Ooooh nice. I used to get these natural process Nicaraguan beans. Ooooo so good! Had such a funky taste! Sadly my local roaster discontinued them for whatever reason ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Oooo what’s the roast and origin?

I tend to be hesitant to add stuff to my coffee. BUT, sometimes sprinkling a little bit of cinnamon on a cappuccino is fun!

Oh no, completely agreed. Not having the vocabulary/not being able to detect different flavors is completely valid! Heck, even my vocab is super limited for this.

BUT, using a completely different scale for description is annoying (at least for me). It’s like some describing different music compositions as “loud”. Sure, a non musician isn’t expected to know the individual notes and stuff, but you know… noone would describe Duel of the fates as “loud” lmao.

Same thing I suppose.

I feel like there are two components to this:

• some people genuinely don’t like bitter tastes.
• what people define as “chocolate” is majority sugar and milk. Hence, real chocolate for them is "bitter, not sweet chocolate. The same goes with coffee. Most people’s definition of “coffee” is just this stale, super sweet, paper tasting drink.

A light roast will taste more acidic (sour, less bitter) compared to a dark roast. Strength is not about taste, but about concentration. Consider it like music.

Let’s say there are two types of notes: deeper, lower pitched notes and higher pitched notes.

Light roast: more higher pitched notes, less lower pitched notes

Dark roast: more lower pitched notes, less higher pitched notes.

Now imagine describing dark roasts as “louder”. It doesn’t make sense, right?

I get annoyed when people describe the taste and flavor of coffee as “strong”.

“Strong” is just the concentration of coffee particles in water. An espresso is stronger than an Americano for instance.

Coffee tastes bitter, sour and maybe a little sweet. The flavors can be quite complex involving fruit, nuts, spices and such. Don’t just say “sTrOnG” like an oonga boonga caveman.

Do you write?

I dunno, I find it cute.

YESSS!!! Credit unions ftw. Always much much better customer service, interest rates (for both, loans and investments).

Also, equal member ownership over means of production. So if you’re a leftist, you definitely definitely should consider these fellas.

I’m not liking the Liberals being so strong in Parliament. They need a proper counterbalance.

YES!!! SAFETY RAZORS.

We should seriously consider starting a propaganda campaign for safety razor adoption over the multi blade money plucking machine.

They’re:

• waaaaay more environmentally friendly
• no plastic
• will probably outlast YOU
• will save a crazy crazy amount of money over your lifetime
• give you a better shave? This is what I’ve heard, but have never tried the scam razors myself, so no personal experience

“Hey AI overview! Can you please AI overview this wikipedia article for me?”

Wdym? Haven’t you seen the citizens of the democratic people’s republic of Korea cheer and cry when they see their beloved leader Kim Jong Un?

Also, did you know that countless people defect from South Korea to the democratic people’s republic of Korea???

/s

The second point is legitimately what someone told me on lemmygrad. No, they explicitly said “today”. They were not just talking about the 50s-60s.

• Nono you see they’re the “people’s billionaires”.
• They’re all patriots with the goal of achieving communism. It’s just that to transition to communism, we need billionaires first.
• The imperialists have billionaires. To defend against these imperialists, we need our own billionaires.
• China is 3000 years old. China survived without your help. We don’t need you to tell us where we can improve. Improve yourself.
• Each country has its own material conditions. This is why we need socialism with Chinese characteristics for China. These Chinese characteristics mean billionaires. Don’t you understand dumm librul?

Big fat /s.

Of course haha

First I was like “isn’t Jessica a lesbian?”. Then I saw your profile banner.

Ehhh naaah. The biggest issue with the left isn’t branding. In my opinion, it’s largely because there is no such thing as “the left”. It’s not a unified group in terms of policy. It’s not a unified group, period. The left vs right thing has largely become a thing because of the US’s two party system (source being my personal experience interacting with English social media, which is NOT a good source).

Asking a “leftist” questions will get you so many different and very often contradicting answers.

Economically:

• Market socialists vs planned economy folks. These are absolutely opposite ideas. A huge group of leftists would consider markets = capitalism. I absolutely despise private ownership over means of production (especially for larger and mature institutions), but would vote for a liberal over someone promising to totally eliminate the market (USSR style or Maoist China style).
• State ownership?: Leftists want public ownership over means of production. But again, what does that mean? State ownership? But that means a supremely powerful state. Imagine the most corrupt politicians now getting the power of billionaires. Personally, fuck fuck that. Worker ownership through worker coops? That would absolutely not prevent large companies from exploiting the public. Sleazy insurance agents are still going to stay sleazy irrespective of organizational methodology. Consumer coops? Which would change nothing for workers working there (source: your local grocery coop). I’m not saying that a coherent solution exists. It absolutely does. BUT these supposed “coherent solutions” can often be diametrically opposed.

Socially: Most are generally anti racism, anti sexuality discrimination. Cool. But, what about:

• Veganism: In India, the right is more vegetarian/vegan because of religions of an Indian origin. The left being anti separation of religion and state, and pro personal liberty, promotes meat/egg consumption (they claim nutritional benefits). I am vegan myself. The left in Canada will be more vegan due to will for extension of certain rights to animals. Very very opposite positions which are equally important for those who care. You can’t group all of this together, can you?
• Weed: Eastern left tends to be way more prohibitionist than western left.
• Trans freedom: yeeeeah… Not all leftists around the world hold the same position.
• Religion: Should religion itself be eliminated, or should we allow religious freedom (such that people of all religions can practice their faith)? The opinion for this is often born out of local political realities. Again, very different positions. Example being Quebec and their laicite. I totally support their laicite (which tankies would support/tolerate). The left wing parties in Canada however strongly oppose this, while right wing parties are supportive/neutral.

Soooo yeah. Would rebranding solve anything? Not really.

But sure, such tactics could definitely work in LOCAL election races/referenda.

Ew okay fuck him.

Looked it up. Played at the inaugural of his second term too? Ew ew ew.

His response to the criticism:

“No. I call it 30 for 30. I DJ’d at the Crypto Ball for what, 30 minutes? Made a whole bunch of money, made a lot of relationships to help out the inner city and the community and teach financial literacy and crypto in a space that it don’t exist.”

“That’s 30 minutes” he continued. “30 years, Snoop Dogg been doing great things for the community, building, showing up, standing up for the people, making it happen, being all I can be. But which one is it? 30 for 30. 30 minutes or 30 years?”

“But I’m not a politician,” he pointed out. “I don’t represent the Republican Party. I don’t represent the Democratic Party. I represent the motherfucking Gangster Party. Period. Point blank.”

Yeah okay. Unsatisfactory response. Fuck him.

Agreed, poor writing there.

That being said, the idea as a whole isn’t bad from what super surface level understanding I have about quantum computing.

Quantum computing has the potential to break a lot of encryption. It’s not there yet, but definitely seems to be going in that direction. Encryption breaking would be catastrophic for defense, and literally all kinds of civil applications. This becomes (in my eyes) a legitimate national security threat.

From what I understand, they’re hinting at Canada proactively developing this offensive tech (hinted as domestic defense industry bs) while exploring anything and everything to do with quantum resistant systems of encryption and their implementation in the Canadian economy.

Why? Wasn’t he found not guilty for that murder trial? Asking in good faith btw. Genuinely don’t know.