Hot sauces should be required by law to list their Scoville range (SHU) on their packaging.
100% agree. I want to know whether I’m increasing, decreasing, or maintaining my heat threshold.
Fuckin facts, yo, I’m tired of searching up the sauce to try to get a gauge of wherever the fuck the sauce actually is, as opposed to its marketing wank wanting to convince me I’m chowing down on neutron star, despite it really being around room temp unflavored jello.
Ooh… capsaicin-powered hot take!
Breakfast tacos at home are better than breakfast tacos out. This is true of many foods because you choose each ingredient (type, brand, …) that you prefer and prepare it in your preferred way (more done, less oil, …).
Climate change is making turbulence worse.
Straws are mostly unnecessary, so metal washable straws are dumb.
Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.
As far as straws go, I agree that for most people in most situations they’re unnecessary for most soft drinks. I do, however, think they’re a pretty important part of the experience with some cocktails though, it has some effect on how fast you drink it, how it hits your tongue and you experience the flavors, if the drink is layered it effects how those different layers mix, what order you get them in and how the drink evolves as you drink it.
That said, I think most reusable straws make for a bad substitute in a lot of cases because they’re too thick compared to the coffee stirrer type straws I usually tend to get in bars when I order a cocktail that calls for a straw. Thinner straws would probably be kind of a pain to clean though.
I’m not a huge fan of metal straws, they’re just too hard and kind of unnerving if they crack against your teeth.
I have some bamboo straws I like, and they fit my vibe since I make a lot of tiki drinks at home.
Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.
Sorry, I don’t understand this one. You’re saying we shouldn’t ban plastic bags in stores because you can still buy plastic bags elsewhere?
You can walk into the store that has a bag ban and buy a box of bags. Then you use those bags to pick up dog poop or line your trash cans or whatever other things you used to do with the previously free store bags that are now banned or charged for. It’s not about banning the bags to save the environment. It’s about the store getting getting paid for the bag, either as a bag fee or in a box.
Any breakfast at home is almost always better than breakfast out, if you’ve got the time and ingredients. I can, with the right ingredients and tools and while half asleep, hungover, or still drunk, make a full breakfast for a family of four better than 90% of the breakfasts I’ve ever had out. Sure it took some practice, but breakfast isn’t rocket science or usually particularly complex recipe wise.
The only thing I haven’t been able to do better at home breakfast wise so far is making my own fresh bagels or donuts. I don’t like making poached eggs either, and hollandaise sauce is a pain in the ass, but I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve gotten an eggs Benedict out at a restaurant that didn’t make me immediately regret my choice. Same with biscuits and gravy (why do restaurants think that gravy comes out of a box and should be bright white?) , bacon (just bacon flavored bacon please), eggs (sunny side up does not mean I want the whites to be clear and runny too), etc. All things I really like, but can’t tolerate having someone else fuck up and charge me for it.
It’s those things where good is delicious and mediocre is terrible.
Pepper Mills are overrated.
Pepper itself is overrated. At least the black one.
Wait, what are pepper mills
You take that back
It’s a hot take! Wouldn’t be good if it weren’t inflammatory.
Realists are just pessimists.
You should be an optimist even if you are faking it. To lift others up.
Optimists are delusional
- I like useful delusions.
- If you are optimistic for others you ancourage them to do stuf. Doing some stuff that may not work is 100000% better than watching Netflix/TV. Especially in current nihilistic social climate.
- Pessimist and optimist are both right (not my quote)
- Example: Pessimist: I will not get this job -> So I will not even apply -> 0% chance of getting a job -> 100% correct Optimist: I will get this job -> I apply and prepare -> 20% chance of getting this job -> 20% correct But who cares if you are correct. What matters is taking a chance. This comes way more useful if you are optimistic every day. So you apply for a job whenever there is a chance. And if you apply for 10 jobs from initial 20% you get 89% chance to get a good job.
Being naive is not the same as being optimistic.
- Useful to who?
- I can tell you that overly optimistic people annoy me to no end, and even tend to have the complete opposite effect on me. Cheerleading, thoughts and prayers BS, rather than acknowledging the suckage that’s happening so we can act on it, doesn’t help me at all.
- Debatable
- One can perfectly be realistic about its chances at an interview/job and apply and perform well at it and get it regardless…
You seem to be equating realism with pessimism and immobilism, while equating optimism and action. Why?
- Optimistic person. And if saying “this idea might just work” encourages people you love to try things, then it also helps people you love.
- We could debate on what “overly” means. If you believe you will win the lottery this is just stupid and naive, but if you believe you can start a profitable restaurant this is not overly optimistic. Still you must not be stupid when trying.
- This is debatable. This statement is very broad.
- Correct if you are realistic and not pessimistic. My hot take should be formed: “People who claim are realists are most often just pessimists, who will pass all ideas as bad”. Actually to continue from here we should exactly define all the words we are using. And in this case it would not be a hot take anymore. Also I believe to decide to try and take interview you must feel optimistic about it instead of pessimistic.
My hot take is targeting “realists” who say: “Your idea is bad. Do not pursue it. I am just being realistic.” Even though their idea has maybe small but fair chance of succeeding. This is just discouragement - which is more often seen in pessimists.
Actually at this point I do not even know enough about words and definitions to continue.
I think we should actively try to encourage each other to act, also by believing in others ideas (still do not believe in winning the lottery).
Optimists are aspirational. The placebo effect is real, and pessimists use it counterproductively.
Mate, I’m barely lifting myself up certain days, can I get a break from being responsible for others’ self-development, dunno, at least half the days?
You’re not responsible for their self development. This is a morale thing.
Trust me it’s easier to pick yourself up for the whole team than it is for just yourself.
Maybe next time you ride the bus, imagine that you’re a background character in someone else’s struggle, and how you hold yourself will be absorbed by their subconscious. Maybe just by holding yourself the right way, you can make everyone on the bus just slightly more ready for the day.
Who is stopping you from taking a break? My hot take is just a general recommendation, especially for people you love.
Real life and responsibilities stop me, my man. Also mental health management. But thanks for asking.
The bear would eat women alive while they simp for an actual killer.
Holy red flag, Batman
The point of that meme as I took it is to illustrate the uncertainty women face when it comes to the intentions of (strange) men. The bear, an actual killer, at least is predictable. Not a criticism of your hot take btw, just sharing my thoughts on this meme.
Imagine using the word simp
Imagine criticising someone for using a word despite it having been in the vernacular for years.
In whose vernacular? I’ve never heard it spoken in person, just seen it on posts by some of the worst people online.
“Simp” used to be a part of AAVE until 4chan and the white gays colonized it
They do that to a lot of our vernacular these days
And what did it use to mean in AAVE?
As far as I understand (might be missing nuance, 'cause it was 80s/90s AAVE in the first place) it’s someone who puts the homies aside over chasing a romance, especially if the romantic interest is considered unworthy/‘for the streets’ or if the homies consider what you’re chasing to be unrequited
Basically a person who marks out for someone who probably doesn’t gaf about them
Vernacular doesn’t need to belong to a person or even a group of people.
If your problem is with the people who say it and not the word itself, that’s a different issue and one that I’m not really interested in debating.
Vernacular doesn’t need to belong to a person or even a group of people.
Then why do they call it “African American Vernacular English”?
If your problem is with the people who say it and not the word itself, that’s a different issue and one that I’m not really interested in debating.
Who says I can’t have two problems?
Is English your second language? I didn’t say it can’t be associated to a person or group, I said it doesn’t need to.
I also didn’t say that you can’t have more than one problem, I just addressed the one you seemed to be concerned with and defined it as one that I’m not interested in debating.
The destruction of the library of Alexandria was a win.
How so?
Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.
My hot take: You shouldn’t downvote comments you disagree with in a thread asking for hot takes.
I have always upvoted comments I disagree with if they are using good arguments. I save downvotes for hate and bad faith.
Ok now you’re just asking for it
It’s a shame that this needs to be a “hot take”, I was hoping we’d be leaving that shit behind on Reddit.
I think this should apply in general, not just in this thread. Down votes are reserved for comments that do not positively contribute to the conversation.
Humans are doomed, destroy themselves one way or another.
Life itself is probably doomed by sheer laws of entropy lol
Suburban homeowners are the real “welfare queens.”
ice cold
AI must die for us to survive.
or the one I got a temp ban at the other place for “promoting violence”: if there’s a threat to your wellbeing and you have to protect your dog, you chose the wrong dog and any harm that comes to you is your own fault.
Dogs are not just tools. You can choose a dog for reasons other than grandstanding your home security.
You’re right. He also doubles as a teddy bear.
Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.
true. but next time, just buy/make less food.
Why?
If for no other reason, then in the name of your own bank account.
My bank account’s biggest limitation is my brain cycles.
because the excess is going to waste. why do you think ? sure, it doesnt directly affect hungry people, however:
- it is expensive
- it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
- if the food is still good, you can give it to someone who will appreciate it
is it so hard to simply buy an appropriate amount of food ? or just eating the leftovers ?
- Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
- Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
- Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
Especially if that’s food that’s going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.
Places of religious worship and formal teaching (e.g. churches, and Sunday schools) should be treated like bars and porn. You need to be an adult to access bars and porn because children do not fully understand what is happening or the consequences of being there. Churches (etc) are the same and there should be a legal age limit.
It should also be socially unacceptable to talk about religious opinions in front of kids, just like most people don’t swear or talk dirty, etc.
I agree with schools teaching kids “about” religions, just like sex and drugs. Teaching facts is good, preaching (aka indoctrination) is not.
Using windows os should be marked as crimes against humanity.
Other people shouldn’t be able to hurt you, non-physically.
deleted by creator
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess that’s why it’s a hot take. I think it’s possible without becoming a recluse
deleted by creator
It’s actually pretty simple (but not easy at all)… You start actually believing that other people can’t hurt you. That is pretty much all there is to it. (Not quite, will explain later).
You simply don’t give that power to people. I love my spouse. But my spouse cheats on me. Now I could be hurt by the betrayal… But why? What is the benefit for me? I don’t need to feel hurt to know that my spouse is not worth keeping around, to be my spouse anymore.
If other people do something bad to me, that is not on me, it’s their problem. They’re evil/unaware/selfish. It’s no reflection on the quality of person I am. Thus when someone does something bad to me, it’s honestly just good to know. I can decide how bad I think it is and react accordingly. But feeling hurt by it is not really required in that process.
As I said at the beginning, “not quite”, there are a whole bunch of other beliefs attached to/required by this. For example, I believe that everything is temporary, or at least that the chance of something permanent (really, temporary until end of life) being low. I don’t expect to be together with my spouse to the end of time - if it happens though, I have nothing against it. I believe that change is fine, and I look forward to it: If my spouse cheats on me, I can experience no partner for a while or forever, or experience looking for a new one, both things are fine with me. And so on. Basically all my beliefs are set up in a way that I’m fine with whatever happens.
(The only exception is extreme, or lasting physical harm and death. I can’t experience anything “normally” anymore when these happen to me. Some disabilities could be fine, but I probably have a limit of how much I could be affected. Losing all movement in all my limbs could be fine, but I’m not sure. Losing an arm or a leg or hearing or similar severeness I could probably be fine with.)
Now the thing is, changing your entire belief system to be fine with pretty much anything is not something people are either willing or able to do. I did it though and think that theoretically everyone can do it.
Yeah I’m curious too, please elaborate
Also I shouldn’t have to poop
If your political opinion begins with “why don’t we just…” then its a bad political opinion.
If we could just, we would have already just. If you think you’re the only one with the capacity to see a simple answer - newsflash, you’re not a political genius. Its you who doesn’t understand the complexity of the problem.
Adam Savage had a bit where he pointed out there is practically zero times when to you should start a sentence with “why don’t you just”. My first instinct is to patiently listen & respond but I’m slowly turning into “why don’t you just stop, think & rephrase that”
My partner lacked political engagement until his 30s for reasons so he occasionally has these hot takes. But he expresses them to me and I do feel bad because he’s not coming at it from an arrogant perspective. It’s ignorance, some naivete and also exasperation at a whole lot of shit things.
I have to gently explain to him why XYZ isn’t that simple or black and white, or why his idea doesn’t work - and the answer to that, 9 times out of 10, is ‘because money/rich people/greed/lobbyists/nimbyism’.
I’m just slowly chipping away at his innocence and it feels bad.
Its great that you’re helping to inform him! I have found the people who know the most about politics and global issues tend to talk less and listen more.
My responses to him are always prefaced with a big sigh. Because whatever I’m about to tell him is negative. And he often concludes with ‘so how can you care about this/why do you give a shit if it’s pointless’ and I’m finding it harder and harder to answer that question.
Ignorance truly is bliss
