I don’t get the sense that this is a problem in countries where accumulation of wealth and property as a show of power and success is the ultimate goal
also, recalling from memory, standedge argues that the early perspective on wine was that it was simply a higher order of beer. it makes sense because there earliest beers were not hopped and would probably profile similarly to wine.
however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)
i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.
> ... when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1.
Did you mean 2:1 water:wine? If you meant 1:2 water:wine, then 1:1 would be weaker and I'm not sure how that would show wealth more than stronger wine.
i definitely phrased it awkwardly (and incorrectly, upon the 3rd read) and, upon re-reading it, it is confusing to me as well
i was trying to say that i read that it was a show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 50% diluted, but that the norm was to serve 1 part wine to 2 parts water. thank you for the clarification.
No, the ancients tended to be very exact with their beer/wine distinctions. There's separate English words for beer, wine, mead, herbed beer, herbed mead, fruited mead, cider, fruited cider, and so one.
that's really good information. do you have sources on that? i was just citing the one i'd read but i'm happy to learn more - i'm fascinated by these sorts of things.
i’m currently just using a nextdns profile after using adguard for a long time. i switched because i hoped that i would stop getting the annoying admiral modals telling me to turn off my ad blocker. do any of the these solutions trick the anti adblock solutions?
the point was good until you tried to compare it to lead in the air. there are a few factors that make it impossible to use the same argument between lead in the air and fluoride in the water
yes, and i think that’s a pretty recent reading of the US comprehension of freedom. my sense is that the collective individualistic tendencies have ballooned.
even as recently as the early 90s, my civics classes emphasized the importance of other people’s rights and that of the expression of your individual rights infringed on the rights of others then it was an irresponsible and improper use of individual rights.
it seems like this has devolved into people whose perspective on individual rights loosely aligns enough to coalesce and shout the loudest to create policy. until someone in the in-group’s individual freedom is impacted and the group fractures into smaller coalitions. rinse. lather. repeat.
I disagree with you that this is a recent idea. It goes back to Locke, Hobbes, and the social contract theorists. The "collective freedoms" idea is more recent, if anything, coming from the subsequent generation of philosophers.
i can agree with the theory behind what you’re saying, but also sense that the practical application of individual freedoms has become increasingly prevalent and acute
In some ways, though, this is a reaction to the move in the other direction. The US in the 1800's was very much in favor of individual freedoms, but by the 1920's-1960's things swung heavily towards the idea of "positive freedom" and "community freedom."
the debate in this thread is a reflection of the politico-scientific standing of the united states. it seems as though fluoridated water has come to be treated as a synechdoche for the role of science (and public health) in society. both sides are trying in earnest to defend their meta-position (“freedom” vs “society”) but slip into logic errors (usually cherry picking and straw man). i think this is because of the context switching between the part (fluoridation) and the whole (freedom/society).
Thank you, yes.
Some people posting maybe aren't old enough to remember it, but the GFC was a longer, deeper and more protracted episode with many many years for people to claw back to where they were in 2005-2006.
COVID was deep but brief, for most people in most places things were pretty good within 6-12 months. The 2021-2022 inflation, travel, spending, etc bubble tells us that things clearly weren't THAT bad. We did not have anything remotely close to that recovery from 2009-2013+...
moderately off-topic because we're here discussing acoup.blog, but i just finished the fall of civilizations podcast episodes on the rise and fall of the mongols. it's really fascinating and sheds quite a bit of light on some things that have been mythologized about chinggis khan
generally speaking he is decidedly centrist in his historical perspectives. it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective that warns against the danger(s) of an incoming administration
>>it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective
There have only been a couple of posts where he discusses current politics, so that is all I have to go on.
However, from reading his material, I think it would be fair to say he is against the "great man of history" theory, which tends to be a more left wing interpretation.
yes. my experience is that an LLM will sometimes suggest an interesting approach that breaks my pattern of thought enough to get me to a better solution. but the ones i primarily use (claude sonnet and chatgpt 4o) also seem to love suggesting CTEs which help readability but it depends on the RDBMS (and other things) as to whether or not they offer any real performance benefit.
that’s a long way of saying that LLMs are a tool in this space but not yet a full solution, in my opinion and experience
