barsoap

I don’t know how I should be the one to come up with a better shorthand if I’m the one being taught and not understanding.

There is no better one. Your hand is the only obvious, also, convenient, piece of equipment you always have at the ready that is capable of clearly and intuitively representing three mutually orthogonal vectors. They also happen to be quite freely orientable in space. There are exactly two distinct ways axes can be constructed in 3d, and your left and right hand naturally show the one or the other, try it: While making fancy fingerguns you can never have all fingers be parallel, if two pairs are parallel then the third is antiparallel. You could use fancy terms like chirality but that literally means handedness.

And if you had tried to come up with something better you'd probably have realised all that.

Does this help? Short of making sure that your fingers actually are mutually orthogonal. The perspective in OP's picture is all fucked up and also not consistent between the hand and arrows.

"x,y,z" of course is an easy order you learned it in primary school, for it to make sense for the physics you need to... do nothing. Order is arbitrary. The handedness is dictated by the signs of the vectors, I guess if you were to flip the sign of some natural constant the whole thing would suddenly be left-handed.

It of course is also not an explanation of why the stuff is like it is. You say handedness plus assigning things to fingers is terrible as a shorthand? Show me something better, then. Meanwhile, generations of graphics programmers could and can be observed holding out their hand like that and rotating it every which way to make sense of what other people preferring different orientations did. Or keeping track of local vs. global transforms. Gotta know where the wheels are even if the car is flipped over.

(and, yes, for some reason there's no 3d software which uses x as the up/down axis. Whether that means that the industry has a bit of sanity left in it I'm not so sure it might be an accident).

Seems so, yes, really shouldn't surprise that the basic idea is known in the UK. Certainly not something you can get for breakfast over there, though, had to survive on nothing but full English because the purpose of their croissants is to spite the French and don't get me started on weetabix. Actually, coming to think of it quark is probably the only thing it'd actually work in.

Not really, no, the texture is never grainy. Micrograins, kinda, but never big lumps. Closest equivalent is Skyr. Consistency between cream cheese and yoghurt, taste more like cottage cheese.

Jet fuel indeed doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Forging temperature, OTOH, no issue.

He argued for segregation to remain the law of the land when Brown V BoE occurred, but for ‘separate but equal’ to be actually enforced.

I'm very sure I said nothing about any of that and I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that take. Even if it actually was viable, as in politically possible to have equality while segregation continues, it sounds like ripping of a bandage slowly, very slowly.

Mansplaining isn’t real,

Not a thing I said.

but quick sidenote here is how

That was Eurosplaining. I do that all the time to Yanks and I stand by it.

And yes MLK was rotating in his grave that day. What's your point, here? That it would befit me to want to see black folks being ineffective in their struggle? Is that really where you want to go with this? Want to continue racistjacketing me?

And just for the record I already talked about this with actual BLM organisers. They agreed, it was a missed opportunity, hindsight is 20/20, etc. The issue isn't even lack of institutional knowledge -- the civil rights movement is literally the textbook case on how to stage such things effectively -- the "trouble" (not really, but form this perspective) is that the whole movement gained momentum so quickly that people didn't have time to organise properly.

Co-opting that slogan would have just allowed everyone to brush the conversation under the rug even more quickly than they did.

Co-opting that slogan would have carried on momentum that was broken by getting into a fight with the slogan. It allowed energy to be diverted from opposing specific state structures to opposing a slogan.

This isn't about "oh but white racists came up with it so now it's a bad slogan", it's not about dictionary semantics at all that's not how social movements or political messaging works. If Black people shout "All lives matter" then that's saying "Hey we're people too". It's saying "Not just your lives matter". It's also saying "if your schizophrenic kid got shot by out of control police, go come join us": It allows for a broader movement, overall more solidarity.

You know what's the worst part about this? The right is really good at this kind of stuff. They understand it. They didn't go out saying "Black lives don't matter" or "Fuck N****s", they went out chanting "All lives matter". Because they knew exactly that it was their most effective shot at breaking BLM's momentum, even though they sure as fuck don't care about all lives.

But one group does it far more often.

With "one group" you presumably mean egocentric people in general, and nothing sexed. Because otherwise: Citation or you're a sexist. And with "citation" I mean "controlled for perceptive biases".

Your argument sounds like the “all lives matter” of “black lives matter”.

Plenty of citations for racial bias by US police so no, it really shouldn't. Side note though: The moment the assclowns came up with "all lives matter" the BLM folks should have jumped on it and used it themselves. It's a much more powerful message, and impossible to argue against. With the momentum they had they could easily have drowned out the racists.

https://imgur.com/a/broken-door-work-days-3-5-return-of-protest-cJ3el

You went off the rail when you used "women" and "men" instead of "people".

I'm not exactly sure which one is more frequent, the behaviour itself or the accusation thereof as thought- and conversation-terminating cliche, but both suck donkey ass. OTOH it's not some special grand thing in itself, either, it's plain old failure to relate and communicate.

Ceramics can take plenty of heat, the non-stick isn't stellar but it's there (and probably better or worse depending on manufacturer). And you can reduce tomato sauce in it without killing the patina because there is none. If the anti-stick properties degrade sodium percarbonate should fix that, stripping oil and polymerised oil and everything out of the microstructure. It's basically good ole enamel but with rougher surface. Kind of like those fancy lotus effect sinks.

If your go-to is stainless then I don't think there's real advantages, if you want a second pan then I'd go with iron for actual anti-stick, and do those tomato sauces in stainless.

You are absolutely allowed to remove it, you just have to replace it. The correct thickness is "try to wipe it all off with kitchen tissue", it really shouldn't be a grease hazard to clothes.

Also washing up liquid should do the trick.

Eggs pretty much work like meat when it comes to stickiness, just with an even tighter window when it comes to right temperature and it's even more important to let the thing be for a while before attempting to move it.

Also, yes, scraping. I use a burger flipper spatula which practically has a knife edge at the front. Ideally though things should be moving when you shake the pan, that is, loosen on their own.