many people would say: don’t put knives in the dishwasher at all.
Meaning, good kitchen knives...tableware is fine. But kitchen knives (slicers, dicers, etc) depend on very thin foils at the blade edge. The chemicals and heat involved in dishwashers can damage the blade.
(this is only marginally resolved by using serrated knives...those may not be damaged by dishwashers as much, but I have yet to find one that works as well as a pretty good kitchen knife that is even marginally maintained)
And all of this is culture coded and may vary for your specific location or subtype of bar.
Absolutely. Although I’ll mention that I’ve had good luck with this general approach in various parts (both geographically and demographically) of the United States, Western Europe, and at least one part of Eastern Europe. But, I’d like to reinforce:
A general safe way to go is to observe what other people do.
This is absolutely the best advice...but be careful to observe the right people. Observe the people who seem to get drinks “effortlessly” (rather than the people who are more aggressive...they create a visual nuisance that makes them more noticeable, thus more “observable” by someone who is new to a situation).
Many people seem to act as if there is an objectively best drink to order. But I would guess that is wrong. Feel free to try.
Again, totally true. However, I’d say that there can be times where there is an objectively “wrong” drink to order. Nothing is absolute, of course. But, don’t order martinis in a crowded dive bar, for example. Don’t order a Jaeger Bomb at an elegant cocktail lounge. I mean, by all means, DO order those. Just keep in mind that some places might actually refuse, or it might simply be seen as socially awkward.
There are many who believe that the key to better hair is NOT using as much shampoo. Use as little as possible in order to not have greasy hair. This takes time to master. Some people need a full scrub every day. Some people need almost nothing. The homeostatis of your scalp is the key: using less shampoo should, over time, make your scalp produce less oil.
I’m down to a point where I go a day or two rinsing only, sometimes just a little bit of extra soap from when I washed my neck. When I wash my hair, I use very little shampoo...the bare minimum. Then, a few times a year I really wash it (and then it’s all crazy for a few days).
note: I should point out that I do not appear any less “groomed” than the next guy, except when I procrastinate about getting a haircut. I have extensive client contact at work in a somewhat-trendy architecture firm, etc.
Dove Bar, unscented/sensative skin. I’m not a “product” guy but that’s one product I highly recommend. A little extra attention at armpits, neck, feet, and of course the vitals, goes a long way.
IMPORTANT: deoderant. There are unscented brands, and delicate ones too. The “crystal” works for some, but I find it works in winter but not in summer (too hot, and the deoderant fails me, so I switch to an unscented antipersperant).
IMPORTANT: you can shower and deoderant all you want: you must wear fresh clothing. Fresh tshirt, socks, and underwear every day (the overshirt and pants you can wear multiple times). Synthetics stink more than cottons/wools: body oder bacteria can actually feed on the plastics in fleece, bras, socks, etc. Wash undergarments regularly, and wear cotton socks.
I spend more time than I should at bars (I like my sports, and don’t own a TV..), and I’ve developed a few rules of thumb:
I never say “keep the change”...but I often say “I’m all set, thanks” if I hand them a $20 for $18 of drinks, (or $17..) for example. “I’m all set” has the same effective meaning as “keep the change”, but without the connotations.
Overtip...in moderation. Standard American fare: $1 per drink. If you order 3 drinks, tip 3 dollars. If you order 8 drinks at once, it depends. If you ordered 8 bottles of Bud, you could tip $5-$6...if you ordered 8 mixed drinks, $8-$10. If you order 1 drink at a time, but stay for a while and order a handful of drinks, consider occasionally tossing in an extra dollar now and then. (an $18 martini sometimes, but not always, merits $2 for one drink...it depends. If the bartender is aloof and self important, I only tip $1)
Women often tip less than men. NOTE: this varies WIDELY, in both how it’s done and how people react to it. A bunch of single girls at a bar will often order 3-4 drinks, and leave a dollar. In some places that’s “the cost of doing business”, in others it will get you worse service over time (I’ll point out that there’s a countervailing trend where some women type MORE than men, in part because some of their peers tip less...it’s confusing)
Ordering: get up to the bar, make your presence know as subtly as possible 4.a. hand on the bar with two fingers slightly extended, like a half-hearted peace sign, or with money/card in the hand but not flagrantly displayed
4.b. eye contact. Watch the bartender...as he/she turns and scans, give a nod, raise the eyebrows, like in a quiet cordial non-vocal greeting)…
but then BE PATIENT.
Once you’ve registered your presence, they will mentally que you up and come to you in your turn. Be ready to order, or have minimal questions. (note: obviously this will fail sometimes..start subtle, and increase efforts bit by bit...waving or “excuse me” is a last resort)
be quick, friendly, humble, quick, curteous, and quick. Not servile...just, cordially professional. If you want to throw in humor or more interaction, do it while they are pouring your drink. Don’t slow down the process by making the joke stand on it’s own
When ordering: Speak clearly...enunciate, (slightly) exagerrate lip movement...these people are professionals and will try to read your lips if it’s noisy.
When ordering: know what you want (as much as is possible). If you order “vodka and x___” be prepared to answer type of vodka (or whatever alcohol is involved). If you don’t know what brand, say “I don’t know...whatever’s good” and you’ll probably get a standard brand. If you say “I don’t care” you’ll usually get “well” which is the cheapest (but some “scene” places will give you something expensive). If you actually don’t care, say “house” or “well”...sometimes this will taste bad, but it’s cheaper.
If there’s space, belly up to the bar! (as you see fit) If it’s crowded, don’t insist on having to have full shoulder width at the bar. Stand perpendicular, lean in on your elbow to order, etc
Other things to look out for: -guys, don’t necessarily tip cute waitresses more. I mean, by all means feel free. But it gets silly sometimes -guys, if the waitress/bartender is cute in...specific visual ways… do make an effort to look up at her face when you are talking to her -girls, if you tip less, fine. But don’t be stingy “just because you can get away with it”
[note: this post is making me want to reassess my lifestyle. ooof]
I thought it was a Marxist parable, or something of the sort...an allegorical critique of capitalism, supervalue, the elite exploiting the masses.
I must be in a bad mood because of the Cathie Black situation in NYC...where the “giants” are the democratic masses, who protested against the natural orators of our government…
Last night was a “change of humor that would come over the giants”… a “brusque refusal”...but in the end the middle/lower classes “seemed nevertheless to be charged with nourishing them and housing them and transporting them, and who eventually carried out their duties, provided they were prayed to” (the “praying” being only the making of promises, “I stand for the middle class”, “we’ll create jobs for you”, “think of the children!!11!!1!”).
The masses do, at times, crush the endeavors of the orators (more than one reference to Egypt was made last night)...but for the most part the giant masses do what they are told, as long as they hear the right things, and have a cookie or a coo tossed to them now and then.
I freely admit taking too much liberty with all of that...but it really is what I was thinking about as I read it.
An interesting concept...but I wonder. I bet at least some people would actually notice that. They’d see unrest in the middle east and say “hmm...oil prices didn’t change the way I expected them to” or something. Sometimes you see things like ” index rises in spite of ”.
I think Graham’s inference has merit: these people don’t really know what’s happening...but I think some people at least would notice the anomoly.
“IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control”
But just because a team does not win, does not mean it was not possible.
I mean, think of all the things that a person does multiple times but doesn’t do every time. Hit a golf ball x yards, run a 7 minute mill, sing on key. The “imagining” has nothing to do with it.
Wow that’s interesting...but really weird.
What if you have a firm conviction that betting is immoral?
Then, you prove your belief by NOT betting.
I think the “betting proof” is a cultural thing. Of course...I wouldn’t bet much on that.
maybe, as ninjacolin describes, you have to stand up once BEFORE you fall down. So, in fact, to end up standing, you MUST stand up one more time than you fall down (unless you assume that everyone starts out standing, which they don’t).
Is that what the proverb means? Not necessarilly… but the math isn’t wrong.
And there is why it seems not entirely rational to discuss what is and isn’t funny...Shokwave believes that he has rationally shown that “Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny. You have used his same logic to demonstrate that it IS funny.
I personally don’t think it’s funny, as delivered. But, with the right delivery, it could be hilarious, I suppose.
I’m fascinated by the rational discussion of “the nature of funny”, by the way. I was opining on the discussion of “the objective funniness of a particular joke”.
“What we don’t understand, we ought to rationally analyze....”
Absolutely. And what “our best guess” imples to me is that we don’t fully understand “funny” or “joke” or “comedy” So we ought to rationally analyze that issue. What I feel you did there was you took your interpretation of “our best guess” as good enough and moved forward with unequivocated confidence to apply it to a joke that someone wrote. I feel like there is a procedural lapse there. You were anayzing The Joke At Hand, while admitting that we do not really understand “jokes in the abstract”.
Thus: we don’t understand what makes certain bird sounds pleasing to people, but I am going to make an unequivocated statement that this bird sound is objectively not pleasing, based on our best guess.
anyway...
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” … is the only conclusion you can draw from Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”.
You are assuming a causality that the “being” creates the “thinking”. One could also assume that the thinking creates the being, which is where the joke forms.
I personally think it’s neither: “thinking” is evidence of “being”, the causality being ambiguous.
“Nope”
Isn’t it not entirely rational to declare something so unequivocally, based on:
“Our best guess...”?
A. I’m not sure I agree that humor is simply unexpected pattern breaking. I’m sure there’s a link that elaborates that theory? There are many aspects of humor, and I think breaking it down to such a blanket statement is probably too simplistic. (I do agree that’s certainly part of it).
B. Even if your statement is correct, you are then also implying that it is purely objective what it funny, and thus purely objective what the patterns are and how they are to be broken. Patterns to you might not be patterns to me. Or we might see the same pattern, and you might not find breaking it funny, but I do. Or I might find breaking the pattern offensive while you find it neutral. Or you might expect it and I might not. Or you might understand it while I don’t.
Because of A and B, I think that “funny” is subjective. People can rationally discuss why they think something is funny...but I don’t think they can discuss it in the context of “that is ojectively unfunny”. You are implying that you know all the patterns, and can comment on whether the pattern was successfully borken in that instance.
Or rather: you can rationally analyze why that joke wasn’t funny TO YOU, but you can’t rationally analyze why it WAS NOT funny.
If I rephrase my bird issue: it’s like rationally analyzing that bird sounds are or are not pleasing. (you’re right that I phrased it sloppily).
As for
“The joke was definitely not “Descartes died thus stopped thinking”
I might misunderstand, but I thought that’s what you said:
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny.
(although I’m not sure this aspect of it is important to the bigger issue of “funny”)
There is substantial literature that suggests that language acquisition is more difficult, slower, and ultimately less successful in adults than in younger people. I believe it’s often mentioned that it’s at about 12-14 yrs old that the neural plasticity for language acquisition fades. http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test4materials/secondlangacquisition.htm http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web2/mtucker.html
I never said that it’s impossible for an adult to learn a foreign language, just not as fast or effective. That man’s blog seems interesting...but I’m quite skeptical that he becomes “fluent” in a language in 2-3 months. I’d be interested to see how fluent he actually is (nevermind the similarities between several of those languages, which aids in acquisition...I’ve experienced that first hand). Then again, maybe he’s an unusual case.
“1.The best people enter fields that accurately measure their quality. Fields that measure quality poorly attract low quality.”
I would edit it thus:
A- “Fields that measure quality poorly retain low quality, and repel The Best People.” (The Best People will get fed up and leave)
and a related:
B- “People of varying quality enter fields that reflect a lot of different things, low on the list of which is how that field measures quality. High on the list would be how that field is compensated.” (in all the variations of “compensation”: monetary, social status, secondary characteristics, ease of entry, ease of continuation, ease of exit strategy, duration to exit, do the chicks/men dig it, do the parents approve, etc....). There is a huge incentive to enter a field that measure quality poorly, but compensates the entrant well.
(this is somewhat related to the “public school teachers” comment already made, but I thought that reply veered into something else)
“Peak travel in the US will lead naturally to changes in urban design as people reduce regular travel to increase leisure travel: 53%”
Could you elaborate on this some?
There are various processes underway that are already affecting urban, suburban, and exurban design...some of them are “style” and “trend”, some of them are result of the cost:benefit experiment that the last 20-30 yrs of housing development has been (always is, to be fair), some a result of fear or gas prices or the viability of the airline industry.
I’m curious what you see coming out of the interplay of regular travel v. liesure travel...
I’m sure someone will point out if I am incorrect here, but:
Isn’t it somewhat irrational to analyze why a joke isn’t funny? Isn’t it sortof like trying to use a rational analysis to demonstrate that you should or should not like the sound of birds?
I mean, hey now, c’mon.
( In any case, the joke wasn’t “Descarte died thus stopped thinking”. )
But an adult will never learn second languages faster than a child, and in fact will never learn a first language at all if not during childhood.
The same is true with sports. I imagine that if an adult has never learned to walk (somehow) that it would take a lot longer than a few months to learn to walk (a newborn doesn’t take years to learn to walk...he/she takes years to build muscle strength, and then typically a short time to learn to walk and then immediately run).
I think we all wish McWilliams was correct...I just don’t think he is.
I definitely like this statement...but I am not sure I agree with it.
Much learning is passive and not a result of wanting or even trying. And, a skillful teacher can cause learning (and by extension education) to happen without the student wanting to learn, or knowing that he/she is learning.
I suppose there is a specific distinction between “education” and “learning”, although I am not sure if it functionally boils down to this.
Technically off-topic...but I’ve never understood why people think turkeys can’t fly. I’ve even seen an ornithologist quoted in the NYTimes saying it (when a live turkey was found on an upper level balcony). Maybe it’s just domesticated turkeys...but I’ve definitely seen wild turkeys fly (and no, it’s got nothing to do with the whiskey).
Which brings me to an interesting (to me) question: why do people base a piece of “wisdom” on a reference that is untrue to begin with?
[and in closing: You don’t win friends with salad.]
But curiosity can also be like R&D, and the funding of basic research, which can have huge payoffs that are unexpected compared to what they were originally targeted for.
Curiosity should at times be targeted, but if you are too targeted you can miss a lot of stuff, for example: how things work. Not “a thing”. But “things”, in general. In order to be good at life you need to know a wide variety of things, in order to be able to generate your own overall fabric of how the world works.
Also, being too targeted makes you boring.