Badass_panda @ Badass_panda @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

The definition of what "good coffee" is vary from place to place. The northeast has absolutely phenomenal American style coffee (focus on drip coffee and long pours), a lot of Europeans are after a really good espresso for €1.5.

Am an executive... agree with you on all fronts

Yeah probably Ukraine though, he's a legitimate military target within their operational range and currently was not on putins shit list

Fucking ballsy to just be hanging out 300 yards from the border of a country you're at war with like, "This lawn ain't gonna mow itself!"

An explodlin'

Pretty sure this was Ukraine. Hard to keep track, it's dangerous to work for Putin

That's Iran-ic

I'll show myself out

Some people think if you hate the same people hard enough, you're on the same side -- and the Proud Boys were happy to have someone brown as their front guy for a while there. "See? It's about values!"

The reality is that plenty of them hate his guts for not being white, I remember these guys split into two factions a while back based ok whether they would accept brown people who hated other brown people hard enough or not.

In fairness to France, weren't they kicked out of Haiti like 198 years ago? That feels like asking Spain to intervene to stabilize the Venezualan economy.

Not being facetious, genuinely curious what I'm missing.

I listed them in another comment in reply to the question... i wasn't even including the Lisbon protocol, wild.

Yes of course... Russia acknowledged Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity when:

• Ukraine was admitted to the UN in 1945 with its current borders (which Russia could have vetoed).
• Ukraine's sovereign status and territorial integrity were guaranteed in the Belovezha Accords in 1991, which recognized the dissolution of the USSR and the borders and sovereignty of the former member states.
• Ukraine agreed to transfer control of its 4,700 nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation in exchange for guarantees by the US, UK, and Russian Federation that they would not threaten to use (or use) military force against Ukraine... in the Budapest Memorandum in 1996.
• Russia specifically recognized Ukraine's sovereignty in Crimea when Ukraine agreed to lease it military bases there (and split the Black Sea fleet, stationed in Crimea, 50/50 in 1997) in the Partition Treaty.
• The two countries agreed not to declare war on one another, to treat each other's territory as inviolable and to prohibit the use of military force to resolve any future territorial disputes in the same year's Treaty of Friendship.
• Russia agreed to "final borders" in January 2003 (which include Crimea, Kherson, etc)
• As you know, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014; they signed a ceasefire in 2015 once again confirming Ukraine's territorial integrity, but this was almost immediately violated, so I'm not sure I'd even count it.

Hope it helps. The three that were top of mind for me were 1991, 1996, and 2003.

I mean... I can't see any issue with NATO not stopping Ukraine from invading its own territory... the territory the UN recognizes as part of Ukraine... and which Russia signed three separate treaties promising to respect as part of Ukraine.

It's potentially worse than useful and actively confusing.

Welcome to philosophy! I'd recommend reading Spinoza, he lays it out very intelligently.

It's simultaneously a way of disproving the existence of God (he was kicked out of his Jewish community and hounded around Europe by the Catholics for his atheism), and a way of replacing it with the concept of the infinite / of the universe. Lends itself to meditation and contemplation, but not to any kind of religious dogma.

BTW, the concept has nothing to do with love, or the fundamental aspect of humanity, etc. It's just infinite extension, which encompasses every aspect of humanity, and of everything else.

I have a more complicated answer these days than I used to... the short answer is "no," but the caveats make it longer.

I don't believe in a god in the sense of an all knowing human type being that has thoughts and wishes and passes down commandments -- basically, not the religious kind of God.

At the same time, I appreciate a lot of the Jewish traditions I grew up with, and Judaism has a lot more lassitude around what "God" means to you. To me, it's Baruch Spinoza's conception of God ... basically, just "the universe," of which each person is an integral part.

So in a "college freshman on acid feeling one with the universe," kind of way, sure I believe in God. In a, "He got upset I masturbated way," then no, not at all.

It became the de jure culture war issue. People who didn't care before, do now -- because now it's a team sport.

Yeah, prickly pears are tuna fruit, from the tuna cactus

Ditto

Yeah, I did a bit of poking around, check this out. Till the tuna canneries started showing up in the early 1900s in California, "tuna" was just as likely to prefix "cactus" as "fish".

Mystery solved I think

There is, yes ... that's the main Spanish name for prickly pear.

Up until around 1907, your odds of encountering the fruit by the name "tuna" were about the same as the fish, when the first commercial canneries started to pop up in California... hence, a habit of clarifying between the two that stuck, even though most folks outside of the southwest had never heard of a tuna cactus.

I order a tuna salad sandwich or a tuna sandwich, but I grew up hearing tuna fish... specifically in reference to the stuff that came in a can.

Both were equally common years ago but over time, "tuna" sans fish has won out... likely because fresh, non canned tuna is very common.

I read an article a while ago that theorized the reason for Americans calling it "tuna fish" was that it rose to prominence as a canned staple good in the 1940s, and many Americans who didn't live on the coasts had never heard of tuna before. Its light meat, when canned and cooked, was very mild and chicken-y compared with the heavily salted, oily canned fish folks were familiar with, hence both "chicken of the sea" and the precaution of labeling the can with not only tuna, but "fish".

I think an alternate explanation is probably more likely... the 1919 Oxford English Dictionary describes "Tuna" as an alternative spelling of "tunny", the old name for the fish (still used in a culinary sense in Britain) ... not coincidentally:

• Californians would also have been familiar with the other tuna... tuna fruit, the prickly pear.
• Possessed of both a fruit and a fish of the same name, distinguishing one from the other when canning fish seems reasonable
• The largest canneries of tuna (e.g., the one that ultimately became Chicken of the Sea) were all based in California.