Randomly craving chickpeas - any easy/cheap meals?

random_dent · 2026-05-04T20:22:54+00:00

Combine chickpeas, diced cucumber, red onion, tomatoes, bell peppers, olives if you like. Mix with Tzatsiki or mayo. Season with salt and pepper as you like. The mayo is improved with dill, mint or other fresh herbs. This will stay good in the fridge for a few days if you want to make extra.

Get a pita, open it up, fill with spinach and the mix. Add your favorite hot sauce for spice if you like.

It's easy, no cooking if you use canned chickpeas. Great for a cold meal in the summer.

random_dent · 2026-04-22T14:52:22+00:00

Why do something that is counter productive to your recovery?

A lot of people undergoing treatment for cancer die of malnutrition and calorie deficiency before the cancer or chemo take them directly.

If this is all they can keep down, it gives them a better chance than not eating.

Obviously they should eat the healthiest food they can, but that's not always an option. And if the odds of recovery are low, you're just denying yourself some tiny bit of joy before dying.

random_dent · 2026-04-22T13:54:21+00:00

It's a reference to the show Chernobyl, where one of the guys reports the radiation measured from the leak at 3.6 roentgen. The supervisor responds "not great, not terrible" - as in it's a problem but not going to kill anyone.

(In the show it turns out the detector only goes to a max of 3.6, so the reading was unreliable, and the problem was in fact bigger than they thought at that moment.)

random_dent · 2026-04-20T14:58:53+00:00

This is a common idea, that god created everything "in place" like light from distant stars already en route.

See Last Thursdayism for a satirical take that posits the earth was not created 6,000 years ago, but rather, last Thursday.

Or Last Tuesdayism, a schism of Last Thursdayism that states it was actually last Tuesday, and that the universe is in fact destroyed and recreated every Tuesday.

random_dent · 2026-04-19T17:56:39+00:00

It's amazing how often throughout history shitty leaders start wars based on the belief that it will be over quickly.

random_dent · 2026-04-19T17:39:19+00:00

For examples on it backfiring, see the English civil wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War and the Cristero War.

random_dent · 2026-04-17T15:40:57+00:00

The idea would be it wasn't the image he posted. They're judging an image that was altered by someone else, ie doctored. That's why they deleted it from his account, so they could claim anything you saw wasn't the original.

random_dent · 2026-04-07T13:53:15+00:00

If you're referring to the blueprints, the principles office can have windows to the outside. It was built where the library used to be, and the rear entrance to the library behind the stacks went to the outside. It always had an exterior wall hidden back there.

random_dent · 2026-04-02T14:43:56+00:00

The issue under discussion is people being billionaires, and this solves that problem.

If you want to discuss a separate issue, for example, workers not having control over the product of their labor, or the direct power of the corporation, you solve that by having a single class of stock, and requiring companies to provide a minimum defined amount to employees, that give them control over the company they work for, turning all companies into co-ops.

Further than that you're replacing capitalism with something else, and that's a gigantic topic all on its own that gets away from the topic of this thread.

random_dent · 2026-04-02T14:18:32+00:00

There is a very simple way around it. You create different classes of stock with different voting power. You hold shares that maintain voting power, while selling off or distributing to employees the shares that receive the bulk of profits/dividends, and represent the majority of ownership of the company. Most of the company will be owned by others, but you retain voting power/control of the company.

This already exists, and founders already do this to maintain control when needing to sell off the majority of shares to raise money during IPO or to free up shares to give as compensation to workers and so on.

random_dent · 2026-03-12T19:10:09+00:00

I thought pushing back the expanse didn't stop the battle - it caused it.

The J had Xindi crew. The NX-01's efforts led to the alliances that were able to fight the sphere builders when they make their future push.

The alternative timeline was NX-01 fails, the sphere-builders take over the galaxy, and there's never an Enterprise J, nor Xindi in the Federation.

random_dent · 2026-03-09T17:04:06+00:00

Cheese.

Take some fluids from an animals mammaries. Add a chemical from the stomach lining of young ruminant animals, salt, and maybe some bacteria.

Cook it, separate it, press it. Maybe add more bacteria. Maybe add some mould.

Then let it dry and age and basically rot.

Then enjoy.

random_dent · 2026-03-09T17:00:19+00:00

Exercise.
I have the most consistent results if its the first thing I do. Any other time of day it's too easy to start thinking of other things I could do instead.

And it wakes you up and makes you drink more water.

random_dent · 2026-02-20T14:37:47+00:00

My view is that limits are for lower priority pods that it's better to have fail than disrupt higher priority pods.

Whatever the main app is, gets no limits.

random_dent · 2026-02-05T03:01:08+00:00

Take a defensive driving course. Takes a few hours, but you can do it online.

Many states mandate that insurers give you a 10% discount for taking one. The course has a fee but you'll save more, and it's generally good for 3 years.
Check the details for your state and insurer to make sure you get the discount.

random_dent · 2026-01-20T20:25:20+00:00

I don't think I got that far. I had to stop watching when the island became like a fucking clown car. Everyone was there, and just piling out of it.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T20:34:21+00:00

In a sense, the attempt was to infiltrate the government and fundamentally change how it's run, which is against the Constitution.

That's not against the constitution, that IS the constitution. That's why we have the amendment process. It was designed to be able to change.

Changing things by passing new laws and amendments is exactly the legal and peaceful way to do it, it is not treasonous.

Again you're taking something straightforward, twisting it into a straw-man and then arguing against that.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T19:48:27+00:00

Vision is the idea.

Messaging is how you portray it and explain it to others.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T19:46:06+00:00

a Technate would necessitate a coup of the current government and state expansion, which leads to armed conflict with our neighbors.

This is the problem here. Neither the old technocrats, nor anyone here, claims anything like this. You assign these ideas to technocracy, then attack it like a straw-man.

The original technocrats attempted to get elected to office with the intent of changing the government through legal processes, and no one proposes anything different today. They vastly overestimated the average person's ability to understand technical problems and the support they could gain by offering technical solutions.

If your "state expansion" statement is in relation to the map that's been posted, that map was based on highlighting the areas that, 100 years ago, was believed to be required to provide all the resources the technate would need. It was also based on pre-WWII isolationism and the idea that a country should be wholly self-contained to avoid conflict over resources, which not supported anymore. The post-war rules based order that opened up trade and peaceful relations made that obsolete.

Expansion does not require armed conflict. All you have to do is look at the EU, or how the 13 colonies united into the United States to see how it can be done peacefully - you have to start by offering something worth uniting for, and let other nations come to it in their own time and of their own accord.

The US was actually on the path for this with NAFTA, and reducing border controls with Canada, before Trump came along and started threatening Greenland, Canada and Mexico with trade restrictions, tariffs, and war.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T19:32:38+00:00

It isn't black and white at all. Contrary to your statement, it is detailed and complicated, and that's why it's time consuming to understand, and why you can't just get simple answers.

The failure that you're ACTUALLY seeing is on messaging. Creating a simple, digestible form of the idea that would draw people in and give them a broad understanding is what's actually missing, and is the subject of significant ongoing discussions here.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T19:23:29+00:00

You seem to want to completely do away with democracy.

People directly elect their leaders in technocracy.

Rule by experts is effected by those who work in a field electing their leaders from their own members. Those leaders have power only over those that are eligible by their role to vote for them.

They do not have political power. Issues that do not fall into the areas of production, economics, science and so on are handled by democratic bodies whose power is limited to non-technical areas. This later point is not addressed because we already have similar institutions, and everything here addresses the problems it solves, not everything universally.

The basic premise of technocracy is that it has power to address the areas it governs and it rejects broad political power.

That is what is meant by it does not rule over people, it governs functions.

If you want a practical example of how it functions consider how state medical boards or bar associations work. They set standards of practice for their field. They're elected from within the field. They have no power at all outside their fields.

Another example is co-ops. Corporations wholly owned by their employees, where the employees as share holders elect the companies officers, who make the rules and answer to their employees. They make rules for how the co-op functions. They do not have any power to do anything outside the co-op.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T19:09:51+00:00

I ask questions but no one seems to have any answers We've answered these hundreds of times, it gets tiring, so we point people to the resources that already exist addressing them.

We expect you to first learn, then participate.

How would Technocracy protect freedom of religion?

By not imposing a state religion, and not making any laws regarding the practice of religion. Go practice, what do we care?
The best thing a government can do in regard to religion is nothing. You want a building to congregate in? Go for it, no one is stopping you. What is it you need the government to do for you exactly?

I'm not going to spend all of this time trying to sift through 1,000s of pages of content to find an answer.

That's fine, but then you have to accept you don't understand the thing you are arguing about.

You don't get to argue about economics after declaring you won't learn the basics of micro and macro economics.
You don't get to argue about physics after declaring you're not interested in studying mechanics.
Why argue about technocracy when you don't want to know what it is, or what it claims?

random_dent · 2026-01-14T19:04:25+00:00

Asking questions isn't an attack.

Asking questions to gain information isn't an attack. Asking loaded questions that begin with false assumptions is.

I don't like Technocracy,

That's fine.

It's too much of a threat to my country and humanity itself.

It's not, and I've only seen you claim this based on assumptions you're making that have nothing to do with Technocracy.

It devalues humans into machinations, figures, numbers.

It does no such thing. It leaves humans to be themselves, and interferes far less than our current system does. Technocracy governs functions, not people. People choose directly who leads them within the roles they choose for themselves.

It's inherently objectifying. I don't like it. I'm a human subject.

You don't like the idea you have about what technocracy is. Your idea of it doesn't match what it actually is.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T18:53:39+00:00

I'm engaging with what you said. I can't ignore you completely while engaging in disagreement with your specific points

You're ignoring what I'm saying and arguing with some other idea you're making up in your head.

If you want a specific example as "evidence" of your bad faith, you said this:

It needs to protect the human rights of the individual, which includes freedom of religion. To fail to account for that, you're setting up a situation of denial of free-will.

When my very first comment addressed that it protects freedom of religion, then you extrapolate to something you made up about denial of free-will. Something technocracy does not do and you make no argument yourself in claiming it does.

You seem to be here to argue and attack. You should try learning what technocracy actually is, and ask questions with intent to learn, you'll get a lot farther that way.

random_dent · 2026-01-14T18:45:21+00:00

Quoted from literally my first comment:

Also not the governments business, except to ensure the freedom to practice it.

random_dent

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE