strongly worded conflicting claims? Do both methods — as Tom Raymond seems to argue in his answer — produce effectively equivalent results, with time being the main difference? Or is there some truth to the any claims for superiority in at least some aspects for one side or the other?

I know this is a broad question, but some possible information that might begin to answer it: Anyone know of experimental studies (or summaries of them) that actually measure moisture content or volume or tenderness in different egg cooking methods to corroborate the various descriptions of “moist/juicy” and “soft/tender/fluffy” vs. “tough/hard” and “dried out”? Are there theoretical reasons why either method should work better in some aspects (e.g., how egg proteins coagulate at different speeds, etc.)?

Perhaps the consensus is that one can cook good eggs either way once one understands the subtleties of cooking eggs that way. But even if that’s true, why are many authoritative sources so quick to dismiss the other method? (Perhaps there’s even an important history to this dispute that explains some of it; otherwise, I’m not sure how to explain such a strong conflict.)

Kurtosis, bias, unbiased and statistics

I apologize ahead of time if this is too vague or meta to be a valid question.

I’ve been looking at Algorithms (Sedgewick & Wayne). They define a class stdstats. In that they define min, max, mean, variance and standard deviation. Plus “population” (unbiased) versions of variance and standard deviation. Reading up I find that there are two (at least?) forms of variance (and therefore stddev), one which uses the entire population (unbiased) count and one which uses one minus count (biased) (presumably this is a subset of a larger population sample).

  • The difference between biased and unbiased is very small when the
    number of observations is anything other than tiny. Is this a
    historical artefact of when computing a list of values was more labour
    intensive or is there still a valid reason to have these two
    varieties of variance/stddev?

After looking at this I started looking at skewness and kurtosis measures (largely because Wikipedia mentions these with regard to different random distributions and I thought they would be useful in testing code that produced these distributions). Skewness wasn’t too bad to figure out but because of the two types of stddev it required a biased and unbiased versions. Then I started on the kurtosis measure. There doesn’t seem to be an agreed upon definition of how to calculate this value and I’ve seen little on biased/unbiased versions. The only thing people seem to agree on is that it’s a measure of curve “flatness”. I can confirm that different applications will give a considerably different value for the same data set when requesting the kurtosis.

  • It seems that this would add a lot of confusion to understanding and communicating basic statistics. If I give you a variance or stddev, the calculation differences don’t seem too bad (given a large enough data set). If I provide a kurtosis measure, how would anyone derive meaning from it? Some applications subtract three from the calculated value (I assume for some sort of normal dist adjustment/bias).

Are there authoritative well defined definitions for all statistical measures or is it common to have (what seems to me) “loose” definitions that are more general concept than specific definition?

Is there a common set of statistical measures that can be used as general toolbox for “most” analysis?