Almost got into an accident last night on this. Car 1 stopped at a 4way to my right, Car 2 opposite me stopped, then I stopped. Distinctly. Whole ass seconds between all stops. Me and 2 are waiting for 1 to go. It's 11:00pm. I can't say for sure, but I just KNOW Car 1 was waving his hands at us, who can't see through his windshield because that's how night time works. Way too much time passes, and me and 2 are like, fuck it and start going, then 1 flashes his brights and goes narrowly missing both of us. Was he just really wanting to be an a car accident? Is he drunk? Who knows, but half the accidents I've narrowly avoided involve a 4 way stop and an idiot.
I point this out to my kids on a regular basis. My oldest is 15 and about to get his license. I tell him that cars being polite are being dicks to those behind them.
Simple, orderly zippering when a lane actually ends is the way. Wasting that useful pavement to create slower traffic and more traffic jam is insane and should be ticketed.
In my city there is a very popular good samaritan trap on the main drag into town, and I am waiting for the day something nasty happens at that particular parking lot entrance, so then they maybe redesign that section of the street or something.
I fucking hate this because it creates ambiguity, usually at times when things need to happen very quickly. It always seems to happen at busy intersections when I've got mere seconds to get through, usually a left hand turn. I'm waiting because I need to make the turn, there's a person across from me going straight who will have the right of way and I can't go til they go, but I'm looking back and forth waiting for an opening for when that person will go (and then me). The opening comes... and I wait... and they wait, and then I see this fucking person is looking at me like a jackass like they were doing me a favor. The favor would've been them following the goddamn right of way, then we both could've gone to where we needed to go, now I have to wait again.
I first thought you were talking about waving to pedestrians to cross when you stop to let them go. Which (edit: stopping and waiting) is a correct and expected behaviour, afaik
Stopping for pedestrians at cross walks is correct, but you should never be waving at anyone to go.
When you wave at people to go they are less likely to check that the other lanes are safe for them to cross. You stop and look right at them so they know you see them and wait until they go on their own.
Misunderstanding "right of way" is half the problem.
Right of way is ability to make a road, or the road itself by extension. You can't have the right of way - it's usually the government's - and you can't give it away. This is why wording is consistently who must yield the right of way, and not who has the right of way.
If it's a driver's turn to act, they are obligated to act. It's not their option or right to act.
I've usually heard "right of way" used in terms of sense 3 of the dictionary. I've never heard it used to refer to the ability to make a road -- that just makes me think you have a skilled construction crew on speed dial.
Indeed, in the boating world, the words are "stand-on" or "burdened" vessel, which makes it clear that the vessel that should continue its course has the obligation to do so under the collision regulations. The "give way" vessel should alter its course or intentions to "keep clear." Nobody — nobody! — has the "right of way."
There's actually no legal definition for "right of way" in the UK. Despite it being a widely understood concept, if you go to court to defend yourself in a road traffic accident and your defence is "it was my right of way, your honour", you could find yourself in trouble.
Yeah I've never understood if they expect me to just eat the tail, or start playing with my pasta with my hands to pull them off. Certainly not gonna waste like half my shrimp by just cutting the meat where the tail starts.
My dad leaves the shell fully on as a stand-alone appetizer of grilled shrimp, so the shrimp is entirely covered in shell. It took until the third time my ex had dinner there for him to ask why the shrimp was so crunchy and for me to realize I’d forgotten to warn him.
Yeah but that's such a fiddly process. I've sprayed pasta and sauce all over the table because my knife or fork slipped trying to do surgery on my food
I was on a school trip to a hotel, and was handed some dragon fruit. They didn't tell me how to eat it, so I bit right into it. Took out a big chunk and wanting to try something new I kept chewing it.
The man had a look of what was a mix between horror and surprise on his face and told me to spit it out.
Not really a plate but I was handed something with inedible parts and no instructions. Similar I suppose?
Not sure if this is a thing everywhere, but a lot of bakeries around here will serve baked goods on a plate with a napkin under the baked goods. Not a big problem with things like croissants, but when cakes and stuff with sticky bottoms are served like this, it drives me insane. Both the purpose of the napkin and the plate has been defeated.
Fun fact: The original purpose of parsley on a plate was that it was there for you to eat. Specifically there for you to eat at the end of a meal as a breath freshener.
Skewers and other utensils are obviously OK. Some parts of natural foods can sometimes act like skewers or utensils, too, so that just becomes a normal part of the presentation and eating method. Like cocktail shrimp should still have the tails on, as a little handle.
When I was a little kid, I ate one of those red peppers at a Chinese restaurant. I didn't know that you were supposed to pick them out. This probably explains my love of spicy food.
You were supposed to not eat those? Well, I figured, I'm not obligated to eat everything if I want less spicy, but I never thought that those are decorative
I wouldn't say insane but that's defo against the rules for me. I often have chefs who want us to leave the bellybuttons on cherry tomatoes and I get this mildly niggling feeling because I read a few years ago that they're poisonous.
They're not. Trust me, my niece ate almost nothing except grape/cherry tomatoes for the first 4 years of her life, she'd never have made it. I've personally eaten whole cherry tomatoes more days than I haven't in the last month and I feel great.
Can you direct me to any sort of source on that? I did a brief search, and I see some information about toxins found in tomato plants in general, (mostly stems, leaves, and green/unripe tomatoes), but nothing that specifically discusses a higher concentration in the "belly button" (I assume you mean the core/where the stem connects?) vs. the rest of the fruit.
On cherry tomatoes they’re so tiny it doesn’t really matter. You can even eat the stems in larger tomatoes once in a while (though it tastes bad), the amount of solanine left is miniscule. On ripe tomatoes that is.
Not only does pineapple belong on pizza, ham & pineapple pizza is the only pizza that is consistent in all three states: fresh and hot, cold, and reheated.
I despise when people are food traditionalists. If we listened to them, we'd still be eating like British people.
I grew up in El Salvador listening to people insist that only beans, cheese and pork go in pupusas. Otherwise it's a sin! Well the young people now make them with everything you can think of from shrimp to sweet potato and it's incredible.
You don't like pineapple on pizza don't eat it
To add my personal opinion. New York/North American pizza is better than Italian pizza
The reason why it's good when reheated is the moisture in the pineapple. It keeps the dough from becoming a rock formation when reheating.
For non-pineapple pizza, adding a bowl of water into the microwave has the same effect.
That said, the argument is not whether pineapple is good on pizza or not, ofc it is, everything is good on pizza. But is it the best topping? No, that's anchovies and capers (olives are good too).
More power to ya! What about natto? She tried to get me to like it but I can't tolerate the smell. I found it's a very easy lunch for my 2 year old who loves it, though.
Alright, I'm off to search what nutrients shrimp tails have now.
Couldn't find much. Most everything I found is that they are mostly chitin and they have fiber, omega 3's, and no real break downs of nutritional facts. Lots of recommendations to just fry them, and one that said to save the tails/exoskeletons and put them in the freezer to turn into a stock. Lots of "just fry the whole thing". I rarely eat shrimp, but maybe I'll try the stock and then drain, season/cornstarch and fry the tails at some point to see if they can be made to taste like spicy shrimp chips?
Look up "spaghetti allo scoglio", basically spaghetti with various shelfish (and other sea food). They leave all the shells on by design. They also bring a separate empty plate on the side to dump them in, and a wet (lemon) wipe to clean yourself after. Cleaning the molluscs from the shells it's basically part of enjoying the plate. And it's good!
I'm sure the dish is delicious. But when I go to a restaurant and I have to do work to eat to food, I always get annoyed. I'm paying for this meal so I don't have to work, dammit.
Hicks and Newt had to die in the beginning of Alien 3 in order for the film to thematically even be an Alien film.
At their heart, the films are about Ripley being alone, more in common with the titular alien than with her termporary allies. She's an outsider in her crew. She's a civilian among marines. She's a woman among convicts. She's lost her child, she's lost 57 years of her life. The Alien is her only real touchstone now, and in a way that is very expressly shown in the films, that becomes a kind of "relationship" in itself. She's closer to the alien than she is to the people who surround her.
If Hicks and Newt survived and were part of Alien 3, it takes that away and makes it an ensemble cast, which thematically doesn't fit, and (I think) it's one of the reasons that a lot of the new Alien films just don't feel like Alien films; they're missing that key thematic ingredient. Ripley is a tragic character, doomed to battle alone against the only thing she has left in her life.
Aliens also didn't thematically fit with the first Alien. As the title indicates, there are many aliens not an alien that was alone. Burke was also a civilian, so Ripley was not the lone civilian. And at the end of the movie she was not alone unlike in the first one. Well I guess Jonesy made it out ok, so she wasn't alone at the end of the first one either.
Aliens was not thematically consistent with the first one and that's what made it great. There really isn't a mystery about the Alien and how dangerous it is after the first one so trying to recreate it wouldn't work. So instead of working class people being forced into a situation they didn't understand and weren't prepared for, we see a group of well armed soldiers going into a situation they were briefed on. This time the humans are going to kick ass! Except no, they get their asses to them. And themes about motherhood can be added (both for Ripley and the Aliens).
Alien 3 wasn't entirely thematically consistent either. I do remember it exploring some themes about religion (it's been a long time since I watched it tho) which is something the previous movies didn't go into. Also Ripley dies at the end which inconsistent with the theme of survival.
To me story is more important than themes anyway. If Ripley has to be alone at the beginning of every movie it makes the story of her character really boring.
The Xenomorph has been the only constant in her life throughout the entire franchise. Everyone else is temporary. So basically...yes...in so much as a nemesis can be a situationship.
Vegetarian here so can't answer for the meat and bones, but absolutely on the fruit and veggie front. Peels have a ton of nutrients, texture, and flavour
Absolutely. I got one for my house and having to use the shitty 1-ply paper in public bathrooms sucks so much. It feels terrible and doesn't clean nearly as well.
This is Korea. For whatever reason every single animal they consume that has unpleasant bits inside, they leave em in. Bony fish, bony chicken, grisly pork, soup full of shelled shellfish, and shrimp with tails. Hell, frequently entire shrimp head and all. Also locally where I live they have these different shrimp that have I dunno extra tough and sharp carapace. They don't even try to shuck those things.
I've had similar experiences with SE Asian cuisine. They just don't seem to have the same standards for butchering and meat preparation that we do in the West. Hell, I know of one SE Asian culture that doesn't even have any sort of defined meat cuts. They just chop it all up into big chunks. Doesn't matter what part of the animal it is, it's getting chopped up into big bits.
If video games went with inflation then videogame companies would likely be bankrupt, at 120 (euro, dollar, gbp) each they'd be way more of a niche product than at 60. Besides sales volume has more than surpased inflation. The whole licensing thing has nothing to do with prices its just pure anti-consumerism.
None of the doom and gloom really matters, every human in history has lived in a time of crisis. How we handle the challenges at hand determine the challenges for those that follow, but panicking about it is a waste of energy.
It's really hard to accept this these days. Before new media, people often had no idea what was going on outside their town or villiage. Must have been bliss (Except for the entrenched poverty, filth, disease and oppression of course lmao). Now it's hard to avoid learning about who got killed in what gruesome way today.
Same with meat on the bone for me. Like... I love a biryani, but it's so much better when the chicken/lamb is boneless. I get that the bone imparts some flavor, but I don't think it's worth the effort and mess.
Anything I can't eat with my hands, should not be covered in a sauce that I don't want on my hands.
Fried shrimp with tails = fine. Bone-in chicken legs = fine.
Bone-in chicken in biryani = not ordering. Shrimp with tail in pasta = sin against god and crime against humanity.
The QWERTY-type keyboard is a dated relic, especially in the electronic era, where there aren't physical mechanisms to jam because you pushed the buttons too quickly.
This is particularly applicable to touch screens, where the format is particularly ill-suited, and ought to be replaced by something more suitable and intuitive.
Learning an entire new layout isn't as hard as it sounds. I just went cold turkey one day and changed all my devices over to Dvorak and it took me about a week to be comfortable and maybe after a month I was faster than I was on QWERTY. It's so much faster learning to type once you're already fast at another layout.
It does depend what you consider "the whole series."
Does Tingle RPG count? Does Link's Crossbow Training?
Other questions that probably wouldn't matter for best or worst game in the series, but would for a complete ranking might be whether remakes/remasters count as separate games or not and if not, do we judge on the basis of the remaster or the original? (Either way, all the remasters are inferior to the originals. Maybe that's my most radical, non-left-right position. That and Breath of the Wild was better than Tears of the Kingdom.)
I once had pasta with whole mussels mixed in. Could never be too sure my next bite wouldn't have a big chunk of shell in it. Shit was expensive for what it was too, they definitely could have paid some guy just to stand there in the kitchen and remove the shells as it goes onto the plate for what we were paying. Not a radical opinion this just reminded me of it.
People who order and eat chili mussels (with shells) at restaurants are insane and are getting ripped off. it is the least practical dish, and by weight, half of it is inedible. I think it's also a massive pain in the ass for kitchen staff to prepare.
Souls games should have an easy mode and it’s fine if only the original hard mode is a well balanced experience. I just want to have fun and enjoy the view.
People have been saying this for thousands of years, though. In some cases, they weren't even wrong to think it. But for a country as wealthy and well insulated and exhaustively policed as the average Western state?
Come on. We don't even have COVID era crime rates, much less the lead /cocaine fueled crime bonanzas of the 1970s and 80s.
Relative to what? The Great Depression? The Civil War? The collapse of the Aztec Empire?
Climate refugees are going to turn the "migrant crime" rhetoric into overdrive. My opinion, but it's clearly the Boogeyman that Fascism is rallying against. There are great swaths of land that are experiencing temperatures and severe weather that are incompatible with human life.
Voting for and propping up bad politicians is support.
You were doing great until you said, "Stomping your feet...". That's devaluation of a position you don't agree with and defamation of the opinion haver all in one. It's generally considered bullying.
Just consider if everyone who shared your view voted third party instead of voting for a Republican in Democrats clothing?
Do people blindly support it? I live with it and vote accordingly but I also advocate for alternative voting methods. People voting third party do not fully understand that our first past the post system makes it so their candidate has no chance.
The problem is that all voting systems have undesirable corner cases and anomalies. The voting system isn't really the main problem, it's the political culture, corruption and the inconsistent application of rule of law.
Jesus, it's always "bullying" when people get told the consequences of their choice. You don't need to believe in politics, it will still fuck you over. A lot of people don't have the luxury of not participating because they aren't spoiled white suburbanites able to just hide from the consequences of ignoring how their country functions.
I think you missed the point of my comment. Detailing consequences is not the issue, losing the plot is. I'll work on my delivery for the future.
I agree with your overall statement though.
Resoundly reject the party that is actively pushing for a weird christofascist state. <-- the us electorate has not yet done this!
Actively push for election reform <-- AK, AZ, CO, DC, ID, MT, NV, OR, and SD will all have ballet initiatives this November regarding election reform. VOTE!
Get involved with organizations that are moving to further the causes you care about, and get active in politics.
Voting for president is the smallest part of civic participation, not the end-all-be-all
Given that the previous one actually did try to steal an election it actually has merit. I wasn't worried about republicans before Trump. I just thought they were dicks.
Right?? I love shrimp but I hate eating things with my hands. No matter the dish, I pull those tails off and I know how to do it without losing any meat. I can't stand tails on shrimp as I'm trying to eat
I pay excessive money at a restaurant to ensure I have to do no work and everything within reason is edible. If this is not the case when I get it, I love nothing more than sending it back, and if I don't think they'll not mess with my food or give me any attitude I will leave and they'll eat the loss (and maybe the tails).
If you're living in a Western country, odds are your consumption is double or triple of somebody in the global south, so you can up that a little. If you're wealthier, you can up that even more. It's not directly proportional to consumption, but that does play a bigger role.
Absolutely! Also, I can’t stand ordering whole crab at a restaurant. I just want the meat without the hassle of cracking open the legs and body, getting my hands dirty, slurping all over, and dealing with the mess. Someone should handle that in the kitchen. I can boil a crab at home if I want to work to get the food out.
You just poke a bunch of it with the fork until a suitable amount is stuck between the tines, and then you don't have a long tail of pasta that's trying to get sauce all over your shirt.
As Americans, we should eat more meat organs. The amount of Americans who get excited by eating a chicken leg but then get disgusted at eating the chicken gizzard is too high.
Looking at my own country and other countries I've lived in, I think it's to do with poverty or at least recent poverty - Portugal was very poor back in before the Revolution in 74 and still now it's far more common around here to eat all those parts of animals (and, curiously, one of my favorite dishes is a local version of tripe) than that I noticed in The Netherlands and the UK (though the Scots do have the famous Haggis).
The funny thing is that nowadays at least some of those things have been found to be quite healthy to eat.
We have a traditional dish in the UK which are meatballs made from minced pork liver and heart, mixed with bacon, onion and breadcrumbs. Unfortunately, I cannot name this dish because it shares the same name as a homophobic slur but they are known as "ducks" in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Lancashire.
You don't see much organ meats in the Netherlands and the UK much because they are shipped to France where the price is high (and being a part of the EU, the isn't any extra taxes for that). It's market choices, not dietary, combined with they were never a huge desire for them there.
It's also why you don't really see much chicken feet for sale, they are shipped to China where the price is high.
I had a Japanese-American girlfriend for a couple of years who would gladly dispose of the prawn heads for me. I tried them ("how bad could they be?") but it was a taste I could never acquire. And I'm open-minded about food-- tried natto and got to enjoy it, same with uni, even managed to have Taiwanese stinky tofu. The only other food I could never stomach was balut.
Maybe radical, maybe not, I don't know. Instagram has a policy of no nudity, with some exceptions. A notable one is for breastfeeding, which has led to this weird category on Instagram of... I guess it's Breastfeeding Porn, I don't know what else to call it (?). It's bizarre because the videos being made are obviously meant to just show off naked boobs... but with young children in them. So, IMO, it's dipping its toes into exploitation, but because it's technically "breastfeeding" it's perfectly fine with Instagram. It's this weird situation where, showing your tits in a video by yourself is considered "offensive" or not safe for children... unless you film your tits out with a child in the video. Honestly, they should just allow all nudity via some sort of gatekeeping program or something that tries to keep kids from viewing it, but the breastfeeding exception has just created a weird porn sub-genre.
And I'm sure there's legitimate reasons why somebody would take a video of themselves breastfeeding, maybe for instructional purposes for other mothers or something, whatever, I'm sure that's a thing and I'm not knocking that. And I know breastfeeding creates a strong bond between mother and child, it's a normal, natural thing that happens, I get that, but these videos in particular don't seem to have any purpose that I can make out. These videos are just women staring at the camera, their tits hanging out and off to the side is some kid greedily suckling on one boob. If this is such a sacred relationship between mother and infant, shouldn't it be kept private? Sure, women can breastfeed in public because they literally have to feed their child.... but broadcasting it to the world doesn't seem like a necessary part of that.
My radical opinion is that the left-right political spectrum isn't real. It's all really arbitrary like the Big Endians and Little Endians from Gulliver's Travels. We've decided one group is left and one is right. When an issue comes up, one group takes a position and the other group feels like they need to oppose it. Depending on which group supports an issue and where we decided that group is on the spectrum, that's where we put that issue.
But most issues are way more complicated to fit on a one dimensional line. Many problems are completely orthogonal to politics. Global warming for example is a scientific thing. More CO2 in the atmosphere, more warming. Gotta get that CO2 level down or we're going to have serious problems. Where does that fit on a spectrum? We just plop it onto the "left" part because the parties on the "left" tend to want to do something about it.
Foreign policy doesn't really fit on a spectrum since it's all around the interests of the country. Who should we be allies with and who are our adversaries? That's largely dependent on what those other countries are doing isn't it? But gotta put it on a spectrum, so I guess this war the left wing supports and this other war the right wing wing supports.
Ultimately ideology is for the intellectually lazy. Don't want to think about individual issues in-depth so just consider a few, sign on to whichever ideology is the closest fit, and go along with whatever the ideology says about anything else. The left-right spectrum is a rationalization for this, making it seem commonplace for people to be a dot on a line to feel justified in going along with whoever is on the same part in that line.
But it's just a construct. Issues are more complicated than that, and two people that agree completely on one issue may completely disagree on another. Because there really is no political spectrum. It's something that only exists in a poli sci classroom and doesn't really mean anything anywhere else. Why would anyone want to be a dot on a line anyway?
this is a bad take, it ignores the political philosophy foundations of left and right political theories and is a very naive perspective borne of the American two party system which doesn't adequately represent leftism
It's been memed to death at this point, but this is one reason I like the political compass. It's got width and height, and does a little bit of a better job at representing things.
Even that doesn't really work. A libertarian is someone who's based their political ideas on a flawed understanding of economics. Authoritarianism is just a scam that convinces people they should be ruled over by someone that will [make their country strong/make them more equal/protect them from whoever they're afraid of]. It just further legitimizes ideas based on a flawed understanding of the world and invents new issues just to have things to slot onto the graph.
Like how do you feel about "late stage" capitalism? How do you feel about bad people eating people's pets? I can point at government inefficiencies to prove that the government should be eliminated so we can all live in a libertarian utopia. And we can plot these things on a page, and legitimize them as real ideologies. But really they're just things people have made up or have exaggerated to push people away from solving the problems towards "ideologies" that need those problems to exist to justify their existence.
A large part of politics is about perception. We have a fairly good understanding of how the economy works. We also have a good idea understanding of how the climate works too. Biden actually did extremely well on the economy. But the perception is that he was terrible on the economy issue. There's a lack of understanding of how things work and so we end up with the idea that voting in a Republican will make the economy better because they're going to drill for more oil. The right of the spectrum is good on the economy and the left of the spectrum is bad on the economy, everyone knows that! But really this spectrum thing just allows people to exploit perceptions and calcify those perceptions.
It's an ADHD texture thing, the texture of onions does not mesh with any other food (maybe edible paper?), so it's always jarring to bite an onion while eating food.