Badass_panda

ADHD and depression are super, super comorbid though.

Sometimes, sadly, giving up is the right thing to do.

I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they'll eventually lose, it's better for everyone if they give up quickly ... then this historical example doesn't seem relevant.

Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I'm sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it's necessary to fight this one out.

Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I'll admit it's a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn't terribly relevant.

Bro I've been on roundabouts less circular than your logic

Sorry I am finding it very difficult to follow your argument.

Can you explain what "international law" you believe US sanctions to have broken?

That they can issue court orders to companies that do business in their territory?

They ... they know...

That's it in a nutshell. If I'm in a hurry I melt the butter, whisk the egg, add the cold lemon juice to butter just as it finishes melting and now it's room temp, pour the egg in and whisk. Uses only one pan, one bowl and the whisk, takes about 90 seconds. Just gotta be paying attention.

Once you crack the code, it is easy peasy -- but it's very non intuitive until then. Either use a double boiler (I don't recommend this approach, it makes it harder to tell whats going on, reduces your control and makes setup feel like a chorae) ... or buy a few dozen eggs, a couple pounds of butter and a dozen lemons and just practice the sequence until it clicks.

The key is to control the temperature carefully, and keep that temperature homogenous and even... that means knowing how warm and cold your ingredients are, and steady whisking.

Two ways to do it:

• Whisk together eggs, water and lemon juice until the mixture thickens, and then add melted butter slowly (your slowest and most foolproof method)

• Whisk your eggs to aerate them, set them aside. Melt your butter, remove it from the heat and add your (cold) lemon juice and water. Should be about room temp now. Whisk it together and drizzle in the eggs, whisking constantly. Then put it back on the heat and whisk it steadily till it thickens, which will be quite soon.

The first path is the correct way, in that it minimizes the risk of putting the eggs into a hot pan (and curdling them), but it's also slower and more involved. Basically, any way that ensures the eggs are about the same temperature as whatever gets mixed into them, and heated up gradually from there, works.

“If you want to restore this, like, ‘primordial’ forest, don’t you also want to restore our relationship with that forest?” he asked. “Like — what’s your relationship to a transgenic chestnut?”

This is a quote by Patterson in the article, and it basically sums up this whole article.

No, no one is trying to restore a "primordial forest", they're trying to restore a tree that was the most common tree in America 50 years ago, which produces nutritious food that anyone can eat.

People don't need to have an indigenous relationship with a plant to benefit from it or want to see it in place; you do not have to be Georgian or Armenian to love apple trees.

This story was such nonsense, because of how hard it tried to make this a story about indigenous peoples.

Every town I've ever visited on the eastern seaboard has chestnut streets and chestnut lanes because these trees were everywhere. My dad grew up when the blight had finally reached a tipping point and was quickly changing that; it wasn't that long ago.

I respect everything Patterson is saying in this article, but not reintroducing the American Chestnut because it fails to right colonial wrongs is like not brushing your teeth because it doesn't stop you from getting cancer.

In any event, if they're reintroducing chestnuts I'm getting a couple for my property. I ate my first chestnut in my 40s (in Spain) and I'd love to have some in my retirement.

I'd recommend it! I have a lovely Japanese chestnut in my yard that I harvest every fall, I make chestnut puree and that shit is to die for.

For some of us at some times in our lives, having a relationship with two people is less work. It requires much more communication, better scheduling, and much more attention to your partners' feelings ... but that might be a good investment of time anyhow, and often gets overlooked.

I find that having multiple partners helps me appreciate each partner much more, for themselves -- it's easy to mix up how much you love just having a partner and being loved, with how you actually feel about that person. Poly gives you the distance and contrast to see your partners clearly, and that can be really special.

Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It's not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.

I've been in poly relationships most of my adult life, around 15 years now. I'm certainly familiar with the type of relationship you describe, but the long term, stable poly relationships are the ones that have been poly from the get go.

I don't tend to date people who are "opening things up" in a previously monogamous relationship, because being someone's learning experience is a bummer.