So I've been occasionally going to this burger place, ordering and then waiting outside with my dog. Lady who works there and brings my takeout out to me loved my dog so much she told me it inspired her to get a cat from a shelter - I guess cats are easier so okay whatever. A small part of me fucking hates cats but I withheld this information. I'll still take it.
So I am now, along with my adorable dog, partly responsible for the improving of a fluffy animal's life and another human's.
In the spirit of halloween I'll be reviewing some of the most popular candies ITT, the sort that get bundled into halloween bags or sold at supermarket counters and gas stations.
The individual components are gross, but the formula isn't terrible. Peanuts are hard to screw up too badly and relieve you from purely tasting the low quality chocolate and caramel.
Basically Snickers without the mitigating factor of peanuts. Gross.
Reese's Peanut Butter Cup
Mildly disgusting yet edible and you can derive some small but shameful pleasure from their consumption. The peanut goo is curiously chemical and at least keeps this interesting if not actually good tasting.
One dimensional, which would be fine if it was good chocolate but it isn't. The crunchiness has some appeal but it's a bit too...plastic-y? I generally regret eating these overall.
I would tentatively place these slightly above Snickers and Milky way, for textural reasons - the basic bar beats the unpleasant mess of low quality caramel that you have to deal with in the those.
Among the least offensive, they are lightly crisp and the badness of the milk chocolate is mitigated to an extent by the more dominant presence of the wafer's inside.
Similar to the Kit Kat, a crunchy component dominates which is probably for the best. However, I prefer the wafer layers of the Kit Kat. The twix has a more rough, abrasive and hard texture, lacking the subtleties of the Kit Kat.
This is a 2 component candy. I looked it up and apparently it used to be 3, but due to rising costs of some ingredients during war time it was altered from consisting of chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry to the current popular iteration. It gets points for leading me to a wikipedia article but other than that it tastes weird and bad.
I am not a fan of shredded coconut fillings in general, so I have some small bias against these. However, I'd consider Mounds, which pair it with dark instead of milk chocolate and skip the almond top, to be a superior candy. Probably among the more disappointing candies to receive when I was trick or treating as a kid.
That's it I guess. Here's an amusing gif related to this topic -
So I've been looking at handwatches on google images and stuff out of curiosity and here are some rules I think should be followed -
#1. I don't need to read your brand I need to read the time. It should look like some nice old man hand crafted it with loving care, not like an advertisement for the company that made it. That said I guess you can afford to have the name removed if you can also afford spending hundreds of dollars on an outdated expensive wrist ornament.
#2. No fancy bullshit like roman numerals. I just want to read a number from 1 to 12 as quickly as possible, not spend my precious seconds try to figure out which number that symbol means. You are competing with phones at telling time, and you only do that one thing so do it better and do it quickly.
#3. The more nonsense you put in the background the harder it is to read at a glance. If you can't make a watch aesthetically pleasing with putting like a fractal artwork behind it you suck at watch design.
Also these watch websites are a fucking nightmare of overly scripted bullshit.
I kinda feel like my search history needs a shower now.
All that said here's one of the most aesthetically pleasing yet minimalist enough watches I found -
The brand name is still there but it's nicely unobtrusive.
It's a hamilton khaki navy pioneer and goes for ~$600
If I were going for something cheaper I'd check out the recommendations by the watch nerds @
Not familiar with Curtis. As for capitalism, it has uses but needs more restraint than the US puts on it. Quality of life should be emphasized more, which means things like restricting/banning most types of public advertisement, building restrictions which create aesthetic cities, and obviously things that reduce/prevent pollutants. A system that produces unappealing habitats for its creators, is pretty fail. Ugly urban landscapes and the effort we put into creating and sustaining them aren't worth it IMO. I'm probably more particular about aesthetics than your average person though, so I could rant about this while others don't seem to be bothered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As for scientism, well, because science has produced so much of observable practical value it doesn't surprise me that it's become a source of authority when/where it shouldn't. While it can inform philosophy with the findings it produces, trying to build things like ethical systems from it is just bad since there's no ground to build on to be found in science.
TBH when I was in high school and the New Atheists were kind of trendy I believed in some nonsensical things, especially in my anti-religious phase. >_< At least I can tell myself I went through it quickly.
Science/scientific language being hijacked to lend authority for ideological as well as commercial purposes is concerning just in general now. Those who don't have good understanding of its limits, or the ability to simply filter junk science which is a plague at the moment, are very susceptible to being taken advantage of and/or mislead.
Commercialized media is a big part of the problem here too, since they'll spice up interpretations of studies, give them absurd headlines bearing little resemblance to the actual conclusions, etc. etc. Since ratings/hits/viewers etc. are what matters it's in their interest to draw attention even if it's with misinformation.
Anyway... my reasons for not wanting to become a part of uh... "the system"(obviously a major oversimplification but for short) are different than yours but I can understand the sentiment of not wanting to be involved in supporting it. I have my own little horror stories, like how we were arranging products in psychologically manipulative ways at the department store I worked at - even in some kinda dark ways like of course putting magazines up front because people buy more when they feel ugly relative to airbrushed models/actresses on covers.
I'm sure to some extent I've rationalized an excess of excuses to avoid taking action and it's much easier to just say "fuck it" and be an avoidant escapist rather than trying to change anything. But I've sort of accepted this.
Small scale/local/sustainable stuff is a big thing here in Portland OR. It has its pros and cons but overall it's way better than most restaurant chains and typical supermarkets. Cart food especially is crazy cheap for the quality relatively.
I'm not obsessed with organic/local(I'm not paying ~2x the money or whatever if I don't taste a difference) but I'm also not going to deny when it produces better food, which is fairly often.
I brought up IQ since to determine whether something is hereditary, it needs to be somewhat definable/testable and IQ is the standard for intelligence. I agree it's limited/flawed, but I would think intelligence is still heritable to some degree whether it's defined as IQ or not.
The understanding of heritability is changing with epigenetics though, so it's likely less concrete than previously thought.