• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • You can put them in between 2 bowls with their (the bowls) rims against each other to create an oblate spheroid-ish thing, then shake it real hard for a few minutes. It should remove the shell pretty eaily, if loudly.

    Edit: Sorry, turns out, that’s garlic cloves. Shrimp peeling is really only easier raw. You can rip the legs off and just give a squeeze and it’ll pop out of the shell. In my experience, once they’re cooked the shell will break up much easier. As someone else said, a stock is your best bet if you really want to avoid peeling. I mean, technically you can eat the shell if you make sure to grind them up completely when you puree them. I’ve never tried anything with the shell still included, so I can’t speak for the taste, but you could try a bisque if you’re dead set on not peeling.


  • Also, only really works if they are “attempting to gain a higher moral authority” (as OP says). As if that’s the only reason people would argue a point. I think it says something about OP that they take that as a given for arguments. I can immediately imagine scenarios that one can argue against a thing that they themselves participate in.

    “Hey, smoking is bad, kid. Don’t do it.”

    “But you smoke! And I look so cool with a cigarette!”

    “Yeah, it’s a habit that’s very difficult to break and it makes your life worse in every way. I know from experience.”

    “No you.”

    But I agree with your main point,

    But pointing out the hypocrisy is technically “off topic” if you’re arguing whether X is actually bad.

    It’s considered a fallacy exactly for this reason. When you’re debating a thing, you’re way off the map if you think that’s your winning move if you’re arguing in good faith. An argument should be about showing your point is correct, not that you’re better than the other person. But Mr. Wang up there may only view arguments as a competition to be won morally.





  • It’s actually pretty normal and you probably do it without realizing it. Occasionally the lungs just need to absorb a little extra oxygen to catch up. You ever watch a dog sleep and every now and then they just take a big inhale? Same thing.

    Found this neat source:

    “A sigh is a long, deep breath that is often viewed as an expression of stress, sadness, exhaustion or relief. However, the most frequent sighs are unnoticed and occur spontaneously every several minutes, about a dozen times per hour.”

    . . .

    “The lung is composed of hundreds of millions of alveoli, the gas exchange units at terminal ends of the respiratory tract, each of which is about 200 micrometers in diameter. During normal breathing, alveoli spontaneously collapse, a pathological condition known as atelectasis. A sigh is hypothesized to reverse any alveolar collapse, because it is a large breath that re-expands all alveoli, filling them all with air.”


  • Oh man, every time someone asks a question along these lines I always think of the movie Hank and Mike. I found it in a discount bin at a grocery store probably a decade ago so I took a little time to actually look into it more this time. I knew it was Canadian and unlikely a big hit, but apparently it was just so poorly received. It made less than $17,000 of the $2M it cost, and it’s real tough to find anyone even reviewing it. I even struggled to find the music from it. (The one song is badass). And it’s got a couple B-tier actors that I remember doing a great job, and I think Joe Mantegna really went for it in his role as the god Pan. Chris Klein kills it in this song.

    The crude humor kinda puts people off I think but the satirical aspects cut a little deeper than the movie needed to. And probably when I discovered it I was depressed and had a drinking problem and the overall mood of it really felt at home to me at the time so I was able to just live in those aspects of the film and really absorb the more subtle message. It’s definitely absurd in many points but there’s a lot of heart in it.


  • I mean, I really liked the first 90 pages or so. Goodkind clearly can write well. He’d occasionally forget himself and start doing some real character work or the characters would sit and talk a bit and do some world building. But then he’s realize he needed to move the story along and he clearly doesn’t know how to do that so he’d have a wizard pop out of the bushes (literally at least once) and just say “hey, we got to move this story along. Let’s go do this thing now.” He can write, but he doesn’t know how to tell a story. Don’t even get me started with how he shoehorns in the call to action for the hero in the first book. It’s like papers I’d write in college where I had a bunch of good parts but it’s no cohesive so I’d half-ass some connecting bits to frankenstein it together. It’s technically passable, but not a good overall work.

    And I’ve heard the Gentlemen Bastards series mentioned a few times recently so I’ll need to put it on my list. I’m working my way through Raymond E. Feist right now. The first series just feels so much like a DnD campaign (because it literally is) and I love it.



  • Jesus fucking christ. You know how water works, right? It fits the form of the container it’s in. It’s an simplified analogy to explain what that other guy linked to. We (well, you) see a universe fit to our kind of life, but the reality is that we developed to fit the universe.

    You remind me of this guy I saw the other day claiming that a whole bunch of rocks that are vaguely shaped like body parts might be fossilized body parts.

    He just kept saying “I’m not saying it definitely is, but imagine if we don’t understand the world, and it’s maybe this way? Crazy right?!”

    It’s such cowardly bullshit. If you want to believe a thing because it sounds nice to you, don’t half-ass it and throw qualifiers on it. You brought it up, and then when challenged the tiniest bit, backed down with a “I’m not saying that’s definitely true… but maybe…?”

    and that doesn’t match our expectations.

    What expectations? Actual scientist, using facts, don’t have expectations of alien life. We don’t know the probability of life existing anywhere but here because we have nothing to compare it to. We have the one universe with the one data set available to us. Until we discover alien life, we should have no expectation for it. Do I think it’s likely there is life elsewhere? Yes. Does that mean I expect it? No. We don’t have enough information about the cosmos to even start to calculate whether it should happen.

    I had a roommate once who believed that the stuff from the Alvin the Maker book series was real. The magic and shit. I asked if he had anything that led him to believe that or if he just really liked the books and wanted it to be. OF course he didn’t have any evidence or real reason for it. He just wanted it to be so, so he decided that he was going to believe that thing.

    You’re doing that. Stop it. Be a grown-up here and stop believing in make-believe and believe things only when we have sufficient (or in your case, I’ll take any) evidence.


  • Have you heard of the puddle analogy?

    A small amount of water sits there, it this hole in the ground it finds itself in. It looks at this cavity, observes how perfectly it fits the contours of their liquid body. It’s perfect! Every nook and cranny seems to be formed to fit the puddle perfectly.

    “This hole must have been made for me! It’s too much of a coincidence that, with all the ways a hole could form, this one formed perfectly to fit me!”

    You’re doing that. You’re saying it’s a crazy coincidence that all the right things were in place here for life to exist that led to us being here… but if it wasn’t, then we just wouldn’t have developed as life-forms. Or if the environs were different, life would have developed to fit into that kind of solar system. I think you just like the idea, so you believe it, but I think it’s better to believe things we have evidence for.



  • Oh! Have they fixed their supplying issues? I haven’t had a drink in a while, but for years they were having trouble keeping stock in most stores because they had a distillery fire and had to run with what they had stored. Even after that, any time I’d find a place that would get some, they’d only be able to get a single case in and it would be sold out within a day or 2. I basically had to get lucky and happen to stop by the same day they got it in, but before they stocked the shelves. It was probably solid 5-6 years of never seeing it on a shelf and only getting it if I asked for it and they go it from the back.


  • I think it’s maybe a little but of both of what you and Annoyed_[Crabemoji] said. From what I remember of baking, butter being not chilled enough will cause it to be too soft and cook out before the chemistry can happen and they deflate like that. But obviously, it’s real tough to mix in chilled solid butter, so by the time you’ve needed it enough for it to incorporate, it’s warm again. When I was in culinary school back in the day we’d bake in huge batches, obviously, so we’d use big ole mixers to combine the cold butter quickly with giant mechanical paddles that forced it to combine while still cold. But at home, if you have to mix by hand and you know that the butter isn’t cold anymore you can definitely chill the cough before baking. I don’t remember much from those days (I was never a baker, I was a line cook, but baking classes were required), but when I saw your picture my immediate thought from the dredges of 20 year old memories was “That butter wasn’t chilled.”


  • The thing is, if the place you’re getting your information from doesn’t list it’s sources, you can’t trust it. Whenever I’m researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don’t just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source.

    Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case.

    Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it’s just their opinion until you check and follow the sources…


  • Low blood pressure, low blood sugar, maybe dehydration? When you miss out on sleep, are you in bed trying to sleep and unable? I know for me, low blood sugar will give me headaches, and if I’m awake longer with less sleep my body has expended more energy than normal and needs that extra fuel to function properly. I always wake up starving if I was up late without eating later. When you sleep, your body, obviously uses less stored nutrients to operate. If you’re not changing your routine with eating and drinking and you miss out on sleep, you may need water/food. Or it could be stress from lack of sleep tensing you up or you’re sleeping at a weird angle because your schedule is off and your body didn’t use it’s muscle memory and get you into a better position.

    Basically, you’re going to want to pay attention to the things you’re doing (or not doing) besides losing sleep. Eating/drinking, physical exertion, how does the rest of your body feel when you wake up?