exasperation @ exasperation @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

10 mo. ago

I can change her

Can you please not use that term "Lazy Susan"? It's got racist and sexist connotations, and I'd really prefer you just not call it that.

Who's that racist towards? Susans? That's crazy. Where'd you get that?

Okay. I would just like you to not use the term.

You're right. You know what? It should be...

We should definitely start using the Ambitious Susan.

Yes, yes. Please spin the Indefatigable Susan.

Oh, can we have the Multifaceted Susan my way, please?

Yeah, spin the Industrious Susan.

Ooh, can you spin Ambidextrous Susan, please.

We etched special runes onto polished sand so that we control how lightning moves through it, so that it could seem like an intelligent mind of its own.

You're thinking of bacillus cereus, which grows on cooked rice or pasta stored at room temperature.

Coral can recover after bleaching, so the threshold for bleaching is different from the threshold for dying.

I mean it comes up basically every day here where people complain about censorship in a screenshot submitted to some shitpost or meme community.

where the fuck are these people buying detergent

I just did the math on mine, I'm paying about 10 cents per cycle for laundry detergent. Even if the ingredients to make my own were literally free, I'm still only saving about $5 per year. Not worth my time.

Yeah, I just looked it up. The name brand that I buy is $23 for 132 fl oz. With the way I use laundry detergent, at 0.5 oz per cycle, that's 264 cycles for $23. Less than $.10 for the name brand stuff, maybe less for a store brand.

I have kids so I run 2 batches per week, but that's still 20 cents per week for a family of 4. Not sure that's worth making my own.

It happened a lot in our nation's history that folks would have relatively simple kitchens not equipped with scales or even a set of measuring cups

That's, like, every nation's history. Cooking has never required that much precision, especially home cooking. Even baking can be done by feel, with enough experience.

Pliny believed that elephants knew enough to kneel for human kings, or to point out directions to lost travelers.

Not a reliable source, if this claim can even be found in his works.

While we humans eat a lot, something like 50% of our calories are going to our brains.

I don't think that's right.

This article says that about 20% of an adult human male's resting energy expenditure goes towards supporting the brain's metabolism. Obviously for more active people, the higher denominator of total energy expenditure will mean an even lower percentage of energy being used for the human brain.

Flying is energetically expensive to start doing, but pays off in efficiency once an animal moves a far enough distance. How many calories does a goose need to consume to fly 4000 km, and how does that compare to terrestrial species like deer or wolves?

Birds have to use almost all of their available calories on flying.

But flying is quite energy efficient as a method of getting from point A to point B. That's why flying insects and birds have had such evolutionary success with that strategy.

Evolution didn't make your teeth to grow like this.

Modern diets are just selection pressure. Evolution marches on.

where saddam

Nobel Laureates Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton at Princeton University published a study in 2010 showing that money buys happiness only up to about $75k per year (in 2010 dollars, for Americans), at which point happiness plateaus and more money doesn't meaningfully buy more happiness.

Years later, Matthew Killingsworth at the University of Pennsylvania published a study showing that happiness didn't really plateau with money, but kept increasing at $75k and beyond.

They got together to see if they could reconcile their different findings from pretty similar methodologies.

As it turns out, Killingsworth's data did show the same plateau, at pretty much the same place, if you focus only on the least happy 20%. In a sense, the Kahneman data was focused on only measuring unhappiness, and didn't properly distinguish between people who were kinda happy, people who were moderately happy, and people who were really happy.

So now the most widely accepted analysis is that there are people who are deeply unhappy, for whom giving them more money might not make them emotionally better off, at least past $75k in 2010 dollars. But for the rest of us, the majority of people will continue getting happier with more money, well up to the $500k income.

Here's a write up of the collaboration

Heaven Hill makes a lot of good stuff. Too many brands, though.

I've never heard that Heaven Hill isn't union friendly. I always see their brands on the union-supported lists.

You've completely missed the point of the comment you're replying to.

Note that Brown Forman also owns the following bourbon/American whiskey brands:

• Woodford Reserve
• Old Forester
• Coopers Craft

They also own the following European distillers:

• Slane (Irish Whiskey)
• Benriach (Scotch)
• Glendronach (Scotch)
• Glenglassaugh (Scotch)

Jack Daniels is obviously their highest volume brand, but some of these other brands are pretty big, too.

That shit isn’t even bourbon.

It is. It meets all the legal requirements to be called bourbon (at least 51% corn in the mashbill, distilled in the United States, distilled at lower than 160 proof, aged in charred new oak barrels, barreled at lower than 125 proof, bottled at between 80 proof and 150 proof, no added coloring or flavors).

They just choose not to label themselves with that name.

computer science/engineering/STEM is the only thing worth it.

It's mostly engineers who make money. The actual sciences are basically a low paying career for how much knowledge it requires, and pretty much require much more than a 4-year degree to climb that ladder, or they just go into the same category as everyone in the humanities and the arts: go get a job that requires a 4-year degree but doesn't care what your major was.