Nick

I've had success with this recipe, which is in grams. I just made a baker's % out of it and mostly use that now for flour tortillas since the recipe made more than I wanted.

Honestly, unless you know you're going to stick to a single brew method, I'll vouch for the J series. It's their oldest lineup, so I would think that it will continue to be supported with replacement burrs for the foreseeable future (though mine hasn't needed any replacement parts at all over the course of 7 years of moderately heavy usage). I used a Jx for pour over and espresso for 5 years before changing it up, and I still think it was the most dramatic change I've ever made with regards to cup quality. It's now mostly my travel coffee grinder, but I'll still pull it out from time to time since I enjoy the ritual of hand grinding.

I can't speak to their other grinders, but I know that Lance Hedrick has reviewed all of the more expensive (and more singularly focused) 1zpresso grinders as well across various videos on his channel.

Most recently, I used this flour tortilla recipe and was happy with the results. I found having a video helpful as another form of feedback to see if I was following the recipe correctly.

Anytime! I don't respect her decision to advocate for Trump in any way, but she put herself in an extremely difficult situation. Not only are the facts extremely adverse to your side, you have to counsel such an unlikable, egotistical clown. She deserves so much of the criticism that she gets, even if only for being conceited enough to think she could come out of such a public trial without the sort of reputational harm she's receiving.

You cannot blame a lawyer for allowing their client to testify, they literally have an ethical obligation to allow a client to testify if the client chooses to (ABA Model Rule 3.3(9) ). You can call her competency into question for other reasons, but she would absolutely be sanctioned if she didn't allow him to testify.

Chiming in to provide another anecdotal experience. At a drip grind size on my 1zpresso JX, I take no longer than half a minute to grind an 18g dose of beans and it requires nearly no effort at all. If you're trying to keep the budget under or around $200USD, the brews you get from a nice manual grinder are significantly better than what you can get from an electric grinder at a similar price point, but you are trading convenience. If you're entertaining or brewing for more than a few people regularly though, it might be worth the tradeoff. For me, the flexibility and portability of a manual grinder were definitely a priority, since it allowed me to take a very compact brew setup while traveling so that I wouldn't be stuck with bad coffee while backpacking/in hotels.

Why would the clause be unenforceable? It doesn't violate any of the general principles of contract law. If you intentionally contract around these terms that don't violate any existing body of law and don't run counter to public interest, a court would have no problem enforcing the terms of a contract. They probably wouldn't sue you or me in our individual capacity if we circumvented. There's a much greater chance of recovery if they go after a company which is pretty clearly using their service in a bad faith. If ByteDance wanted to use their LLM to train their own, they could've negotiated such a license.

Sorry for the late reply, but this doesn't really seem like it'd come close to invoking any of the US's neutered antitrust enforcement. Open AI doesn't have a monopoly position to abuse, since there are other large firms offering LLMs that see reasonable amounts of usage. This clause amounts more to an effort to stop reverse engineering than stifle anyone trying to build an LLM.

I can't speak for every jurisdiction, but I'd be hard pressed to see why it wouldn't be legal in the US, especially in these circumstances. ByteDance is a massive legally sophisticated corporation, so they should've been expected to fully read and understand the terms and conditions before accepting them. They probably won't bring a legal challenge, because they know they don't have a particularly strong legal argument or a sympathetic angle to use.

They did fully not exclude it from legislation yet. Apple simply contested their iMessage's as a gatekeeper under the definition used in the act, and the Commission is in the process of determining whether or not that is true. If iMessage is determined to be a gatekeeper, Apple will only have bought themselves a few more months before they have to comply with the DMA.

Yeah I wouldn't worry about your brew time too much as long as it's tasty to you. I think most online resources (at least in English) tend to completely ignore single shot doses, since third wave espresso and milk drinks are centered around a 16-22g shot. I'd be really curious to hear what you thought the sweet spot was for single shot timing.

I always dial my espresso by taste, not time. Doing this will give you a lot more flexibility. That being said, I think the range where most of my coffees feel dialed is about 25-40 seconds.

I want to preface this by saying that I rarely change my shot from my standard 20g, so everything I'm going to say is conjecture, but I would guess that a single shot that takes 30 seconds to pull would be wildly overextracted. The reason why a double shot will take so much more time is because the puck of coffee that the water has to force its way through is much taller. Creating channels through a larger puck (or a puck made from much finer grinds) takes more energy from the water, so it should take longer. Once channels are made, the puck will quickly deteriorate, which is why the flow rate is so much faster at the end of a shot. That being said, you will definitely want to adjust your grind size for a single shot. Grinding finer than you would in a double shot will allow for a more even extraction in a single shot without overextracting the coffee, but it still shouldn't take as long as your double shot.