You should steel-man the argument. GP is talking about qualia, obviously for the sake of the argument you assume the comparison is between two people with similar eyes.
The steel men (armored enemy knights) are exactly the inverse of the straw man (training dummy) metaphor. I think it's a fantastic term since it directly addresses the point (tackle the best opposing arguments head on instead of a poor subset/facsimile of them), it fits within the existing straw man metaphor, it's terse, and it's very clear.
> The colors of traffic lights can be difficult for red–green color-blind people. This difficulty includes distinguishing red/amber lights from sodium street lamps, distinguishing green lights (closer to cyan) from white lights, and distinguishing red from amber lights, especially when there are no positional clues (see image).
> All but one admitted to difficulties with traffic signals, one admitted to a previously undeclared accident due to his colour blindness, and all but one offered suggestions for improving signal recognition. Nearly all reported confusion with street and signal lights, and confusion between the red and amber signals was common.
The wild success of traffic lights comes from having 3 colors at fixed positions. You put those 3 colors in a single color changing light and I would assume the accident rate would measurably increase.
I used cursor over the past three weeks to update a 12 year-old Ruby on rails project. While it has been slightly updated throughout the years, this was my first proper modernization of the code base.
It’s been a real pleasure getting back into Ruby after so many years in typescript, python, and rust.
Happy to see the update. Real shame about the haters here, the Ruby community is a supportive and positive bunch that has shipped real products while others seem to worship at the altar of computer science alone… that’s about as counter snarky as I want to be here
I spent ~16 years with Ruby (as a non-primary language for the first 5 years, but then as my primary for the remainder), from ~2006/2007 til 2022/2023. I had a couple of hours free to spin up new personal project this morning. At first I was going to default to Python since I use it heavily at work. On a whim, I decided to see what Ruby 3.4 has to offer since it's been a few years. I am very happy with that decision. I really miss Ruby the language a lot, it's such a joy to work with.
Social justice fundamentalism asserts that there are favored (“oppressed”) groups, and disfavored (“oppressor”) groups.
True believers have created a largely arbitrary grouping called “white people”, assigning it the “oppressor” label.
If a favored group’s nation were flooded by “white people”, that would be seen as an emergent situation requiring remedy; the opposite is what we’re seeing play out in societies like Britain, and is Not a Problem. I’m committing an act of violence by even describing it in this way.
How or when a disfavored group is restored to neutral or favored status is undefined; one would presumably have to consult a head priest of the movement for an answer (and I wouldn’t expect any coherence or clarity).
False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]
QED.
>The best case for an indigenous culture is the Celts, Cornish, and Welsh.
Those are also "White Brits" who are indigenous to their respective areas.
>None of this has anything to do with being white
Glad you finally agree and admit to this.
>it's the language that defines belonging to these groups.
English language and culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.
The OP was me. I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person" even though that is not the meaning of "native", which means you were born somewhere.
>I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person"
Nowhere in his post does he mention "White person." He specifically mentions "native Brits." The only indigenous Brits native to the Britain are White Brits.
He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.
The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.
Even then, none of this is related to skin tone. It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.
>He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.
White Brits are the only indigenous, native Brits to Britain.
>The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.
False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]
QED.
>Even then, none of this is related to skin tone.
Glad you finally agree and admit to this.
>It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.
English culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.
That's funny, your own statements are in contradiction with your conclusions. You say the English are descendants of west germanic tribes from the continent, and "Romano-British" groups (do you think the Romans were an Indigenous people? of the British isles?), then you say this proves they are indigenous.
Please do the minimum effort and connect the quote you did to what you claim it states. This does not contradict anything in my previous post. QED? Nothing was demonstrated. Demonstrate, please.
It is funny, because I did not introduce the term indigenous to this discussion, you did (for some strange reason).
The term "indigenous" refers to a non-dominant, often colonized group of people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land [1]
The English are neither. The Celtic people, if anyone, has a claim to this status on the British isles. They were living on the land for hundrds of years before they were colonized by the Romans (and other groups later, including the English).
I think it's sweet that you're trying to muddy things up by claiming I "finally agree" about skin tone being unrelated to culture or the adjective native. That's been my argument the whole time. You are the one stating that "White British" is the same as "Native Brit".
>That's funny, your own statements are in contradiction with your conclusions.
Your failure to understand basic anthropology does not constitute a contradiction. There is not contradiction.
>You say the English are descendants of west germanic tribes from the continent, and "Romano-British" groups (do you think the Romans were an Indigenous people? of the British isles?)
It arose as a fusion of the imported Roman culture with that of the indigenous Britons, a people of Celtic language and custom. [0]
>then you say this proves they are indigenous.
"Indigenous Britons" QED.
>Please do the minimum effort and connect the quote you did to what you claim it states.
I just did and have, multiple times.
>This does not contradict anything in my previous post. QED? Nothing was demonstrated. Demonstrate, please.
It directly contradicts your erroneous claims. Everything has been demonstrated with facts and links. You have nothing.
>It is funny, because I did not introduce the term indigenous to this discussion, you did (for some strange reason).
I did, what's your point? You failed and making any claim to the contrary.
>The term "indigenous" refers to a non-dominant, often colonized group of people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land [1]
Hilarious because White Brits are no the dominant group of people in London, foreigners are. The English are the "people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land."
Oops, you just proved my point for me! QED!
>The English are neither.
The English are both, native and indigenous, as proven above.
>The Celtic people, if anyone, has a claim to this status on the British isles.
The English descended from the Britons, they're literally British.
>They were living on the land for hundrds of years before they were colonized by the Romans (and other groups later, including the English).
This is hilariously incorrect. As proven above, the English descended from the Celtic Britons. It's quoted directly above.
>I think it's sweet that you're trying to muddy things up by claiming I "finally agree" about skin tone being unrelated to culture or the adjective native.
Glad that you agree DHH isn't a White supremacist since it has nothing to do with skin color.
>You are the one stating that "White British" is the same as "Native Brit".
From your source that defines " indigenous people":
"peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions."
That is literally the definition of the English people, in England, which is part of Great Brittan.
Are you seriously claiming that White Brits are not the dominant ethnic group in the UK? Who's running the country? Out of the last twenty PMs, how many have been people of color? One?
You seem to love to write QED after a quote. That makes you look dumb. The English did not "fuse" with an indigenous people, they colonized or dominated an already colonized people, and in the process removed their "social, economic, cultural, and political institutions" [1].
This in turn does not fit in with the definition of Indigenous people. No scholar would ever claim that the English are indigenous to the British isles. That would be absurd. The same is true of the Romano-British. Whenever settlers "fuse" with an indigenous culture by importing their customs, the result is not an indigenous culture, it's a settler-colonial one.
Did you see the part underneath what you quoted in the UNESCO definition?
"According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the system has instead developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
- Historical continuity with pre-colonial and or pre-settler societies
- Strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources
- Distinct social, economic and political system
- Distinct language, culture and beliefs
- Form non-dominant groups of society
- Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities"
Does that sound like the English to you? Hardly. There is no continuity with pre-settler society. The Anglo-Saxon settlers replaced pre-existing culture.
And, again, skin tone does not relate to culture. Which is why the fact that DHH tries to claim it does makes him an ethnonationalist, a fringe far-right position.
It is funny to see you fail to argue like an adult. All the "QED"s and "erroneous claim" make you sound like a tiny Ben Shapiro in my mind. I wonder why you would subject yourself to this kind of humiliating self-own. You are constantly misinterpreting terms, simply saying "No" or "False" without ever citing anything but wikipedia. It's obvious you have no understanding of either anthropology nor of where to find information or how to interpret it. Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that racists are idiots.
>Are you seriously claiming that White Brits are not the dominant ethnic group in the UK?
No one made this claim. White Brits (The English) are the native inhabitants of London, and are no longer the majority there. The definition you provided literally describes the exact scenario of the English in London.
>Who's running the country? Out of the last twenty PMs, how many have been people of color? One?
The current Mayor of London is a person of color (non-native ethnicity). Once again, you're doing all the work for me, proving my point.
>You seem to love to write QED after a quote.
Because I have shown and proven my points.
>That makes you look dumb.
Don't interpret your inability to understand something as "dumb."
> The English did not "fuse" with an indigenous people, they colonized or dominated an already colonized people, and in the process removed their "social, economic, cultural, and political institutions"
You are categorically false. Your source links to the Anglo-Saxons, not the English. "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there."
QED.
Your poorly constructing a straw man, possibly unknowingly, because you're out of your league here.
>This in turn does not fit in with the definition of Indigenous people.
Yes it does, not that the definition of indigenous people is something that you can claim. There is no singularly approved definition: "There is no singularly authoritative definition
of indigenous peoples under international law and policy, and the Indig-
enous Declaration does not set out any definition." [1]
>No scholar would ever claim that the English are indigenous to the British isles.
No scholar would ever claim that the English are not indigenous to the British isles. That would be absurd.
>The same is true of the Romano-British. Whenever settlers "fuse" with an indigenous culture by importing their customs, the result is not an indigenous culture, it's a settler-colonial one.
Of course it is, especially considering English culture was created in, developed, and is indigenous to... England. It's literally in the name. English culture wasn't created outside of England, it was created in England.
>Did you see the part underneath what you quoted in the UNESCO definition?
The part that literally proves my point, yes? Also, UNESCO definition isn't authoritative as shown above. Even then, English people/culture in London is indigenous considering the definition.
>Does that sound like the English to you?
That is exactly what the English in London are. Every point can be applied to the English in London.
>And, again, skin tone does not relate to culture.
No one made this claim.
>Which is why the fact that DHH tries to claim it does makes him an ethnonationalist
DHH did not make that claim either. You have poor reading comprehension if that's what you took away.
>a fringe far-right position.
There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. This is not a fringe far-right position. Countries like Turkey, Japan, Palestine, South Korea, Israel, China, etc. all share this position.
>It is funny to see you fail to argue like an adult.
It's funny to see me eviscerate you. You're flailing around like a child that can't swim. You thrown insults out, share sources that prove opposite of what you're proposing, and don't understand basic anthropology.
>All the "QED"s and "erroneous claim" make you sound like a tiny Ben Shapiro in my mind.
All the nothing you've provided makes you sound like Trump in my mind.
> I wonder why you would subject yourself to this kind of humiliating self-own.
"I'm getting destroyed by this guy. Quick! Let me pretend like he's humiliating himself and not me!"
>You are constantly misinterpreting terms, simply saying "No" or "False" without ever citing anything but wikipedia.
"He has sources that correctly backup his statements. The sources in Wikipedia are right there, but I'm going to ignore them."
>It's obvious you have no understanding of either anthropology nor of where to find information or how to interpret it.
"I know you are but what am I?" Are you a toddler LOL?
>Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that racists are idiots.
Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that (anti-White) racists are idiots.
I compound tirz with glycine and B12. I honestly think these are miracle drugs.
I’ve never been extremely overweight but I hit a point where I had 30 pounds to lose, despite my height, and I can’t deal with the hunger amidst all my other life stresses.
In a similar boat (overweight, borderline obese - slightly elevated cholesterol - high stress) and my doc has recommended I look into GLP-1s and maybe ask my insurance which types they do and don't cover.
Worst comes to worst I could go compounding for about $200/mo from what I've seen.
The cooking time is proportional to the thickness.
General advice on pasta:
* a quality dry pasta (dececco e.g) will have ~14 grams of protein per 100 grams dry weight, this is really essential
* bronze die cut will help soak up more sauces
* you do not need the full volume of water the box says, but start your timer once the water has returned to a boil
* once it has gotten to a boil, keep it boiling, but it doesn't need to be a raging boil, that'll tear apart the pasta, especially a stuffed one
* heavily salt your water, but it does not need to be "salty like the ocean"
* set your timer for a minute less than the cooking time on the box, check for doneness, then give it another minute if needed
* if you're finishing in a sauce, take the pasta out a minute before it is done. Remember to reserve one cup of the starchy cooking water before draining your pasta entirely
* do not put oil in your cooking water, it will NOT help it not stick. Just stir after you put it in, and then again a minute or two in
* if you're struggling to tell if it's "done", take a bite of a single piece, and look at the cross section a bit of "white" in the middle means that hasn't hydrated fully. Maybe you like a bit of "toothsome"ness ('al dente'), maybe you don't
> * if you're finishing in a sauce, take the pasta out a minute before it is done.
ie, 2-3 minutes before the box time, possibly more, depending on what finishing means for your case.
> * do not put oil in your cooking water, it will NOT help it not stick.
It will not hurt, and may help. Oil will stop the super starchy water, if you followed the reduce the water volume step as suggested, from boiling over - as it will help reduce the surface tension. This is real, and particularly important for some types of noodles and dumplings.
> Remember to reserve one cup of the starchy cooking water before draining your pasta entirely
At least- again, depending on what sauce you're putting it in, and how underdone you took it out. Particularly if you'll have leftovers (as any good homecook often will!), the 'al dente' pasta will absorb all your water, and you'll need to add some before you put it in the fridge, or it will be super dry when you reheat it.
> it does not need to be "salty like the ocean"
despite what Nigella might tell you, it should be no where near ocean water. (just to reinforce this, because I'm not sure if people just think it is a thing to say, or they just have no idea how salty the sea is)
If you make pasta frequently, you can just reserve the pasta water on the stove and cook more pasta in it the next day. I usually just leave it out with a cover on, it's fine for a day, probably two.
For whole grain pastas I find this really helps get a more satisfying flavor and consistency.
Sometimes I'd put the whole pot in the fridge after it cooled to room temperature and it'd keep for a bit so I could use it for brown rice, or for more pasta later.
Finally, you can also use that water to water your plants because it has a ton of healthy nutrients in it, but you have to be really careful cause of the salt so I always water it down heavily and don't apply it as frequently as I have a pasta water that I'm going to drain.
When the temperature rises, the bacteria form spores that can survive harsh conditions, and then when it's cooler it starts growing again. The toxin that this produces can survive reheating. It's more commonly found on rice, but it can also be found on pasta.
> you do not need the full volume of water the box says, but start your timer once the water has returned to a boil
I never do that, I start the timer as soon as I put the pasta in the water, and usually the cooking times on Italian brands are spot-on. If I have to finish the cooking in a pan (depending on the sauce) I take out 1m or 1m30s, and it's "al dente".
>if you're struggling to tell if it's "done", take a bite of a single piece, and look at the cross section a bit of "white" in the middle means that hasn't hydrated fully. Maybe you like a bit of "toothsome"ness ('al dente'), maybe you don't
coupla quibbles, one of which you may not be guilty of:
toothsome means delicious, not any sort of mouthfeel (though I agree, it would be a great word for al dente, which means "to the teeth")
the bit of white in the middle is raw, and not al dente. al dente is the "rubbery snap" of biting a noodle and not the "concrete snap" of a raw interior. somehow (like all across NYC) there are so many chefs who think al dente means uncooked center. it does not. handmade egg noodle pasta (which has no dry interior) and extruded hard durum wheat pasta both can both be served al dente.
> * do not put oil in your cooking water, it will NOT help it not stick.
Using oil has never been about preventing it from sticking, despite so many people repeating this myth. Anyone can plainly see that the oil floats on top of the water and never touches the pasta.
The only purpose of the oil is to prevent foaming so it doesn’t boil over.
Yes, generally. The mistake most people make with a boiling pot of water is they start the heat on high, and when the water gets to a boil they keep it on high. You really need to turn it down to medium or lower to just maintain the boil. If it stays on high, the violent agitation breaks down the pasta and releases a lot of starch.
If you turn the heat down to a reasonable level, then yes, the oil will do a lot to help prevent boil over.
How much salt also depends on how much pasta water you want to use for your sauce and how much cheese you intend to put in. With more cheese you'll need more starch and then you need to avoid over salting the water.
For the type of rigatoni (smaller) in the article and my local brands it varies between 11 and 15m recommended cooking time depending on brand, and from experience the recommended time is when its ready to be put in a sauce, so not fully cooked. My favorite but more expensive brand says 14m, I usually set a timer to 13 and then try it until its ready to be cooked in the sauce.
As someone who makes pasta 3 times a week, the comment sums up my experience with cooking better than the article. I don't really ever have issues with pasta getting too soft in my alla gricia, cacio e pepe or aglio e olio.
I'm Italian and I don't like pasta al dente. Obviously neither overcooked, but I like it cooked. In fact it's a drama that since some years they started making pasta which remains al dente: I usually cook it at least 5 minutes longer than what is written and it is still slightly al dente: very disappointing.
(I get what you're saying, spiritually, your pasta water from your giant pot of one box of pasta isn't gonna do much to thicken your sauce. But it's not a myth, just a matter of degree)
corn starch is widely used because it has no taste raw; a flour based roux needs to be "browned" in oil to eliminate the floury taste (i've tasted the grain of wheat from a plant in a field: tastes floury)
... if you use less water than the amount prescribed on the box it'll be proportionally starchier. It isn't a myth, you can literally see the starch in the water ...
I fail to see what a new protocol would bring to the equation. I see it more as a human behaviour issue, network effect, worse is better etc etc.
My grandma uses Facebook because someone taught her how, she doesn't have the capability to explore technology on her own. That honestly goes for most people, they treat their computer as necessary for getting along in modern society and nothing more.
I play Mastermind with my kids. It hasn’t clicked quite yet with them but I’ve shown them my strategy of eliminating colors by making an entire row a single color successively. Either it’s not present or now you know how many of a particular color. Then you just need to figure out ordering. Again you can use a known “bad” color to avoid ambiguity of multiple white pegs
Similarly, I explained to someone how to systematically solve it like this, but then when I suggested they now apply it in a new game, I chose all the same color for the code and watched them second guess themselves until all guesses were exhausted. They just couldn’t accept the possibility that the code could simply be all the same color. Was a good opportunity to quote Sherlock Holmes.
Iowa was listed as 63% urban in the 2020 census. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. An area needs 2000 housing units and/or 5000 people to be counted as urban. If you’ve been through the state, you’ll see lots of tiny little 2000-3000 person towns that have an urban street grid around a couple-block downtown core. These things don’t get counted as urban.
The farmland is too valuable for you to see much of any sprawl except in Des Moines and Iowa City. Even Council Bluffs (the Iowa side of the Omaha metro) has very little for the metro size.
reply