“Woods family reunion” is a good one.

Big log.

I used to be really into cars in the late 90’s. But I got into other stuff since, and car stuff kinda fell off my radar.

Last week I read an article talking about how automatic transmissions are up to like 8 gears on average. And cars seem so computerized now, I’m wondering whether the old mechanical systems for things like variable valve timing have just given way to totally electronic systems.

What can you tell me about what has happened since, say, 2000, in regular ICE cars?

Wouldn’t you want to know what these texts are saying?

They aren’t saying what you think they are saying.

Can you give an example? This sounds intriguing.

Like many others, I jumped on the sourdough bandwagon in 2020, but fell off sometime during the year after that.

But a friend of mine stuck with it, and expanded into sourdough pizza doughs for NY style or Neapolitan style pizzas in his backyard pizza oven. He had a bunch of us over today, and I don’t think I understood everything he was saying (he was doing 60% hydration for 00 flour, but stuff I didn’t quite catch about when to knead/rest), but I can say that the pizzas he was making were delicious, and he made it seem so effortless to stretch the dough out to around 14 inch (35cm) diameter. And it was kinda infectious to see his enthusiasm for something he’d been churning away at for the last few years, explaining a bunch of things to a bunch of friends gathered around, and just having a great time on a Sunday afternoon.

So a bunch of us are probably gonna try our hands at the same thing, and form a bit of an amateur pizza group, texting our successes and failures to each other.

And the comment-section on those type of post isn’t the right place for a “philosophical” discussions that would otherwise be on topic for that sub/community, but exactly align with topic of that post or news article.

Can you explain why you believe this? I’ve always understood deep dives into the topic or context or general issues raised by an article to be fair game, whether we’re talking the comments on the news article itself, a link on Reddit, a link on Hacker News, a link on a vBulletin/phpBB forum, or even old newsgroup/listserv discussions.

Reddit’s decision to start allowing “self” posts that were only links back to the comments thread itself (showing just how link-centered the design of reddit originally was, that every post had to have a link to something) came after the discussions around links became robust enough to support comments-first threads.

I know, right? I think some of the answers in this thread are wild.

People are allowed to have their own hygiene boundaries, but some of the views in this thread seem fundamentally incompatible with dancing with other people.

If you think that society was friendlier to trans people in 1999 compared to 2024, you are mistaken.

Ha, ok, I definitely got whooshed then.

It’s the meme format:

“Men will literally (something) but not go to therapy”

People who use it don’t necessarily endorse the original view, but are making fun of it.

As of last year, English Wikipedia, articles only, text only, was about 22GB compressed (text compresses pretty efficiently), according to the current version of this page:

As of 2 July 2023, the size of the current version of all articles compressed is about 22.14 GB without media

Some other sources describe the uncompressed offline copies as being around 50 GB, with another 100 GB or so for images.

Wikimedia, which includes all the media types, has about 430 TB of media stored.

The populist message has always done so well regardless of political party because we all see how broken the system is and candidates like Obama, Sanders, and even Trump capitalize on that message to win hearts and minds.

I don’t think it’s correct to describe the populist message as overwhelmingly successful. Sanders didn’t win. Trump won once and lost once (and in fact lost the popular vote both times). We can trace back a bunch of other populists who failed, too.

The nuts and bolts of elections and campaigns tend to reward coalition builders. Populists with no establishment allies tend not to do well (note that Obama courted the popularity of the masses at the same time that he was locking up endorsements from the Democratic Party’s old guard, including Biden, Byrd, Kennedy, and Dodd).

Humans tend to sort themselves into coalitions, led by organizations. Popularity is a feedback loop, and the fickle public can and does change their collective mind over whether someone is beloved or not.

I’m going to come at this from my own ethical and moral framework, and try to explain myself well enough to allow you to either agree or clearly see where we disagree.

I’ve always been of the mindset that if you have a good product, shockingly little marketing is required.

Marketing creates value in an ethical way when it helps match supply to demand, and reduces search friction for mutually beneficial transactions. Those mutually beneficial transactions distribute resources in a way that increases the overall utility in a society.

Thus, ethical marketing is still useful in an economy or specific markets where searching is difficult or costly. Plenty of useful products languish on the vine, and need consumer discovery in order to succeed.

As an example, some of my favorite restaurants I’ve ever eaten at have been forced to throw away food when there has been insufficient dining volume to use all those ingredients. Sometimes it’s happened enough that the restaurant fails as a business. And restaurants as an industry are terrible with getting their product known to the public. So there’s probably some benefit there in the act of marketing, advertising, and sales for those restaurants.

If you have your own ethical guideposts on which industries produce products that suffer from that problem (good product that
insufficient people know about, where producers are struggling), maybe focusing in on those fields/industries could be productive.