As I've gotten more into cooking as I've gotten older it's frustrating how often people don't really understand why they do things the way they do when they cook something, yet will doggedly insist that it must be done that certain way. As I've started to watch more and pay attention to youtubers who explain why they do things in a logical and rational way, even if you're not interested in that particular recipe, the correctly explained and justified techniques will be beneficial in many other things you cook.
The problem is the pros do this all the time as well. There are plenty of top chefs that were taught something when they were young and they continue to do it and preach it despite evidence that it’s not true.
There are also cases where the thing the chefs were doing was correct, even if they didn't know why or had the wrong reason. This is both the pro and the con of tradition-based crafts.
Anyway where were they even to get this information? Kenji has been influential the last few years, and he builds very heavily off of McGee, which came out in the mid 80s. It's been only like two generations of chefs here since evidence like this was even partially available.
Before that, and still mostly, the intersection of science and cooking is driven by the needs of the industrial food system. Whether you can apply that to restaurant cooking probably depends a lot on your personal background and skill set, but most cooks I've worked with would be lost trying to read an academic food science paper and apply it to their work. I definitely would be.
That's a big part of the problem. Another issue is they're working in professional kitchens, and things aren't the same as they are for a home cook. Yes there are things a home cook can learn from pro kitchens, but a lot of other things don't translate.
One thing I love about folks like Kenji, Brown, Gritzer, McGee, Cooks Illustrated, et al is they approach their experiments from the perspective of a reasonable home kitchen.
Meanwhile the top comment here is prefaced with "I'm not super pro-union (plenty of mess there)". I genuinely believe Americans- especially upper-middle class workers like HN visitors- are the subject of a mass disinformation campaign against organized labor.
Most of the stronger conviction anti-union comments I’ve seen on HN are about personal experience. “Mass disinformation campaign” seems like an easy handwave where you don’t acknowledge that unions could have any downsides.
And I know for sure there is at least one trucker on here, I seent it, not sure where that is on the income spectrum, dang-sure not SV money though (is it?).
Good for you I guess. Virtually no one has the privilege of being able to just quit their their shitty job and take a risk like that but nice if you can.
HR is generally seen as being anti-employee, in the sense that the reason they exist is to protect the company (legally speaking) by managing its relationships, benefits, compensation, etc., with employees, and this often pits the company's interests against those of the employees.
It's quite silly for anyone to see HR this way in the first place. They get paid by the employer. Union execs get paid by employees. Figure out which is pro employee.
Depends on which union, really. Corruption is a real problem in some of them, and in others the will to fight is weak or state laws make them much less powerful.
Interesting. I guess the appeal of "Roast Jupiter" might be related to (what SMBC calls) the Detroit rule [1]. Or the logical next step after the Deep-fried Mars bar.
Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug and is regularly prescribed to humans. Sure, it probably doesn't do anything for covid but it's not just 'horse dewormer'.
You can remove the "probably". The manufacturer of Ivermectin states there is no scientific evidence [0] supporting the use of the drug for COVID-19. So much for the notion some espouse that "Big Pharma" pushes their drugs on us without fail.
It's a pity that the whole issue has become politicized, but that's modern times for you. That's why ivermectin is called 'horse dewormer' rather than simply a medicine for parasite infections with a number of human applications. It's a term like 'XXXX denier' which is used to tie a political adversary to concentration camps by playing on our disgust or fears.
Does it do anything for COVID? Dunno. Should it be a discussable matter without internet censorship and crazy people twitterstorms? Maybe. Am I sick of being propagandized by everyone? Yes.
If you're so certain that ivermectin doesn't do anything for COVID-19 then you ought to let the NIH know. They're currently running a huge clinical trial on it.
I mean, stop repeatedly voting for blatantly corrupt parties, for one.
The current LNP are so actively corrupt with their corporate interests, religious interests, repeated exposed in-house scandals, etc, yet the majority of the population continue to vote for them because they ignore it all and just keep supporting 'their team'. The Labor government tries to suggest that they're different, and end up with their own dramas of a similar style, but are kind of not as bad. Kind of.
There are other options out there, but we're all lead to believe that only the 'big parties' can form government. Which only remains true due to the self-fulfilling prophecy of people only voting en masse for the big two parties (and the preference system that funnels votes into those parties).
The likelihood of that changing? Low.
The other solution would be to dismantle the corporate media monopoly that glosses over the actual issues the country is facing, but that's probably even less likely to happen.
I suspect until just recently it was because of the negative gearing policies, but now that Labor has officially scrapped any changes I feel like the differences between the parties gets thinner and thinner.
3 things.
1. People always look after their back pocket. Any policy that reduce income or wealth is a vote loser
2. Rupert Murdoch owns a majority of print and TV media and has extreme bias for the conservative govt. People do not see any other viewpoints.
3. Extreme divide between rural and urban population. It is impossible to satisfy both. A pro-climate change policy in urban Sydney is a vote killer in regional Queensland.
Organize people who think similarly to you. Turn them in to activists who run for office, pressure politicians, protest, lobby and vote. I know “pressure groups” or “special interests” or whatever they call it in Australia are always derided. But people form these groups for a reason.
In Australia people are compelled to vote, so the problem looks like the majority having a different take. Not that I agree with their votes, but you can’t say they don’t vote.
Ultimately what is one supposed to do in a democracy (never mind Australia for a moment) when you’re just not part of the majority opinion on something?
> Ultimately what is one supposed to do in a democracy (never mind Australia for a moment) when you’re just not part of the majority opinion on something?
I think the only option is to emigrate. I didn’t and still don’t agree with most of the government policies in The Netherlands (regarding immigration, climate, EU, etc), but most Dutch voters apparently do. Eventually the best option is just to cut your losses and leave for greener pastures.
At least this way I am not forced anymore to have my hard earned money taxed on issues I don’t support.
I moved from Australia to the Netherlands as well and felt the same about not having my tax dollars directed where I didn't want them to go. I unfortunately had to move back to Australia and now get to watch my tax dollars flow to the richest companies (including foreign luxury brands) thanks to Jobkeeper.
Actually I moved from The Netherlands to Thailand, since I don't like the way things are going in The Netherlands :)
If you do hope to move to The Netherlands in the future, if you believe it's a better place for you, I hope you can succeed. I would agree based on the news from Australia, that The Netherlands seems the better option of the two.
In spite of the tendency for part of the US electorate to wish to federalize all government functions, there's still a lot of difference between US states.
That seems to work out pretty well. It isn't like California is identical to Arizona, at least currently.
Well, I think that's where individual rights and a constitution is supposed to help. If at least you enjoy the rights you get, there's that. Maybe you disagree with how best to run the country so it can protect those rights, but at least you'd have them. And then you could argue that if a majority thinks one way, it might be right even if you disagree.
Otherwise, I forgot which philosopher said this, but the only real freedom is the freedom to choose where to live and the choice of many places with different viewpoints and social norms. That way each individual could pick what matched their preference best and move there.
Unfortunately the freedom to choose where to live is not really something the world provides. So you might be stuck where you are, but if you're lucky, you might manage to get into another place you prefer.
If that doesn't work, your last resort is the activist route. Make your case and change people's mind. It's happened in the past, but it's a tough road.
But the only way to realise that gain is to downsize or move out of town. And neither of those options is easy, because of restrictions on development and redevelopment.
The culture helps too. In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong. Just ask the Australian Indians.
Fun fact: Māori people had the right to vote in Australia from the start, Aboriginal Australians (just how racist are they when there is no word in Australia for the first people?) did not get that right until 1967.
While many people think that the Referendum gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote, this wasn’t the case. Aboriginal people could vote at the state level before Federation in 1901; Queensland and Western Australia being the only states that expressly prevented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from voting.
It wasn’t until 1962, when the electoral act was amended, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were given the right to register and vote, but voting was not compulsory. Full voting rights were not granted federally until Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were required to register on the electoral roll in 1984. ...
When the Constitution first came into being in 1901 there were only two parts that referred to the First Peoples of Australia: Section 51 (xxvi) gave the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to ‘people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws’; and Section 127 provided that ‘in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. ...
On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution so that like all other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws for them. A resounding 90.77 per cent said ‘Yes’ and every single state and territory had a majority result for the ‘Yes’ vote.
Democracy is not majority rules. Democracy is rule by the people. Minorities matter too, and if minorities are railroaded by majorities it is not much of a democracy.
Voting is important, but much more important is the rule of and access to the law.
"Australian Indians" means the same thing as "Australian Aborigines" Indian and Aborigine are synonyms.
You schooled me on the right to vote! My prejudice leaked out!! I will not let it become bigotry. But I think it is at the federal level. At federation (I thought it was 1905) they really wanted NZ to be a state, and in NZ Māori electorate was a thing, not a particularly democratic thing, but a thing. So to make NZ a state Māori had to able to vote at a federal level.
Hi. "Democracy is rule by the people" - well, I know enough to know that it's not any one thing, or captured by any one definition. How that one differs from "majority rules" I'm not sure. Anyway. Let's not get into that here.
> "Australian Indians" means the same thing as "Australian Aborigines" Indian and Aborigine are synonyms.
Uh I'm not sure where you are, but in Australia it sure doesn't mean that. No-one here calls aborigines "Indians", and far as I know never has.
Hehe it's ok, I think most Australians probably believe that 1967 thing, if they know the date at all, I'm not sure why. The truth is somewhat complicated.
Gee, I had no idea NZ was involved in the pre-Federation conferences in Australia, although sounds like NZ just wasn't very into it. A wise decision!
The continent was home to a very large number of difference language groups and languages prior to settlement. There is not one common demonym - in southeast Australia "Koori" is often used, but more commonly people are referred to by the language group to which they belong (eg an Arrernte man).
Compulsory voting with good preference system already in place which means we have a ~90-97% participation rate.
>Protest - particularly direct action
Agree, but increasing using/changing laws to reduce this (declaring environment activists as "terror" groups).
>Challenge them
Not even sure what this means exactly but more people are organizing support for independents/minority parties over the major two. This combined with the ability to form minority governments I think is the best chance for progressive change, but a lot of money is being spent to keep the status quo.
I recently read an article in which protesters were fined thousands of dollars for violating "health codes". A country who cannot allow protest is no free country at all.
The right to protest during a pandemic is dubious, in direct conflict with other peoples rights. It is also self defeating, when the majority consider the protesters arseholes for willfully endangering the general community and don't get around to considering the actual issue being protested.
If other people aren't afraid of the virus, you have no right to stop them; it's their choice. Now maybe you could argue you have a right to keep them out of your house, or your personal space, if you don't want to be infected, but you have absolutely no right to stop them meeting on the street far from you.
> You do so have a right to take measures for public health, which may well involve arresting people who ignore the necessary measures.
Do you even understand what a right means? Rights, be it as defined by the US constitution or the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are inherent moral rights, it's not something the government can freely suspend based on some arbitrary utilitarian justification like case numbers. The whole point of those declarations of rights is protecting people from authoritarian governments; if the government has the power to suspend those rights, you have no rights!
Tell me in which declaration of rights is there a right to have armed police attack and lock up people peacefully assembling on the street?
And if you don't believe in rights, believe anything is moral as long as an elected government makes it law, then consider this. Would you still feel that way if the democratically elected government decided it was okay to rape worik's wife/daughter/mother? Would you still feel that way if the democratically elected government decided worik's ethnic group should be sent to gas chambers for cleansing? If not, then clearly you do believe in absolute rights.
What the hell? Nobody sitting at home in their house has the right to prevent other people meeting peacefully on the street. People like you are what's wrong with Australia, you authoritarian monster! Nobody has the right to stop other people meeting because they might spread a virus to eachother with a 99%+ survival rate that might somehow eventually find its way back to them.
Willfully violating health orders endangers others, who are forced to share public spaces. As a community, we decided the law to protect ourselves (security of person) and the vulnerable (the people who don't have a 99% survival rate if they catch COVID; the immunosuppressed, the elderly, the chronically ill). Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are entitled to security of person and protection by the law. And yes, it also declares several articles further down the right to protest. So the rights are in direct conflict.
It is also worth noting that people can still protest. They just can't do it while violating health orders. Yelling maskless at police on lockdown days is going to get you arrested. Other protests on non-lockdown days with people maintaining social distancing have proceeded fine apart from grumpy words and fear mongering by politicians.
Dudes strongmen literally attempt to kill the (15 year old) kid which can be seen in another video, so you know the act cuts deep as a form of protest...
