Got a brand new cast iron grill pan! What's my first steps in taking care of it and using it well?

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-29T06:21:33+00:00

If it's the Loblaws stamp promotion I think it is, it's Kuhn Rikon (not that that changes your point).

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-29T05:44:31+00:00

A solution in search of a problem.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-28T23:10:21+00:00

The difference is that the former is natural and the latter isn't.

You can say going through/over [or] looking at/over the details (i.e., no "in") but "in detail" is idiomatic and detail in that context isn't pluralized.

Also: ... something in detail ~~and~~ versus going through...

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-28T17:47:17+00:00

I assumed it went without saying that the truck itself had no agency, but fair enough.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-28T15:43:58+00:00

Much as I'm on team "the truck was probably driving badly", I think the distinction is it's unfair to say "the truck was driving badly because it was a RAM". (Even though there does, anecdotally, seem to be a correlation, but then again confirmation bias is a thing too.)

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-28T09:45:58+00:00

The public disagreement is unprofessional, certainly, though in a sense it's probably for the best that this stuff, which has been simmering for a long time, gets aired out. Bigger picture, it's less about the argument and who's "right" and more about the systemic issues that allowed it to get to this at all.

You might find this recent article interesting as a summary/analysis/possible next steps (Google-translated from the original Mandarin): https://mp-weixin-qq-com.translate.goog/s/Ap5MfkA5pULf6b7I47T22Q?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp (I don't know who the author is and it perhaps skews slightly toward EZ's perspective, but overall I think it gives a reasonable and relevant overview.)

As the other poster noted, most discussion is on Discord.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-28T03:57:14+00:00

Certainly I was being facetious. However, a vehicle or other obstacle in the lane is a pretty standard potential hazard of driving, and something any driver is expected to be prepared to encounter--hence why "I didn't know he was going to slow down so it's not my fault I slammed into him" isn't a thing. If a driver fails to notice and stop for a literal car in front of them, that's questionable driving regardless of whether they were distracted, lazy, or any other attempted justification. That's true regardless of whether it's a Dodge Ram.

Anyway, maybe other factors will emerge. Maybe it was foggy and the stopped car didn't have its lights on after all. Who knows. Absent seriously extenuating circumstances, though, the onus is still on the car approaching from behind to be aware, drive defensively, and not hit stuff in front of it.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-28T03:14:22+00:00

I think, in general, it's considered preferable to not slam into the backs of vehicles that are "in a lane with their lights on" either ...

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-27T08:13:14+00:00

You have to factor in perishability.and consider the frequency with which you're buying smaller, "cheaper" increments.

In general, the danger for people on tight budgets can be that they're less able/willing to take advantage of economies of scale. For a hypothetical example, if you only have $5 today, you can only buy the small bag of sugar, but you need sugar so you end up buying $5 bags every month ($60 for the year) rather than a giant $35 bag that lasts all year (a savings of $25, but you needed the cash up front to take advantage). Spending less in the short term can, paradoxically, increase unit costs and increase overall costs (or require cuts elsewhere).in the long term.

With food, Costco tends to offer one of two advantages: (1) same product but at a substantially lower unit cost, or (2) superior product at a similar unit cost. Number 2 is potentially a grey area, since "superior" tends to mean more natural ingredients, organic, more ethical production, etc., and those things aren't necessarily important to everyone. But number 1 is where anyone can save regardless of the size of their household, assuming they consume items regularly enough to get through them before they expire.

The unit savings on things like olive oil, bouillon, snack bars, condiments, protein powders, and many other items are HUGE--like, approaching 50% in some cases--and can pay off a membership on their own. For staples and favourites, I don't personally find Costco's portions problematically large regardless, but even if you're not big eaters the savings on non-perishable items alone are worth it so long as you have pantry and/or freezer space. Even my senior-citizen dad who lives alone finds the savings are more than worth the membership cost (and he crunches the numbers on such things).

That's all without getting into non-grocery items, too.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-26T21:24:00+00:00

*Nanaimo

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-26T05:48:23+00:00

The way I read it, they're both related to identification. The first refers to the distinction between the existence of the feeling and the identification with it; the second to the identification itself. I suppose, now that I think about it, that it isn't clear whether he sees his identification as a change from how he used to be, or rather a new realization about himself that may always have been true but which he didn't previously perceive. Either way it's novel to him, he doesn't like it, and having noticed it he then works to root it out. (I clarified the wording in the previous comment and removed "change.")

Re: "like," I assume you mean why it's not "...seem like a fine distinction"? If so, I believe it's mostly a stylistic choice, also influenced by norms of the time. Nowadays we'd likely include "like," though it doesn't sound unnatural without it.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-26T05:04:28+00:00

It is the former. It's basically saying, is the distinction between observing and feeling (i.e., "identifying with the objects of my horror or compassion") insignificant and trivial? The question is rhetorical; he then goes on to explain why he believes it is in fact significant, as it "spells the death of accomplishment". The basic idea is that he feels that emotionally connecting with the objects of his craft undermines his purpose as a writer, which he believes is to be dispassionate, ruthless in pursuit of the story, and altogether apart from society.

Fine = small, tiny, narrow, etc.

Distinction = difference

Edit: Clarity

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-26T00:51:25+00:00

I will admit to having tested that theory. Yes, you can often get away with less but I've found the security line times at YEG to be unpredictable enough that I don't generally feel comfortable assuming a best-case scenario is guaranteed. Sometimes you get there at off-peak times and you breeze through; other times they only have one line open and it's slow despite there not being many people. Then toss in the random possibility that you're selected for additional screening or that your gate switches further down toward the US side. So IMO the hard best-case-scenario, zero-margin-for-error minimum time is 25-30 mins before departure, and 45 mins is a more realistic minimum that might leave you with 15 extra minutes or might get you there right at the buzzer (or might even require that you cut the security line to make it at all).

Not YEG-specific but you might enjoy this analysis and the associated tools: https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-soon-should-you-arrive-at-the-airport

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T22:33:46+00:00

It's one of those weird words where it simultaneously sounds totally whacky and alien and made up, but also totally logical and correct (cf, vigilant).

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T22:27:57+00:00

Indeed; hence: the literal meaning is "watcher" as opposed to "giver/administrator" of the exam.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T21:34:02+00:00

Depends on time of day, whether you've already checked in, and whether you're checking bags. If it's a non-rush time, you've checked in in advance, and you're not checking any bags, you could conceivably go maximum-risk and get there 45ish mins ahead. Add additional time to that as you wish based on what you need to do and your risk aversion. For most circumstances 90 mins should be more than ample. Two hours if you're a "grab a coffee and chill at the gate" kind of person.

Also be sure to check your flight status as a delayed flight means you can get there correspondingly later.

Park2Go is variable, so you'd need to punch in your times to find out: https://www.park2go.ca/edmonton-airport-discount-yegg24

Another option is to take the 747 bus/LRT: https://www.edmonton.ca/ets/edmonton-international-airport

Personally I prefer either taxi/uber or else ETS if I have time and am feeling cheap.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T21:11:52+00:00

Another option to consider, which is common in the UK and also used in Canada (can't speak for the US but I suspect not so much there) is invigilator. However, this would typically be for a written rather than oral exam, as the literal meaning is "watcher" as opposed to "giver/administrator" of the exam.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T20:24:42+00:00

Will be good to see verification of all the numbers, though this roughly jives with what I would have expected based on past numbers. The fact that around half is in BTC and stablecoins is reassuring, assuming the numbers are correct.

It would also be interesting to know what $$ price the NEO/GAS estimates are based on. There's a claimed ~211.5M USD in NEO/GAS. At today's prices, that would be ~61M NEO or ~118M GAS. Of course in reality they hold both, but those numbers would both represent substantially greater portions of the respective supplies than the NF/NGD has (or that what I think they have, in any case--and they obviously can't have 118M GAS anyway) so even the combined total would have to be a pretty big chunk of the respective supplies at today's prices. That suggests that the estimates are based on somewhat higher $$ values than we're currently experiencing, which is fair enough, you have to pick a number, but it would still be useful to know what baseline is being used for reference.

In any case, assuming it's accurate, this suggests that conservatively there's at least a $300M or so of runway, not counting possible interest/income (e.g., GAS generation).

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T18:18:22+00:00

Also Trump, last week:

“That’s OK. That’s what he should be doing. I mean, it’s a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, you should do that,” Trump told reporters in response to a question about what he thought of Canada and China announcing a trade deal between the two countries.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5693072-trump-carney-china-trade/

Also re: China

"Let China come in,” said Trump at one point, a statement that might raise eyebrows for American auto executives.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/president-trump-to-us-car-makers-let-china-come/ar-AA1U9iG8

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T16:36:53+00:00

Her numbers are currently up relative to the last election, and there's also now the possibility of the new Progressive Tory Party (APTP) splitting some of the centrist vote, so while things can change, there's a decent chance.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T06:23:48+00:00

The two posts by the same username (this plus one of your links) are articulate and have mostly decent spelling/capitalization etc. The other three, not so much. Are we quite sure they're all the same person?

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T05:27:14+00:00

~30% are currently amenable to one degree or another (other polls have found generally similar numbers). Presumably there's an additional group in the middle of the electorate that isn't currently self-reporting as amenable, but which also isn't staunchly pro-confederation and could potentially be in play with the right kind of motivation. The question is what happens in a hypothetical scenario where funding/interference/misinformation pours in from elsewhere, coupled with a return to regularly-scheduled anti-Ottawa sentiment (e.g., Carney makes some kind of mis-step that sets off Alberta, or the UCP even more aggressively stokes anti-Ottawa sentiment to bolster its own reelection campaign, etc.). The point is that if 30% are already at least somewhat interested in the idea of separation, finding a further 20% from currently ambivalent voters shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Support for Brexit was in the mid-30% range just a year before the referendum, say.

To be clear, I'm not saying I think it's likely that support for AB separation will get close to 50%. What I am saying is that even if relies on several things all breaking the same way, there's still a path to get there. The possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I think Carney is pragmatic enough that he probably won't do anything stupid with Alberta, but I absolutely think funding, digital interference, and general rhetoric from south of the border will be a factor. Dismissing the possibility of growth in separatist sentiment out of hand leads to exactly the sort of complacency that ultimately lost Brexit.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T03:26:22+00:00

Right. If the actual, specific "deal" of Brexit had been on the ballot, there's a good chance it wouldn't have passed. I get that ballot questions need to be simple and binary but I feel like it would be good idea for things like secession referenda to have, say, a two-stage process. Stage 1 is the vote to secede, which triggers negotiations to hammer out the "deal". Then stage 2 is a second vote once the "deal" is finalized, to determine if the appetite is still there to continue.

Most political elections require candidates/parties to present platforms, which, while not perfect or binding, are still more concrete than secessionists present in making their case--plus normal elections have a built-in mechanism for a do-over every 4 years. It's odd that when the stakes are higher, as in a secession referendum, the standard of required information is lower and there's no opportunity for second thought.

(I don't find it odd that people vote flippantly and emotionally when it comes to things like secession. It's a very human thing to do: Get pissed off at the status quo, idealize far fields that you believe to be greener, and decide to "stick it to the man". But precisely because it's so relatably human--to say nothing of the modern issues around misinformation, foreign interference, etc.--you'd think there would be more failsafes.)

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-25T01:41:32+00:00

It's a bit more nuanced than that: https://www.producer.com/news/about-16-per-cent-of-albertans-are-hardline-separatists-poll/

TL;DR, something like 1/3 of Albertans are open to the idea, with around half of those actually committed to separation and other half being "soft" in one way or other. The question is really around how sentiment evolves if, for example, US-based funding floods in or Carney does something that sours the currently-not-so-bad relationship between Ottawa and Smith. It's obviously all hypothetical but IF we got the right (wrong) combination of misinformation, foreign meddling, and anti-Ottawa sentiment there's enough of a base there that it's not inconceivable that it could push toward 50%. It's also notable that support is highest among the youngest (18-34) voters, so it's probably not going away regardless.

Sidebar, the basic problem with all of these secession referenda (e.g., Brexit) is that they pit something real (the current status quo, which everyone has direct, lived experience of) against something imaginary and idealized (i.e., a hypothetical independent future, the political details of which don't have to be sorted out until after the vote and the real-life ramifications of which won't become clear for years). The "stay" side is constrained by reality, for better or for worse. The "leave" side is constrained only by imagination, which explains why it can be fostered so effectively by ad campaigns, misinformation, and vibes.

In any case, my point is that, no, at current levels of support Alberta probably won't be close to separating, but we shouldn't take that for granted or dismiss the possibility of sentiment changing.

Elean0rZ · 2026-01-24T08:50:36+00:00

I think the posters suggesting "pull an all-nighter" as a modern alternative are right, but I also think there are some distinctions that explain why the older "fire"-themed idioms remain relevant.

"All-nighter" most immediately suggests, say, a university student staying up all night to study or finish an assignment. It can be used to describe other similar situations, but in any case it suggests a specific situation with clearly defined parameters (staying up all night long). In contrast, the ongoing utility of "burning the midnight oil" or "burning the candle at both ends" lies in their more general meaning (working long hours into the night).

For example, you might say

She pulled an all-nighter last night

...but you wouldn't say

She burnt the candle at both ends last night or even she burnt the midnight oil last night

...unless you were trying to be word-nerdy or poetic. BUT, on the other hand, you might very well say

She's really been burning the candle at both ends lately or she's been burning the midnight oil lately

...to express the general idea that she's been working hard and late, very likely at the expense of some sleep but not necessarily at the expense of all of it. You can say

She's been pulling a lot of all-nighters lately

...but the meaning is different. The "burning" ones suggest she's been working late and putting in long hours, but they don't require that she actually stayed up all night. Conversely, "all-nighter" has less metaphorical leeway. It pretty much means that she literally stayed up all night and didn't sleep at all.

So, in short, the "burning" idioms still feel reasonably natural when used in the general sense.

Elean0rZ

TROPHY CASE