SirEDCaLot

People who I used to think were smart and empathetic were jumping on the “fuck your feelings” bandwagon.

I don't know your friends. But I'd argue there's at least some reasoning for this.
If trade policies like globalization have harmed your economic status, offshoring a lot of the jobs you'd previously held, and you were having trouble feeding your family, wouldn't you vote for the person you thought could fix this? Wouldn't you say 'fuck your feelings, I need to feed my family so I'm sorry if you have trouble putting the sex you want on your passport I'm more worried about feeding my family'? At least in concept?

I think that's where a lot of that sentiment came from. The people of the nation are hurting, and part of Trump's message always was 'I see you hurting and I want to fix it'. Dems are totally tone deaf in their messaging. A huge % of the populace gets left out of the 'American Dream' and they say nothing. And in recent years they focus a lot on social justice issues and identity politics while ignoring the elephant in the room. It's why those good people are saying fuck your feelings (IMHO at least), because if the choice is your feelings or their livelihood, then of course they'll tell your feelings to shove off.

Of course it didn't work out that way- government cutbacks, tariffs, foreign policy, all handled in such a ham-fisted non-strategic way that whatever benefit might have been gained was instead lost. And now it's the little guy suffering, so you see a lot of people renouncing their votes.

All I'm saying is keep in mind some of those people who said 'fuck your feelings' thought they were fighting for a greater good. I don't believe they turned malicious. Some did I'm sure, but not all of them.

This thread got me thinking a little more about Mr. Davis.

We talk about 'not tolerating intolerance' but I think there's a second level-- there's the intolerance (the actions of the racist), and then there's the intolerant (the racists themselves). It's easy and simple to group the two together- we don't want racism, we don't want the KKK, we don't want KKK members, all of you go fuck yourselves with your burning cross and go die in a fire (preferably in another county).

I don't think Mr. Davis would tolerate intolerance any more than you or I. But I think what he does is tolerate the intolerant person, engage them in conversation, treat them like a human being. And THAT can help fix intolerance- by reaching out to the intolerant people and trying to bring them into the larger community and heal them, rather than shunning them and reinforcing their stereotypes.

It's BY tolerating it (or more specifically, the people who espouse it) that he fights it.

And I think that's the key difference- tolerating intolerance (the action), vs tolerating the intolerant (the people).

I think we would all (probably including Mr. Davis) agree that the action of intolerance should not be tolerated. For example, if a local movie theater wants to have 'whites only' movie nights, that should not be tolerated and in fact we should all aggressively fight back against such things wherever they happen.

But what of the intolerant person? What of the theater owner in the above example? Should we run him out of town? Tar and feather him? Refuse to talk to him?
The KKK folks he encountered are used to intolerance- threats, shouting, protests, etc. They know they're not popular, but that helps feed the belief that they are right. They're used to it. They're NOT used to being welcomed by anti-racists.

And thus Mr. Davis got through to the racist- by tolerating the intolerant, not by tolerating intolerance. It's a subtle but vital difference.

Which would have been a fantastic idea. Hang out at that place, ideally have a few weeks of groceries stocked up, so you can just hang out there and watch TV and not have to leave or be seen. Then you basically don't leave for a few weeks, at which point a lot of the hoopla will have blown over and your surveillance photo won't be on every TV screen.

Or if he wants more distance, get rid of the freaking evidence. Makes no sense that he would have such a good escape plan, and yet not have thought through what might happen if someone recognized him a.

I'm not saying he's dumb for eating. I'm saying he's dumb for walking around days later with a 'convict me kit' on his back. That's what doesn't make sense to me.

This guy obviously didn't get that memo

But here's what doesn't make sense to me. The guy is fucking smart, smart enough that he can literally shoot someone in broad daylight and escape the city. And then he turns up in a fucking McDonald's with a backpack full of evidence. Those two things do not jive together. If he was that smart, the gun (or more specifically, all the parts that make up the gun disassembled) and everything else he had with him, including clothing would be in random trash cans and dumpsters all over the state by the time they caught him. Or burned. You aren't smart enough to evade the entire American law enforcement apparatus for over a day, while also being dumb enough to walk around in public with a slam dunk conviction in your bag. Unless you want to be caught.

Point is, the whole thing stinks a bit to me.

This is true.

My partner and I are currently having a laugh because a couple years back I bought a fancy expensive set of ceramic coated pans. Best ones on offer in the store at the time. Coating applied with plasma vapor at 40,000°F or some such nonsense, hard as diamond, good for use with metal utensils, coating guaranteed for life, yada yada. Good brand too (Calphalon). I said the tech on these is amazing and the coating has insane hardness and it will last forever. Partner laughed and said I fell for marketing BS, all non stick pans degrade.

Guess what happened? The nonstick ceramic coating started rubbing off in some places. I'm quite annoyed. Partner laughs at me.

Meanwhile go on YouTube and there's videos of people restoring cast iron skillets from the 1800s to like-new condition.

Glad to help :)

Metal hot. Make food hot.

Think a bit deeper. How quickly is that heat transferred, and at what peak temperatures? Does the metal keep any heat of its own and impart that into the food, or does it just convey the heat from the burner to the food? And how quickly does it do that?

but my wife seems to think cast-iron is necessary for certain things (searing a prime rib roast, for example.).

Look at the thermal mechanics of this.

Take the cast iron pot. You can throw that on the stove and let it get ripping hot, like the metal itself is carrying a ton of heat energy. When you put the prime rib in it, the metal dumps its heat into the meat much faster than a flame alone would. This helps you get a strong sear on the outside, without dumping in too much total quantity of heat to cook the meat on the inside more than you want.

then I gotta figure out gas vs. electric vs. induction vs infrared…

Heat can be transferred 3 ways- conduction (flows between two touching objects), convection (hot object heats air, air blows against cold object, air heats cold object) and radiation (hot object radiates energy through space and it warms cold object).

Electric- coils get hot, the pan touching the coils transfers heat by conduction. Downside is uneven heating- neither the pan nor the coils is perfectly flat so you get hot spots.

Infrared- coils under the glass get hot and radiate heat through the glass. This works pretty well.

Induction- coils under the glass but they don't get hot. Instead they create a magnetic field modulated at low radio frequencies (15-150 KHz). This fluctuating magnetic field interacts with any ferrous metal close to it, creating small but powerful eddy currents inside the metal and thus heating the metal up. So the stove doesn't create any heat at all, it's the pan that actually gets hot. This by the way is neither conduction convection nor radiation, because heat isn't being transferred, it's created inside the pot.

Gas- flammable gas (usually propane or natural gas, which is mostly methane) burns creating high temperature exhaust gases that rise against the pot and thus heat the pot. Many chefs like this. Gas stoves should ideally be used with an overhead hood as gas stoves have been proven to drastically reduce indoor air quality.

Of the options- induction is usually the best these days, because it's the most efficient, cleanest, and also in many cases has the highest output (in terms of watts of heat pumped into the pot).

When cooking, you want a stove capable of very high output. The more output you have, the faster it will boil water for example.

I couldn't agree more. Acting like a million dollar company is important.

A million dollar company would recognize that reliable, continuous production and sales is more important to growth than the occasional hickup or a few extra bucks in the payroll budget. Thus, the million dollar company would hire sufficient staff that an occasional absence, even at a critical moment, would not harm production or sales.

And a million dollar company would recognize that hiring sufficient staff is a wiser and more cost effective strategy than a possible labor lawsuit along with the associated bad PR.

Exactly!

If releasing a list of people who raped children would hurt those people, then I say too fucking bad maybe they need to be hurt a little bit.