You can put them in between 2 bowls with their (the bowls) rims against each other to create an oblate spheroid-ish thing, then shake it real hard for a few minutes. It should remove the shell pretty eaily, if loudly.

Edit: Sorry, turns out, that’s garlic cloves. Shrimp peeling is really only easier raw. You can rip the legs off and just give a squeeze and it’ll pop out of the shell. In my experience, once they’re cooked the shell will break up much easier. As someone else said, a stock is your best bet if you really want to avoid peeling. I mean, technically you can eat the shell if you make sure to grind them up completely when you puree them. I’ve never tried anything with the shell still included, so I can’t speak for the taste, but you could try a bisque if you’re dead set on not peeling.

Also, only really works if they are “attempting to gain a higher moral authority” (as OP says). As if that’s the only reason people would argue a point. I think it says something about OP that they take that as a given for arguments. I can immediately imagine scenarios that one can argue against a thing that they themselves participate in.

“Hey, smoking is bad, kid. Don’t do it.”

“But you smoke! And I look so cool with a cigarette!”

“Yeah, it’s a habit that’s very difficult to break and it makes your life worse in every way. I know from experience.”

“No you.”

But I agree with your main point,

But pointing out the hypocrisy is technically “off topic” if you’re arguing whether X is actually bad.

It’s considered a fallacy exactly for this reason. When you’re debating a thing, you’re way off the map if you think that’s your winning move if you’re arguing in good faith. An argument should be about showing your point is correct, not that you’re better than the other person. But Mr. Wang up there may only view arguments as a competition to be won morally.

While it doesn’t work as well with or as your joke, the ATF is actually now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. So we need to add the E as well and we can spell FACET, which is less fun. Or use M for Marijuana and spell FMEAT.

It’s actually pretty normal and you probably do it without realizing it. Occasionally the lungs just need to absorb a little extra oxygen to catch up. You ever watch a dog sleep and every now and then they just take a big inhale? Same thing.

Found this neat source:

“A sigh is a long, deep breath that is often viewed as an expression of stress, sadness, exhaustion or relief. However, the most frequent sighs are unnoticed and occur spontaneously every several minutes, about a dozen times per hour.”

. . .

“The lung is composed of hundreds of millions of alveoli, the gas exchange units at terminal ends of the respiratory tract, each of which is about 200 micrometers in diameter. During normal breathing, alveoli spontaneously collapse, a pathological condition known as atelectasis. A sigh is hypothesized to reverse any alveolar collapse, because it is a large breath that re-expands all alveoli, filling them all with air.”

I think it’s maybe a little but of both of what you and Annoyed_[Crabemoji] said. From what I remember of baking, butter being not chilled enough will cause it to be too soft and cook out before the chemistry can happen and they deflate like that. But obviously, it’s real tough to mix in chilled solid butter, so by the time you’ve needed it enough for it to incorporate, it’s warm again. When I was in culinary school back in the day we’d bake in huge batches, obviously, so we’d use big ole mixers to combine the cold butter quickly with giant mechanical paddles that forced it to combine while still cold. But at home, if you have to mix by hand and you know that the butter isn’t cold anymore you can definitely chill the cough before baking. I don’t remember much from those days (I was never a baker, I was a line cook, but baking classes were required), but when I saw your picture my immediate thought from the dredges of 20 year old memories was “That butter wasn’t chilled.”

The thing is, if the place you’re getting your information from doesn’t list it’s sources, you can’t trust it. Whenever I’m researching a thing on the internet and I find an article or a paper, I don’t just stop there, I check where they got their info, then I find that source and read it. I follow it all the way back until I find the primary source.

Like the other day I was writing a paper about a particular court case. In the opinions, as in most cases, they use precedent and cite prior cases. So I found the other cases that referred to the thing I was writing about, and it turns out they were also just using prior cases. I had to go 6 deep before I found them referencing the actual constitution for one of them. On another I found it interesting that the most recent use case was so far removed from what the original one was about and it was could probably be questionable to even use it as precedent if they had used the original instead of another case.

Anyway, the point is, always check sources. If anyone says anything on the internet, assume it’s just their opinion until you check and follow the sources…

Oh, I see now. I missed some pretty basic math there with that distribution. That makes sense now, thank you!

So I’m bad at math. Can you explain why we’ve decided to multiply pi by 2? Is there an articulable reason or is it just a rule?

c+x= pi * (d+2) in this case, right? So where did that multiply pi by 2 come from?

Okay, but what if there is no compression or expansion? What if it’s a rigid string already stretched out just enough to be expanded completely but not enough to move the bell? Or maybe a thin wire of the same weight?

And it’s so lazy. You could get .pngs of all of that stuff and just stack them up in PS and throw on a sepia filter and it would look better after 5 minutes of work. AIs like this have just made people lazy. I’ve seen people talk about using Chat GPT to do Algebra 1 math. Literally any basic search engine will be just as effective and you might actually learn something but people are so determined to make AI something they can rely on. /rant

It’s definitely older than that. I remember French jokes going back decades before. They’ve always been a punching bag in America’s eyes. “The French are smelly.” “The French are snobby.” “The French are cowards.” If I had to guess, it probably goes back to WWII and their occupation by the Nazis.

I heard this guy talking about the right’s reaction to the pandemic say “This whole new idea of what’s liberty, and liberty for whom can kill. Especially when it replaces the idea of liberty as that which has to be shared in some kind of common good.”

It’s obvious though that it’s not actually a new idea, but I think this cuts to the heart of it. It’s an inherently selfish mindset that is so prevalent on the right. They use the idea of “liberty” as a bludgeon to get what they want by redefining it. Freedom has stopped meaning a group concept and become purely a personal one. Their own wants are the most important thing in all cases. And I want to emphasize want. These aren’t beliefs. They are projecting their desires of the way they would prefer the world and calling them beliefs.

It’s fairly universal, I think, but exemplified in American culture. I could go one about some of the “founding” ideas of the country that have had effects that last to today but I’m talking about freedom today. It was always a selfish idea here (bunch of business men didn’t want to pay taxes) and the end result is before us.

People see a book that makes them uncomfortable - for whatever reason - and just want it removed, regardless of any wider ramifications. They get scared about their own impending doom when a pandemic hits so they seek to remove the fear by the most direct path. Actually solving it is hard, but removing the fear is quick, so they demand that everyone just stop being afraid and stop reminding them of the things they fear. It seems to be a pretty standard through-line for their ethos.

“anti” also doesn’t mean opposite, it means against. The roots of the word, tracing back to the Greek, means against. As it does in French and it’s Sanskrit version. All forms of it mean opposed to. This is why language is important and some checks should be there to counter the “language is malleable” argument that people use as an excuse to not learn how to use words correctly. The idea that anti means opposite has been around as long as I can remember, and definitely longer than that, but it drastically changes the meaning of words.

I assume that’s primarily from the over-abundance of plastic surgery in Korean celebrities that tends to genericize their features towards an ideal? I remember hearing about surgery being a huge thing years ago and I’m assuming it still is. They’re like, Stepford Wive’s-ing themselves visually and all end up looking generally the same when chasing attractiveness.

Fun semi-related story. I used to work in an open kitchen where a lot of the cooking staff would interact with the customers pretty regularly. Quite often me and two other men in the kitchen would get confused with one another. I gave a guy some marinating tips one week. He comes back in a few days later and waves me over to tell me how well it went. Except he didn’t wave me over, it was a coworker he thought was me. I’d have people bring up previous conversations when I’ve never seen them before. After the 3rd time that kind of thing happened, it clicked. The 3 of us who got confused with each other were just very generic young white guys. One of them wore glasses and I sometimes wore them, sometimes wore contacts. Who I got confused with changed on whether I wore glasses or not, but it happened constantly in the years I worked there. And it was always other white people getting us confused. Looking like a generic white guy is 100% a thing.

That’s where the discussion comes in. With an instructor to moderate and a class working together who will overall have grasped it. Those who didn’t pick it up reading learn by doing.

But personally, I don’t like the idea of kids doing schoolwork outside school hours. I went to a trade-school college and we would do trimesters with 9 weeks for a single class. Spent the whole day just in that class, six hours. First half learning theory then putting it into practice in the second half. By nine weeks, you’d know that subject pretty well. But that was complicated stuff, and honestly, probably didn’t even require 9 weeks. But it’s a good starting model. Fully immerse kids in a subject for weeks where they don’t have to mix in other subjects to muddy their forming brains. Homework won’t be needed and they’ll have a much better grasp on the subject at the end. You could do 6 classes for 6 weeks each a school year.

And I feel like early education kind of already does this. They typically will focus on a subject for weeks instead of trying to fit in 5 a day. It’s just the upper levels we’ve decided to shuffle kids around multiple times a day.

And working a job typically isn’t the same as school. School is for learning. That 6 hours where you need to be actively aware and absorbing information. Learning new things. Figuring out how those things fit into the real world. Recalling that information in stressful environments for tests. It’s mentally taxing for a lot of kids as is. When I was in school, most days I was mostly checked out by the end of that 6 hours. I can’t imagine adding a couple more hours in there. And then have to ride the bus home in rush hour traffic!

But now that I have that baseline education I can check out all day at work and still be more productive than a lot of those around me who stay engaged the full day. Give me eight hours. The most mentally taxing thing I have to do now is pretend to like some of my coworkers during meetings.