Don't put knives or pots with metal/plastic or metal/wood interfaces in the dishwasher.
Don't put tupperware in the dishwasher lower rack.
The others were obvious to me, but I don't understand these two. I've been disobeying them for a long time without any problems.
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.
A general safe way to go is to observe what other people do.
Sidenote: since i only started drinking late in life and did not yet develop a favorite drink I often order a) local b) the same as my peer(s) c) by name only. 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.
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.
Personal hygiene: the important thing is to get a lather, rub it relatively vigourously over the areas that need cleaning and rinse it off, the most important places are where you sweat lots, armpits, feet and between your legs and your hands. Soap is much harsher and more likely to dry your skin than shower gel/body wash. A sponge or loofah is marginally more convenient for this liquid stuff.
Keeping long hair looking nice requires constant combing. To have it glossy and relatively manageable you need to either wash semi regularly, like 3 times a week and condition once a week (conditioner must stay in at least ten minutes, or be the kind you let dry in) or no shampoo and conditioner at all and leave for six to twelve weeks. This last is a pain because during the adjustment period your hair can get greasy and kinda gross. It still needs washing with water though.
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'd have thought that the big advantage for the server of "keep the change" is that it's one less transaction, so the server spends less time to get a tip.
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:
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]
A long one:
. . . once upon a time men lived among the giants, who were like themselves but far more powerful, and these giants always had a supply of bread, fruit, milk, and all that was necessary to sustain life, which they must have acquired in ways that cost them little, for they would always give away their goods to whoever knew how to please them. And the giants would also carry them wherever they wanted to go, provided they asked in the proper way. So it came about that men never thought of working, nor of walking, nor of building wagons or ships; instead they became natural orators, and spent all of their time watching the giants, figuring out what would please or displease them, smiling at them or imploring them with tears in their eyes; or else simply pronouncing the necessary words, which had to be memorized exactly, though they had no understanding of the changes of humor that would come over the giants, their brusque refusals, or their sudden willingness. Now, if some man, in those days, had tried to get something for himself by his own industry, they would have laughed him to scorn; for the results of his labor would have been puny beside the immense provisions the giants had amassed; and besides with one false step the giants could easily have crushed those little beginnings of labor out of existence. That is why all human wisdom came down to knowing how to speak and how to persuade; and, rather than move things about with great effort, men chose to learn what words it would take to get one of the giants to do their moving. In short, their main business, or rather their only business, was to please, and above all not to displease, their incomprehensible masters, who 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. This kind of existence, in which men never knew whether they were the masters or the slaves, lasted for a long time, so that the habit of asking, of hoping, of counting on those stronger than themselves left indelible traces in human nature. . . . That is why, as if they were still waiting for the return of the giants, men do not forget to pray and make offerings, though no giant has ever shown himself . . .
-- "Alain" (Émile Chartier) The Gods. A meditation on childhood.
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.
Day ends, market closes up or down, reporter looks for good or bad news respectively, and writes that the market was up on news of Intel's earnings, or down on fears of instability in the Middle East. Suppose we could somehow feed these reporters false information about market closes, but give them all the other news intact. Does anyone believe they would notice the anomaly, and not simply write that stocks were up (or down) on whatever good (or bad) news there was that day? That they would say, hey, wait a minute, how can stocks be up with all this unrest in the Middle East?
--Paul Graham
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.
Definition 1: possible as in "I can imagine winning, therefore it's possible"
Definition 2: possible as in "actually possible for me to do in reality, independent of whether I imagine it to be so"
The quote was using definition 2: that is, "if you persuade yourself that you can do a certain thing, provided this thing is possible [in the real world when you attempt it], you will do it, however difficult it may be." Desrtopa's argument from team sports is using the first.
IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control. They can, however, imagine it possible to execute various skills at a high level of proficiency, and do this, whether they win or not.
In fact, it is generally reputed that the "winningest" teams tend to follow this philosophy: i.e., to practice the execution of basic skills to a near-exclusion of any consideration of "winning". This is quite in keeping with the spirit of the original quote, which is regarding that which is actually possible given a particular set of circumstances (such as the state of the other team) which are not actually under your control.
"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.
"The usual touchstone of whether what someone asserts is mere persuasion or at least a subjective conviction, i.e., firm belief, is betting. Often someone pronounces his propositions with such confident and inflexible defiance that he seems to have entirely laid aside all concern for error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes he reveals that he is persuaded enough for one ducat but not for ten. For he would happily bet one, but at ten he suddenly becomes aware of what he had not previously noticed, namely that it is quite possible that he has erred."
--Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (A824/B852); seen on http://kenfeinstein.blogspot.com/2011/01/kant-on-betting-and-prediction-markets.html as linked by Marginal Revolution
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.
HonoreDB was pointing out that if you start standing, then the number of times you've stood up can never exceed the number of times you've fallen down (unless you can stand up while you're already standing).
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.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Excellent!
I would summarize what I think is the most essential insight of your comment as: 'Curiosity is playful exploration. Chase is directed pursuit. Do not confuse the two'
However, you seem to be too big a fan of curiosity. Most of us intellectually curious types are probably too unconditionally curious for our own good. Your enthusiasm for your favorite novels is a good example. You admit it artificially cultivates in you a desire to know what will happen next, via clever plot trickery. Unfortunately reality and your goals are such that following your curiosity will not lead to information/knowledge with the highest payoff, especially in this modern technical environment, where our ancestrally-adapted curiosity heuristics probably go often astray. Following the smell of curiosity by your nose will lead you to ultimately learn about stuff irrelevant to your goals. It is highly unlikely that the marginally most interesting stuff leads in the direction of greatest marginal expected benefit of new knowledge/info for your achieving your goals. Effective goal pursuit requires crossing valleys of boredom.
I would say curiosity is an investment, and like all good investment it should be targeted, but when you really need/want to get something done, chase.
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.