NateNate60

I'm not saying that those don't work, but I haven't seen any models (even in China) that would survive several hours a day with a Cantonese chef armed with a 2 kg carbon steel wok for more than a week or so.

If you actually bother to read it (regularly, not just once or twice on selected columns that you saw posted online), you would not think that. The opinion column is very neoliberal with a hint of libertarianism.

The Taiwan issue has exactly to do with the fact that sending official diplomatic representatives to it means recognising its legitimacy and sovereignty. Even though most Western countries already believe this, sending the representatives would be to express that they believe this which is what upsets the Chinese government. China doesn't care what people think as long as they keep it to themselves. It's when they get "embarrassed" on the world stage that Chinese leadership thinks it demands action.

It's not about "reforming" him. I'm talking about the fact that if he will at least consider whether a proposal is popular before he does it. If it's within the margin of error or at least close enough to cover it up and pretend, it won't stop him, but if it's overwhelmingly unpopular it will cause him to think twice, but it is not guaranteed to change his mind. Again, this is based on past behaviour which is not necessarily indicative of the future.

I am Chinese, family from the Canton province, whose cuisine forms the basis of many popular overseas Chinese-inspired dishes, I can explain the "why" on this.

In Cantonese cuisine there is a concept called "锅气" or "wokhei". It translates to "breath of the wok". It refers to the distinct flavours and textures that come with an extremely hot flame, because as soon as the food touches the surface of a wok which has been heated to nearly (or past) the smoke point of oil, it cauterises it and causes some interesting chemical reactions. That really means food cooks extremely quickly in that wok and by the time the outside of meat is beginning to overcook, the inside is barely done. That's also why many Cantonese dishes cooked in this manner have thin-sliced meat and not large slabs, because it would be impossible to have good wokhei and also fully cook the meat.

While it is theoretically possible to get good wokhei on an induction or electric burner, in practice it's quite difficult to do so because the cooking technique requires smacking the wok around the stove (which would damage induction and electric stoves) and it also requires the entire wok be hot which is difficult to do on induction and electric burners. That's why they have insane gas burners.

The amount of heat required to sustain the temperature needed for good wokhei is higher than what is commonly possible on home cooking ranges. While typical home methane ranges can output a respectable 5 kW or so of heat output, restaurant-grade wok burners can hit 10-12 kW easily.

There is a small difference though. Musk has shown in the past that it is possible to shame him into changing his mind. He is at least somewhat receptive to what the public thinks of him. Trump, on the other hand, has absolutely no shame and doesn't care if 90% of the country is against him as long as the 10% who are with him are enough to fill a rally room.

Musk is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency so if we were to come to power then he'd probably assume some newly-made office created just for him. They'd probably make a new prime minister-like role where he has the power to "advise" (i.e. dictate) policy decisions to the president.

That being said, power changes people. Hard to say whether a hypothetical Imperial Chancellor Musk would act much differently from King Trump I. I wager not substantially. Trump, at least, creates a lot of funny memes with his ridiculous fuck-ups. I fear Musk would be far more competent.

In many localities voters have used initiative powers to ban red light cameras and in some jurisdictions red-light camera fines are deemed constitutional violations because the US Constitution requires those accused of crimes to be able to "confront their accuser" in court which is not possible if the accuser is a machine.

Especially not their opinion column but I'm just posting here because it's interesting to see what the neoliberals think about it and it's a good discussion point

Washington Post columnists said it would probably just capture the "Never Trumper" moderate Republican voters who currently begrudgingly vote Democratic because they understand that the Republican Party is nominating only yes-men and fascists.

The whole system of formal diplomatic recognition needs to die. Right now, "recognising" a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people. This is a very obstructive and unproductive system. It doesn't matter whether you "recognise" a government and it also doesn't matter what you decide to call your representatives to it. Refusing to recognise a government doesn't mean that group of people doesn't hold power or doesn't actually control territory. It just prevents you from engaging with them in a constructive manner. It's just a head-in-the-sand approach to intergovernmental relations.

If there's a group of people calling themselves a government that holds power over a group of people or a piece of territory that you are interested in, it shouldn't have to result in this whole game of charades. You should be able to send official representatives to that group without having to worry about offending everyone else. The whole concept of "recognition" is just nonsense.

While it is rude to honk immediately when the light turns green, it is also true that taking too long to accelerate when the light changes severely reduces traffic flow and causes congestion. And this is commonly caused by distracted drivers. You are supposed to release your brake and begin moving at roughly the same time as the car in front of you, i.e. when the car in front of you turns off their brake lights or when the traffic signal turns green if you're in the front.

Edit: "Too long" realistically means anything more than half a second. If everyone's reaction time was one second it would reduce the number of cars per green light probably by half. That doesn't mean it's polite to honk after half a second but if your reaction time is that bad you should not be driving.

So what did you mean when you began your comment with "actually it's the inverse"? Inverse of what?