Happy to help! It’s worked great for me, and a buddy of mine also liked it, so I’m fairly sure it’s not a fluke. :P

Also, my ratios were by weight. That’s only relevant because that’s what makes me push up against the maximum solubility. If you go volumetric, you have more wiggle room. The second point will be less relevant, but it’s still faster and easier than heating it in a pot, IMO.

Oh, and as a bonus: you don’t need to wait for the syrup to cool down.

If you’re going to make simple syrup, use a stick blender.

Firstly, it’s easier and faster than heating the sugar and water in a pot, which is the most popular method.

Secondly, you don’t lose any significant amount of water to evaporation. That’s not a big deal if you make 1:1 simple syrup, but if you’re going 2:1 (which I prefer), you’re already very close to the maximum solubility of sugar in water at room temperature. Losing a few grams of water can make it supersaturated, which leads to sugar crystals falling out of solution over time. Not a big deal, but a little annoying.

If you give it a try, bear in mind that you’re going to get a cloudy syrup at first. That’s totally normal, and it’s not undissolved sugar, it’s just air bubbles. They’ll float out over time.

I hate how relevant this question is in so many situations.

Yet again.

That user is basing their position on a Daily Mail article citing LePoint, a french right-wing magazine, that quotes one of her trainers, who said (with context) “There was a problem with her hormones and chromosomes, but she’s a woman. That’s all that mattered to us.”

Nowhere does that even suggest she has XY chromosomes, and, to state the obvious, he’s not a doctor. He’s responding to an unsubstantiated allegation, and probably giving it too much credit. He even says that she underwent a testosterone test that came back within female norms.

It really is simple. The burden of proof is on people making these claims, and we’re not taking the word of a blatantly corrupt organization, that had a vested interest in disqualifying Khelif, who would not say what test was administered or what the results were. If they had more specific information, they wouldn’t shut up about it, because won’t even shut up now with less to go on.

It’s about PROTECTING WOMEN! And if I have to hurt a bunch of women to protect them from hypothetical scenarios I made up to demonize trans people, so be it!

My bad then! I just saw options for a trial and a one-time purchase, didn’t realize there was a subscription.

Honestly glad to see the option. I’ll take a one-time purchase any day.

It’s a one-time purchase.

edit: It’s a one-time purchase for the “pro” version. I’ve been using the free version for a while and really enjoying it. I’ve been thinking of upgrading more to support the developers than for the added features.

deleted by creator

The fascinating thing about this is that, in context… it’s still fucking weird, but for different reasons.

He’s technically joking about how it makes you transition, saying it’s a claim he heard from “scientists.” So he wants to call men women as a misogynistic insult, but also to poke fun at the concept of scientific study. It’s wrong to distinguish between gender and sex as part of evidence-based medicine and basic conscientiousness. It’s cool and good if you’re doing it to be a dick, though. He’s got to police gender roles, but also insist that they are completely immutable based on your sex.

What a creepy weirdo.

My favorite part was that Vance, supposedly, wrote about it in Hillbilly Elegy. Reading the book would easily solve the issue once and for all, but no one wanted to.

It’s also why the AP article was retracted. They could obviously prove that it’s not in the book, but like you said, it would be impossible to prove that he never, at any point in his life, when no one was around, fucked a couch.

…but also, the AP article didn’t even involve reading the book. They just used Ctrl+F on key terms because, again, no one wants to actually read that book.

Totally understood, and I apologize for implying you might have. It was not my attention. I just meant that, even though it’s something I avoid jumping to conclude, it does happen, and there’s reason to believe it’s the case with Rowling. She’s got issues. It doesn’t absolve her of anything, but there’s a little pity in my condemnation.

Yeah. I know that calling bigots secretly closeted is problematic, but IIRC she has outright said that, if she were a young person today, she would question her gender identity.

JK Rowling did that not too long ago. (She didn’t call it Jewish, but absolutely called it lies and propaganda that trans people and trans researchers were early targets for the Nazis and victims of the Holocaust.)

I don’t say this to obsess over the Harry Potter author, but to point out that you don’t have to go cherry picking to find this shit. She’s a prominent person using her platform to spread bigotry and misinformation.

Typical leftist cancel culture. You commit just one white supremacist terror attack, and all of a sudden you’re a pariah!

It might even be simpler than that. Capitalism just doesn’t care past the next quarter. And when ownership is disconnected from labor or even from customer, than it’s just a really rudimentary collective intelligence. The shareholders just want the line to go up, and everyone in the corporate structure is accountable to the shareholders, so they all do their part, big or little, to make that happen. It completely dispenses with personal responsibility, whether for negative externalities, direct harm, or even the future as close as months from now.

The last time Google pulled out all the stops to fight ad blockers, I had to update uBlock Origin every now and then until the whole thing passed. That’s all.

So I’m not worried. But I am amused that they keep making ads more obnoxious, which pushes more people to use ad blockers. I didn’t even use sponsorblock until a particularly egregious bit of native advertising. They could probably gain ground by just making ads less irritating, but they absolutely will not.

Tankies: The word ‘tankie’ is meaningless because it gets overused by disingenuous people on the right.

Also tankies: Everyone who criticizes my position is right-wing.

It honestly reminds me of fascists saying that harsh criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. It’s a dishonest rhetorical game.

And capitalist regimes. The Russian Federation was literally founded by a betrayal of a reformist movement in the USSR, and China consulted with Milton Goddamn Friedman on their economy, ending up with billionaires. I even saw .ml users crying about Russian *oligarchs" having their assets seized (“stolen,” as they said), and unironically citing Matt Taibbi. Not even “back in the day” Taibbi, but literally The Twitter Files. Using bought & paid for corporate propaganda to make their point.

They’re just campists. I don’t want to run afoul of a “No True Scotsman” situation, but fuck, for people who seem to think they’re the Only True Socialists, they’re willing to drop socialism in an instant if it means they can be edgy dickheads on the internet.