southsamurai @ southsamurai @sh.itjust.works

Posts

12

Comments

4,192

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh man! Those small producers almost always knock it out of the park.

Yeah, I was the same. Just pissed me off that people took what was meant to be a humorous rant and pretended it was factual.

When I ran across tea and crumpets' rebuttal, I saved a copy immediately.

It kinda became a thing I did. I was a mod of r/goodlongposts for a while, and the rant copy pasta would get caught by the bot a lot, so I'd post the rebuttal. I eventually wrote my own for the koala pasta, then discovered it had already been done. There's a panda one and a mosquito one as well. I used to have one for wasps, but I seem to have lost the file at some point. Skeeters and wasps were more for those times when they'd come up as beginning being hated in general, as I never saw any copy/pasta regarding them.

But, last time I went to the beach, I actually ran across idiots wanting to charter a damn boat to go throw rocks at the things. Which was stupid on multiple levels. But it shows how bad info can spread, so I always feel justified in pasting in the better info.

Ooooooo, damn! Homie in here looking to fight! Absolutely brilliant unpopular opinion; simple, direct, and easy to discuss.

Aight, I gotta say up front that I am picky about strawberries in general, and it is rare for preserves or jams (I've never had a strawberry jelly, but I'm not that kind of asshole to insist that a pb&j can only use jelly) to meet my standards.

I disagree with strawberry anything being better than grape jams or jellies on two standards. First is that food preferences are always subjective, and thus we can only rarely say anything other than "better for me"

The second is essentially subjective as well, as it goes to those preferences that I have.

A pb&j is on my list of perfect sandwiches (again, for me, but I think it would fit such a description in general) because it provides a balance of sweet, savory, salty, acidic and allows nigh infinite variety with fruit flavors. You can have one and need nothing else to satisfy one's palate.

I think where grape is better than strawberry for those that prefer it is the nature of grape. It is a fairly strong flavor, but also usually simpler in jelly or jam form. The processing of grapes in that way means the potential complexity of flavor grapes can have is subdued. As such, it delivers the balance to the peanut butter in a very accessible way. Remember, we often encounter pb&j sandwiches first in our youth when we haven't developed our palate as much, and often can't appreciate more subtle flavours or more complex ones.

Strawberry jams and preserves are almost always more complex in flavor than grape versions (though I'd argue that a good homemade muscadine jelly belies that). They're also a tad more acidic, and strawberry flavor as it differs from other fruits is bolder as well. So it often stands over the peanut butter, even to the degree of smothering at times.

I believe that's why, ignoring personal preferences, grape became the default and is "better" than strawberry as a default. I might also argue that apple jelly is better than grape as a default for the same reasons; the varieties of apple used combined with the jelly making process make it an incredible pb&j candidate.

I put way too much thought into sandwich theory. I admit that with joy in my heart lol.

But I have tried essentially every kind of jam and jelly that I've run into over the years on a pb&j, as well as adjacent options like apple butter. I maintain that the holy trinity of apple, grape and strawberry should be default. If you open a sandwich stand, one of those three should be what you serve if someone asks for a pb&j without specifying a flavor.

While I prefer apple as my personal default, I think that the hypothetical sandwich shop should likely default to grape as it is the assumption most people make when they ask for one, but I wouldn't be mad at any of them as default.

Now, because I'm picky, strawberry is my third or fourth choice when I'm wanting one. Apple or grape is going to be what I reach for 80% of the time. Damson plum is roughly tied with strawberry for me, and I can never decide which I prefer.

What is straight out is any fruit like blackberry that has the seeds still in the jam or preserves (by definition, seeds can't be present in jellies). It just isn't pleasant to run into those hard bits (as opposed to something crunchy like crunchy pb, or some nice potato chips layered into the sandwich, though that's not a pure pb&j), so they can fuck right off.

I am otherwise very open to fruits in that regard. Even oddball things like pepper jelly, or watermelon rind preserves are worthy on rare occasions. Watermelon rind preserves, btw, are exactly what you might think. The peeled and cut rind of a watermelon preserved by a combination of citrus (lemon), sugar, and heat. Pectin may be added to adjust the thickness as preferred. It is amazeballs, and can go with damn near anything that can handle the sweetness. If you've never had it, find an old southern granny or gramps and die happy after they share a jar with you.

Even things that don't do well as preserves or jams can be given honorary place on a pb&j sandwich. Bruléed banana as an example. Little pinch of cinnamon, a sprinkle of sugar, bake for maybe ten minutes then brule to caramel. Lay that on the waiting pb&bread, then die happy. It isn't a proper pb&J, but it's a spiritual cousin to it.

I have been so happy that on lemmy, the copy pasta hating sunfish gets soundly criticized and rejected as anything resembling reality.

However, I still want to take the opportunity to copy/paste in the rebuttal to that copy pasta an anti-pasto of sorts. A biologist took the time on reddit to write it up, and I have it saved in markor with a few minor edits.

Sunfish

From u/tea_and_biology

Zoologist here; the majority of this is so inaccurate the guy is basically angry at a figment of his own imagination, paha. I mean there's hyperbole, and then there's hyperbole. Yikes!

They are so completely useless that scientists even debate about how they move. They have little control other than some minor wiggling. So they don't have swim bladders. You know, the one thing that every fish has to make sure it doesn't just sink to the bottom of the ocean when they stop moving and can stay the right side up. This creature. That can barely move to begin with. Can never stop its continuous tour of idiocy across the ocean or it'll fucking sink.

Sunfish are, in fact, well understood and, though clumsy when idly basking, are reasonably accomplished swimmers when diving. They stroke their dorsal and anal fins laterally and in a synchronous manner to generate a lift-based thrust that enables 'em to cruise at speeds of 2-3mph (source), comparable to a whale shark and the perfect speed for suction feeding; ploughing straight into smacks of jellyfish and gobbling 'em all up.

Where they excel amongst fish is their ability to undergo substantial vertical movement in the water column. They possess large deposits of low-density, subcutaneous, gelatinous tissue which, unlike a swim bladder (which would otherwise change volume with hydrostatic pressure), is incompressible, enabling rapid depth changes and keeping them neutrally and stably buoyant independent of surrounding water pressure.

So, yeah, their unusual bodies are basically one big paddle, capable of putting some force behind their swimming to move over considerable distances, descending very deep, very fast.

They mostly only eat jellyfish because of course they do, they could only eat something that has no brain and a possibility of drifting into their mouths I guess. Everything they do eat has almost zero nutritional value and because it's so stupidly fucking big, it has to eat a ton of the almost no nutritional value stuff to stay alive.

Dumb. Also incorrect. Jellyfish and other Cnidarians comprise only around 15% of their diet; they mostly eat young fish (including conger eelets) and crustaceans (pelagic crab, krill, copepods etc.), alongside squid, bivalves and other assorted zooplankton. They're generalist predators, not jellyfish specialists like sea turtles (source).

They have a particularly rapid growth rate amongst bony fish, owing much to their unique genetics (source).

Some scientists have speculated that when they do that, they are absorbing energy from the sun because no one fucking knows how they manage to get any real energy to begin with. So they need the sun I guess.

They spend the majority of their time actively hunting in the very cold deep (usually at ~200m, but up to 600m) and, being ectotherms, therefore regulate their temperature by basking in the sun, before pursuing another dive. Think of marine iguanas basking on hot rocks between nibble trips.

And this concludes why I hate the fuck out of this complete failure of evolution, the Ocean Sunfish. If I ever see one, I will throw rocks at it.

Sunfish have been kicking about in temperate and tropical waters worldwide for around 50 million years and, until humans arrived on the scene, were overwhelmingly successful in their ecological niche. Sadly they're under threat by human activity and human activity alone - frequently caught as by-catch; having little commercial value, like sharks, their fins are cut off before they're dumped, often still alive, back into the sea to die. If one is to start throwing rocks at terrible creatures, perhaps one should look at us humans first.

Or, there's The visual rebuttal, credit to u/iamnotburgerking

On the cheek

And it depends on the drug, butt most of them won't absorb via the anal sphincter fast, so unless it's just sitting there, the hooker wouldn't get high.

You could snort a line from the crack, if the position was right though. Just need a long though enough straw. But the usual places coke or meth get snorted from are the butt cheeks, cock, and boobs (depending in the stripper or hooker's equipment.

The thing is, it's not a blanket statement of what must be done. It's a principle that is guided by the combination of logic, emotional control, and, as strange as it may seem, empathy.

It stands as a metric to process one's actions and choices. The individual vulcan accepts that the needs of all vulcans as a whole are more important than their own needs. This doesn't mean that there is no debate. It's the framework for the debate.

As the individual vulcan weighs options, they seek to determine what is the most benefit, and therefore the greatest need. They use logic to measure opposing or contradictory options, but they also consider the non physical ramifications.

Expanded into the federation, it becomes a measure for all sapient beings, not just vulcans. And that's where the empathy of vulcans comes in the clearest. They'll weigh the emotional harm to emotional beings as a need that must be factored into a decision.

But it also includes as part of their culture that no single vulcan is perfect, and that logic is a tool that must be developed. They can disagree with the decisions made about what the needs of the many are. It's just that every individual sees the logic of their own needs being secondary.

It's an expression of the vulcan equivalent of religion

That's definitely an unpopular opinion!

It's also one that is poorly reasoned. The whole "there's only two models" part is bunkum

Even portapros!

Dude. Whatever.

That's literally what I said originally

Well, no, it doesn't mean that. That is one meaning out of a solid eight or nine, depending on what dictionary you use.

Also, seems like you're being pretty strict about what it and isn't strict. If you're that inflexible about that, what else are you inflexible about?

There isn't a single one for me.

However, I gotta put a lot of weight to the "all the way" that's pretty much the default in my area. Mustard, onions, slaw, and what's called either hot dog sauce, or chili sauce. Which, the sauce is similar to "hot dog chili", but not the same; it's a little different spices and in cooking methods. Secret family recipes abound.

It's an amazing combination when paired with any of the standard store brands, or the "red" hot dogs the are popular here in the south.

I'm also a big fan of mustard and kraut. I tend to prefer it on fancier frankfurters and other kinds of sausage, brats and kielbasa in particular.

There's the "pizza dog", aka an "italian" dog. Has zero to do with Italy anything that I've ever seen, but that's what it gets called sometimes. This is a double preparation dog. You cook the franks however you prefer (I recommend either "dirty water" or a mid tier beer boil). You then place them in buns, top them with your choice of tomato sauces like marinara, then with the usual "italian" melty cheeses; mozzarella, provolone, maybe some parmesan. Do this in a baking pan or whatever, then put it in at 350F until the cheese melts and slightly browns.

You can get fancier with that, but it's absurdly satisfying just like that.

I don't mind what I call a basic dog. Bun, frank, mustard and ketchup. That's for when you've got a really solid flavored dog that you want to savor. The acid from the mustard and ketchup cut through the fats as you chew, bringing the meat flavors back across your palate in waves. But a lot of the time, I'd rather do kraut and mustard if the dog is really rich on its own.

I fucking love hotdogs tbh.

That's a perfect example of where it isn't strict, it's abuse. Or at least right on the border.

Also, damn. I'm sorry you went through that. I'm just glad you found a doc that handled things right.

Yeah, it's a thing. Word usage varies. One range of the various usages of strict is adhering to, or enforcing adherence to, a set of rules. It can also mean that part of "strict" is enforcing discipline to maintain those rules.

Taken to its extreme, it edges into authoritarian behaviors. But the usual, more typical usage would be far less extreme.

As an example, ever hear of a strict vegetarian? That just means that don't deviate from the diet. That's it.

The problem comes in when the usage of it as unnecessary, arbitrary, and cruel enforcement of rules for their own sake takes over. There are plenty of abusive people that would call themselves strict, despite violating boundaries and social mores in the process, which means they're just pretending.

But there is a difference between a kid being tightly supervised and abuse. There's an even bigger difference for having expectations for a kid's behavior and activity and abuse. Both of those are strict, but not abuse.

The key to that difference is usually in how boundaries are handled. You also get different outcomes, and if the methodology being used isn't adjusted to the individual kid, it's often going to feel abusive no matter what the intent is.

Not all kids are going to respond the same way to any parenting methodology. Twins can even respond differently. So you absolutely have to be ready to adjust what you're strict about and how that's applied if you want to stay in line with the right balance of structure, support, and freedom. What one kid thrives with, the next may utterly reject and be harmed in the attempt.

Strict is only "bad" when the structure is bad.

Being strict about not playing with fire is a good thing. Being strict about never going near a campfire is, at best neutral, and could be bad when taken to an extreme. Being strict about never going camping is bad.

Strict only means keeping rules in place. It doesn't mean you can't be flexible, that you can't adjust rules as the kid ages and matures. It definitely doesn't mean the rules have to be arbitrary and can't be explained and discussed.

You think being strict about a kid not using racial slurs is a bad thing?

Or making them see a doctor regularly and as needed?

Or that they bathe?

The list of things that can't be negotiable is very long if you go into detail.

The list of things that can't be negotiable at a given level of age and maturity isn't short either.

Strict doesn't have to be done badly at all. It's just that uncompromising strictness is the opposite end of a slider from utter laissez faire. Which has just as many flaws.

There's a reason that authoritative is the usual recommended goal; it's being strict when necessary, and loose when not. But "strict" is part of that. Strict is making sure that there's a reliable structure a kid can build a foundation of self on. It's the walls of the sandbox and the sheet of material under out that keeps weeds from poking through.

The sandbox of development is the freedom to play within those boundaries. It doesn't have to mean all noes, or all have tos.

Strict is, "you'll do your homework because it's part of the process of learning. When do you want to do it, and what can I do to help?"

Abusive is "you'll do your homework or I'll beat your ass", and then beating their ass as the first and only option.

A lot of the time, we have a lot of our identity kit tied into our work. Sometimes that also means to specific jobs/employers.

Losing that for any reason can be anything from a mild annoyance to fully traumatic. And unexpected job loss not only affects one's self view and sense of purpose, it's a threat to stability and survival.

So, yeah, it can take years to move past.

It's a form of grief, though that isn't always easy to understand, and how intense that grief is is variable even for one person in specific. But it's not at all unusual for someone quitting a job, in a planned way, to experience loss emotionally. When the loss is involuntary, that stack, then it being unexpected stacks higher. A long job hunt after adds more to the pile.

With anxiety already part of your existence, that grief is prone to hitting harder as well as deeper.

It looks like your grief has turned into depression as well. That drained, empty feeling is your brain and mind saying it/they have hit a limit to how much they can process.

I'm going to echo the suggestion that some talk therapy would be beneficial. Processing such events in life can be difficult to do alone because it's so hard to see things culturally clearly from the inside.

Don't think you're alone in what you're experiencing. It's a very common thing to go through.

Ahhh, gotcha.

Makes sense.

For whatever reason, the original comment didn't parse in my head. Thanks for the extra explanation.

This sounds like an attempt to recreate mollosoi dogs, just with extra steps.

I'm fairly confident that the examples given would result in a large (but not giant), smart, and people friendly dog that could still operate successfully without a handler. Not in the first generation, but eventually.

Tbh, don't even need wolves in the mix; they don't really bring much to the table, and you aren't going to maintain that look past three or four generations to begin with. Wolf-dogs that breed with each other don't hold on to a wolfish look for very many generations as it is, even when they're all mixed with the same dog breed. Hiding mixing in that many dog breeds, you're looking at what? 1/32 wolf by the time you have a breed that's no longer being crosses outside of established individuals from the project. Maybe it's 1/64th, I can't remember what it came out to when someone did the math on reddit about how many generations it would take to no longer be breeding half breeds at all, with a stable population for the project.

If you leave wolves out, you already have a more stable pool that you can select traits from for each succeeding generation. You just can't keep a wolf appearance without breeding wolves only, and even then you'd have to select each generation for that look to the exclusion of other traits.

Part of the reason dog breeds exist is those repeating chains of DNA that most (but not all, supposedly) canids have. Can't remember the right term for it, but the Russian foxes also rely on that quirk. When that's in play, you can breed for specific traits, but the more focused you get on one, or one small set, the more the others express themselves, hence the curly tails and floppy ears of the Russian "domesticated" foxes. You select for friendliness, you get "softer" looks. You select for looks, you get some combination of other traits (like the skittishness some smaller breeds are known for).

We already have a good idea of what traits breeding for size gets, and we have an idea of what breeding to visual standards gets when that standard is wolfish.

Edit: the Wiki summary for mollosoi dogs

There's a difference between strict and abusive.

My mix tape