I truly don’t understand why so many people love IPAs

Flavor nuance. I don't like hopsy beer myself, but there's a LOT of different profiles out there. I've even found a few IPAs I liked.

As a person who prefers the complex, bright and earthy flavors from grains and yeast, getting face-fucked at the end of every sip by a one-note weed pine cone is so disappointing.

That I'll agree with. Not a lot of drinkers respect the mashbill anymore.

I haven't had any opportunity to try a barleywine that wasn't my wash going into a still, so you're right on that one. That said, there's fairly limited profiles to a lot of those types of beers.

IPAs do have a lot of variety, and all you have to do to change it up is use different hops. I don't love IPAs, and I hate that they're all I see in beer aisles, but I also don't shop beer very much so whatever :)

I heard a real-world explanation about why IPAs are the most common and commonly-sought craft beer. Half the reasons are unflattering, but a few are valid.

1. They're harder to fuck up because the Hops covers every damn thing and is so forgiving. Ever heard a cooking show talk about how hard a perfect Filet Mignon is because you can't hide behind anything and everyone knows what it should taste like? Ditto with a good red ale or even pilsner.
2. Similarly, nobody is known for their signature Filet Mignon because (within reason) a filet is a filet. Ditto with most types of beers. IPAs give opportunity for a lot more variety. Which is why you have more breweries making them, and then more people consuming them. I go out of my way to find non-MGP whiskey because MGP whiskies all taste the damn same to me, and I usually find a couple unique bottles every year. I can respect someone who wants to try a totally new beer every week and just fall back on a few faves.
3. Related again to #2. Beyond being "SO hoppy", IPAs have more unique flavor profiles than all other beers combined. Different hops can net you notes of orange, lemon, grapefruit, or notes of the pith of one of those, or notes of the rind of one of those. Different amounts or processing of hops can give you different intensities of those. That's a lot of flavor profiles from sweet to sour to bitter, all in the same category.

So I'm "basic" nowadays re: beer, and I despise IPAs because I literally cannot stand the bitter&pithy ones (esp Grapefruit Pith), and there's no easy way to know what an IPA will taste like till you've paid for it and cracked it open. I also get reflux and nothing blows that shit out of the water like an IPA. There's a hops shop down the street from me, but if I'm going to brew a beer (super rare, I usually make whiskey or mead) it's gonna be something will a chill flavor profile.

Just looked it up, and the regional VPs at Amazon are making an average of $190,000/yr. That's not chump-change, but it's definitely firmly in the "US" side of the "US vs THEM" equation. It also means if you cut all regional VP salaries in half, it won't amount to more than 0.1% of Bezos' typical earnings.

Even Amazon's CTO only (yeah, "only") apparently has a total comp package of about $300-500,000/yr.

Here's the list of the problem folks. And to clarify something that helps your point on the "But this one person's..." I GUARANTEE if executive compensation were capped based upon some multiple of individual compensation, they'd find the fucking money to give people raises.

If a CEO can only make 100x what workers do, that's still unreasonable, but I guarantee those guys making $20M/yr will find a way to up the average salaries of workers as close to $200k as they can manage. And if we weren't at-will employment in the US, they wouldn't be able to just do it by laying people off.

So yes, taking money from just Jeff Bezos the people in that list will have the very effect you and I want... everyone making more.

I know. There are absolutely families I know that have this type of conversation. Just because it was funny 30 years ago doesn't mean it can't still be funny now.

It's not cerebral like xkcd, but sometimes I want a comic that I'm not the only person in my town that gets.

Check out the instances that have defederated with the radicalized ones? I hang out in 2 Lemmy instances, still working to finish migrating from here to the other.

I'm not ok with the death penalty for serial killers and rapists, and I think the laws we have now (if they were enforced) cover for corruption.

I have a rule. No matter how shitty the rules, nobody should die for playing by them. Ex Post Facto protections are a hallmark of preventing justice from being another name for authoritarian persecution. Of all people, it tends to shock me that Communists struggle to see that when they are the first to back extreme versions of ACAB-attitudes.

I know rich people who are... just fucking rich and that's it. Lottery, good job. Smart little investment. Most rich people don't destroy lives directly for monetary gain. Is there an indirect effect between wealth distribution and suffering? SURE, but holding someone accountable by violence for something they indirectly effected when it was legal? I just can't see it no matter how they frame it.

It's like COVID opposition. When we didn't have laws against their bullshit (COVID spreader parties?) it is unjust to now go back and pass a law to punish there behavior merely because it caused hundreds of thousands of extra death.

I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of "bourgeoisie", or merely "the rich". And (I'm sure you can understand why I'd have a problem) that some folks talk like I'm in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.

I know it's not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I'll happily have a beer with you.

I don't think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling "no true scotsman" even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.

So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?

Interesting. I'm not a Tankie a tall. That's kinda the point.

with no gender and no country

Wow. How many people would you murder to preserve your precious gender identity?

And yet nobody minds the aggression of capitalism and the right on anybody other than well off cishet white men 🤔

Really? NOBODY minds that? I can't be pro-LGBTQIA without believing that any possible system except strict communism will work? You're talking black & white thinking, the same as the anti-LGBTQ extremists. There are miles of Left, even far left, that aren't Authoritarian Communism (that isn't authoritarianism but does involve Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the exertion of authority. I was fucking THERE, marching there, when they legalized gay marriage in my state, one of the first in my country. I had a good friend be in the first 50 gay marriages in my state. Does it not count if I'm not a Tankie? All my friends who were out there risking their safety against the Catholic alt-right violence in my state didn't count?

Look, you touched a nerve here, and I'm trying to take a breath. Maybe I misread you. Are you genuinely trying to say that you can't oppose far-right violence without being a Communist? Or (perhaps just as bad) are you trying to say that if I'm not ok with violence against queer and transgender individuals that I need to be ok with violence against all liberals?

And I'd like to quantify that I got hit this morning with a dozen replies putting me in the "liberal them" pile, basically agreeing that if I don't strongly support violence against the non-Communist supermajority, I'm a liberal and have no right to call myself a leftist. I hate the tearing down of the pacifist Left I keep seeing.

One of the problems with arguing with people online is I tend to assume people are arguing in good faith.

One of the things that stop me from arguing with people online is when they accuse me of arguing in bad faith because I have facts they don't like. From such no-name sites as Harvard.

EDIT: For future reference (and 2 points):

1. Front page is a popularity contest, and does not bear any weight to the truth of a matter, or even expert consensus of that matter.
2. Front page can differ between people in search engines, and these results came from the front page on mine.

So in summary, the only reply that would not have been "bad faith" in your eyes would be to concede the argument. So you got it. Congrats, you were right about every opinion you've ever had in your life.

My problem is with people who exploit the labor of others for profit. No billionaire earns that last zero without causing harm

I'm mostly on board with you. But I'd like to cite "Notch" (of Minecraft) as an example of someone who earns the last zero without causing harm. Pure fucking luck? Sure. Should be part of a society that will redistribute his wealth? Definitely. Perpetuating violence for profit? I dunno what he's doing now, but he wasn't when he got that billion.

The thing is, you can’t participate in capitalism without either extreme ignorance or at least a little complacency towards that violence.

As a demsoc, my whole position is described by stopping the violence from within. There are parts of capitalism that are palatable, though it will inevitably end up in a horrible state if left to stagnate. But if I had to choose between universal healthcare and welfare for all and a violent revolution that fewer than 10% of people actually want, I think the former is a better option. And despite me having a lot of the same goals as the groups seeking that revolution, they still terrify me.

You exist in this system, you’re a part of it. You’re either ok with others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate in your breakfast croissant, or you aren’t.

Please understand that this terrifies me. The black & white no-middle-ground thinking is the foundation of so many atrocities. That idea that you cannot improve capitalism, or that a "better capitalism" is still identical to "others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate" is the kind of madness that leads to authoritarian regimes. I'm against capitalism in general. I'm also against a smallish number of people with guns replacing capitalism with something else.

I don’t see a peaceful remedy to this problem.

Can you acknowledge that a state that over 90% of humans would be happy with is still within "the problem" for you? If not, please understand that THIS is why most people incorrectly batch Communism with Fascism. If so, please understand why you having a problem is the problem and you need to learn to differentiate between the Bidens and the Trumps. Biden is "the other side". Trump is satan.

We can talk about theory, about “yeah just organize and vote” until we’re blue in the face but the reality is that system is actively rigged against us.

Let me be clear about this. I'm part of the same category batched as "progressives and leftists". WE represent about 9% of the population in my home country. That part is unfortunately Democracy working as designed. Not rigged. WE should represent a larger percent of the population, but unlike Billionaires and Church Leaders, we can't seem to find common ground between Far Left V1 and Far Left V2.

But you're right. With less than 6% of people in your country supporting your particular views, voting is not the answer. But, IMO, neither is violence. If 6% of the country manages a coup, I will not be happy no matter how much of their views I agree with. Because that's an authoritarian regime.

We are actively rocketing towards a very bleak future and every passing day without cataclysmic change only pushes it down the line. And every day we push it back, it increases in magnitude.

Everything you say here I agree with. But if we can't get the support for "very bleak future" under 90%, then you've failed even if you temporarily succeed.

So frankly, if someone is going to commit violence on my behalf, I’d rather it be directed at the problem than directed at my peers in the working class, wherever they may be.

My wife's best friend is Petite Bourgeoisie, she owns a breakfast diner near the local project. She makes less than her workers in all but the most perfect months. I have no problem with her. I have problem with anyone who will make her choose between surrendering her freedom not to answer to an ownership structure (even a communal ownership structure), or "going up against the wall". Ironically, it is the part of me most sympathetic to the goals of communism that support her attempted independence from private ownership. I have, on many occasions, been told she would be in line for death or disenfranchisement. Do you understand my reservations? I PREFER an imperfect capitalism if that is the only alternative. And you might not have meant it, but you came across as saying that's the only alternative, and by way of violence.

Great! But you have no evidence to support your argument

I cited two pieces of fairly substantive evidence in reply to someone who cited a single article. If you don't think that is reasonable escalation of evidence, we can stop now.

Once again, we know cellphones are detrimental to learning. This is not a matter of schools failing to adapt to new technology

My cited references contradict that. More importantly, your article contradicts the "we know" part. Let me quote your reference: "Research from Sweden, however, suggests little effect of banning mobile phones in high school on student performance. "

My references made clear argument that this is indeed a case of schools failing to adapt to new technology. I even quoted a relevant quote to you.

No it doesn’t. It says that no phones mean better learning. You are missing the forest for the trees.

"My findings suggest an improvement in educational productivity due to the NYCDOE’s ban removal". I understand there's a double-negative in that reference, but the cited study's findings suggest that "yes phones mean better learning". You might disagree with it, but please reread it so that you do not misrepresent it.

Lots of research has been done on this, and a small number of people can influence a large group. Look at “wave” studies for more info.

Sure. Please demonstrate that your claims are correct. Until then, and especially because you seem to have failed to comprehend the involved references, I will wish you luck.

Calling minimum acceptable classroom behavior “picking yourself up by your bootstraps” is absurd. It’s like saying that you can’t expect people to not talk at the theater because that’s just asking too much of people.

I've lived an entire life of watching people blame the bulk of individuals for failures by authorities. I have become reasonably skeptical of any claims that "it's everyone but..." the decision-maker.

Weird. I haven't heard of that one yet.

Hmm. I'm curious about this. I repeated the words you used because I thought it was appropriate to do so. Were you resorting to trying to mock me in the first place?

If so, then "glass houses" and all that. If not, then please don't take my reply as mocking. I genuinely mean it. And I am genuinely curious if you had smartphones in school. We didn't have them when I grew up.

I mean unless we’re talking about the rich. But like my whole political ideology kinda hinges on aggression in that direction so…

I think the common Communist definition of "Rich" and Marx's might differ vastly, and I think the vagueness of the word is half the reason. I see too many Communists calling for the death to (for example) computer programmers because many of them are able to save up a couple million by retirement. I know a few that ended up with $10M cash because they worked for a profit-share startup. While I'm not an expert on Marx, I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant when he referred to the bourgeoisie.

Hell, I don't think he ever predicted the massive number of "petite bourgeoisie" that we have now in much of the west, people who put in 60-80 hours simply to live the same life the rest of us live but not have to obediently answer a boss. I'd do that if I could. You'd think Communists could make allies of both the successful proles (like programmers) and the petite bourgeoisie.

If you draw "rich" somewhere close to the $100M mark or higher and include some asterisks on the ones you think should be murdered in the streets (assuming that's what you meant by "unless we're talking about the rich"), maybe most people will agree you're not an aggressive communist (but still be terrified of you like we are of anyone who wants to kill someone for who they are). If you're going to look at a grandma who has $2M in savings after her husband dies, the world's got problems with you.

I mean, if you want to peacefully dismantle people like Musk, then I'm 100% on board with you. If you would support someone taking sudden and violent force to him, as much as I think he's a douche, that's why we use the word "aggressive".

It’s concerning that you think the absence of a device is comparable to the presence of a action, in this case hitting.

I'm genuinely lost on how you think the only variable here is whether something is being banned or being encouraged. Or should I say, it's "concerning". Did you have a smartphone in school?

But we know children learn better without phones https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/the-evidence-is-clear-students-learn-better-without-mobile-phones-in-class/276071

I disagree. For two reasons. First, there is only a couple studies in your link, and its "difference-in-difference" strategy does not seem (at least prima facie) to shown effective isolation to only a single variable. Second, it seems to be making the same mistake previously made by Psychologists in the "hitting children" debate, making unsubstantiated (or "common sense") conclusions about the gulf in the middle after only doing a quick analysis of the two extremes. Further, your link also calls question your claim by pointing out Switzerland did not find any effectiveness in banning phones.

And the "hitting" reference was intended to point out the concern against positive advancement. There was a time where psychologists thought hitting was better than nothing even when they knew it was net harmful and so did not strongly discourage it when parents could not or would not embrace more modern parenting strategies. The same is true of phones in school (and, per your link, laptops in college). Looking at the laptop studies I could find, they have the same methodological problems the phone studies have. They're looking presumptively at distraction, and setting up an experiment where distraction is more pronounced.

Yet laptops have a lot more research than phones. Studies mentioned above compare ubiquitous laptop use and scores, while failing to address that each individual that uses a laptop averages higher scores than individuals who do not. What studies I could find with phones could be moving in the direction of that same dynamic that shows missing understanding of how to be use technology in learning.

Let's look at the other side of things. Another study (again, possibly flawed...I don't trust either side's phone studies much yet) found that removing a phone ban in NY caused an increase in overall student obedience and educational productivity, at the cost of "school culture". As someone who grew up as a victim of "school culture" in a world where teachers supported bullying (and in many places they still do), I have no problem with that trade-off. Of course, this study does directly contradict your educatoronline article.

From this fairly balanced piece (which agrees with both my article and yours in some ways):

"If educators do not find ways to leverage mobile technology in all learning environments, for all students, then we are failing our kids by not adequately preparing them to make the connection between their world outside of school and their world inside school"

...which is more important than test scores.

You are saying 29 out of 30 people can’t be right, which is very wrong. But what you miss is that it’s really 3-4 kids disrupting and the rest going along because it’s easier. It’s the path of least resistance, and people will jump onto the easy path.

Is that something you can cite, or just your own personal "pick em up by their bootstraps" opinion? Do you have any experience with crowd simulation? Can you show any evidence that your explanation is likely, or even reasonably possible?

Except they do. Look at all the examples of Japanese fans cleaning stadiums.

That's... not an effective or topical rebuttal at all. Did you misunderstand what I meant by "Personal Responsibility" attitudes? I referred to blaming the individuals in a large group for their failure instead of blaming the causal elements of the group. I have to deal with that type of problem regularly, where a manager tries to blame a majority of his reports (all capable and talented) of being the problem when something goes wrong. Guess who I ultimately find responsible?

Next time you dislike your teacher think about when you got stuck in a group with people who wouldn’t do anything.

Thankfully, I'm decades out on that. From the kinds of things I see and read about education, I'm grateful I don't have to go back. But then, my education started after school anyway.

Yes, life was so dangerous before the telephone. It's amazing anyone survived decades without them! 991, phaw, we had a bucket of water and a shotgun.

... in summary. The point should be that the next generation has an advantage over the previous, in all things.