lvxferre

It isn't exactly what you're asking for, but here's how I prepare those instant lamen packages when I don't have frozen broth:

• brown the meat in the pot that I'm going to use with the lamen. Reserve.
• add ginger, sesame seeds, and brown sugar to the pot. Let them caramelise a bit, and add the rest of the seasoning (garlic, soy sauce, pepper sauce, MSG, etc). Then water.
• add vegs and let them cook. Aside cook the noodles and probably boil some eggs.
• assemble everything.

So the "broth" is mostly the juice of the vegs and meat, soy sauce, vinegar and condiments. It isn't exactly flavourful, but good enough.

If I had to improve it I'd probably use a chicken bouillon (for any land meat) or powdered dashi (for fish lamen). And perhaps half of a package of flavourless gelatine, for texture. (Some people might use miso instead. My body does not handle it well so I don't even have it, but it's an option for you.)

Sometimes I also add half a sheet of nori, as kombu is hard to find where I live. Taste-wise it's good, but be aware that you'll get some "nori fragments" at the bottom, I don't mind but the texture isn't exactly great.

I usually complain about the usage of the word "toxic" but at least here it's well-defined by the article. Still unnecessary though.

Their finding is interesting though - that "online political discourse tends to be uncivil because the people who opt into such discourse are generally uncivil".

And that begs the question why. My hypothesis is that it has to do with stupidity: political discussion offers a safe space for the stupid*, and uncivil interactions usually have at least one side being stupid. Doubly true in Reddit because stupidity there is seen like a badge of honour.

*NOTE: when I say "the stupid" I am not talking about a well-defined group of people. I'm talking about a set of behaviours (assumptiveness, context illiteracy, a tendency to oversimplify things, wishful thinking, lack of logical "parsing" etc.). Everyone is "the stupid" once in a while, but some way more often than others.

How nobody ever thought that this feature should work only on a few whitelisted communities where the possibility of a sad post is small, like pics or funny?

Because the administration of Reddit never thinks on the consequences of the half-baked features that they implement. They do it, then wait to see if the users rage. If the users rage, they change something and gaslight the users to cover their own arses.

It was the same with the chat feature, 3y ago. Excerpt from that thread: the admins added a "start chatting" button to /r/rape, then accused the moderators of /r/rape of doctoring a screenshot that showed it. And then edited their comments to remove said accusation.

remember, software exists in a vacuum of pure logic

You got me fooled until that line. Then I read the "just kidding".

I think that you're being spot on; that's a lot like plenty software developers handle ethical and moral matters, by not doing it at all, pretending that "its just maths lol" without acknowledging that, ultimately, software is made for people, not the opposite.

[Speaking as a mod]

Please, back off. You're being obnoxious (rule #4) and rude (rule #1), by insisting on uncalled advice even after another user told you to "mind your own business".

Toxic chemicals have already been found in McClelland Lake, just southeast of the park. Locals stopped taking their drinking water from the lake years ago.

"The death of this ecosystem means nothing to me, fool! Only more beaver lebensraum!" - Berb, the beaver.

Okay, I'm joking with the above. Serious now: AFAIK beavers, corals and humans are the only clades who are able to perform such deep changes in the geography of the environment around them. After doing some maths, "17 acres" (I'm not used to this unit) would be roughly 70 000 m²; that's a fucking lot specially considering how smaller they are in comparison with us.

KoboldCoterie already said what I would. I'm also OK with individual scores for posts/comments, it's just that scores for your overall contribution instil the wrong mindset in the platform.

But even for posts/comments, there are some problems, it's just that the benefits outweigh them. People upvote stupid shit that they tend to agree on, or that they find passable, without taking into account if it's actually contributive.

It's a bit off-topic, but that's the main reason why I don't think that "aggregate scores" (karma) should be ever a thing in Lemmy. Not even optional - because even if you don't care about karma, the other people around you do it, and they'll still shit on the same common environment because of karma.

Starting it a decade after Facebook is actually worse - it means that they had a whole decade to see what goes wrong with it, but still implemented it. This shows that they either 1) don't really care about the users, or 2) are completely clueless on what they're doing. (Spoilers: it's both.)

That reminds me the ginger I was growing in my yard. Just as a curiosity. It spread wonderfully in the summer... and when winter came it said "nope, screw this tsundere climate." [Protip: if your homeland's weather is a rollercoaster, don't bother growing ginger.]

Funnily enough even in my chunk of the southern hemisphere those spices end a bit associated with winter, I believe. June and its mulled wine (or mulled rum for some - I find it distasteful, but you do you).

The text boils down to inconsistent babble, where the author is specifically talking about AI, but disingenuously dressing it as a more general discussion, so he can "sell" the reader the general "solutions" too.

Compare specially

• the title - "wealth", no mention of which type of wealth)
• #1 - issues that the author sees with the AI Act
• #4 - his "recommendations". Mostly applying to technology in general, and yet in no moment the author shows how the AI act would be representative on how European governments handle tech in general.

Archive link. Fuck paywalls.

Relevant tidbit: the "einstein" there does not refer to the scientist, it's simply "one stone". (And now you know the etymology of his surname. Yup, it's a bit silly.)