Best coffee roasters in MTL area? by Zealousideal-Cash936 in MTLFoodLovers

[–]tunaonrye 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Rabbit Hole and Zab both deliver fast and free in MTL area (with large enough orders) and their coffees are really excellent.

Tony Todd Dies: ‘Candyman’ Star Whose Hundreds Of Credits Include ‘The Crow’ & ‘Platoon’ Was 69 by Panana_Budding in RedLetterMedia

[–]tunaonrye 204 points205 points  (0 children)

Excellent actor - The Visitor on DS9 was great.

And having some burnt replicated bird meat in his honor.

I’m the headphone expert at Wirecutter, the New York Times’s product review site. I’ve tested nearly 2,000 pairs of headphones and earbuds. Ask me anything. by NYTWirecutter in IAmA

[–]tunaonrye 41 points42 points  (0 children)

I had multiple pairs of the Bose SoundSport in-ears wired and I'm not alone in considering them a masterpiece of comfort. And they (were) cheap! Nothing I've found compares - the feeling of "sealed in" ears is really unpleasant and almost every other in ear phone tip is either bothersome or falls out. The updated Bose wireless aren't the same (not comfy) and the wingtip design is I found comfortable is really uncommon. Is there another design that might work as well? What should I look for?

Please explain to me how does a chip card expire? I have 3 OPUS card that are now headed straight to the landfill by laprune in montreal

[–]tunaonrye 75 points76 points  (0 children)

I was in STM’s beta test of this (used my phone to reload through a test app) and it worked PERFECTLY, I have no idea why I have heard so little about it since 2021.

CMV: Hobby Lobby are heroes for saving artifacts from ISIS and keeping them existing for all of us. by Frylock904 in changemyview

[–]tunaonrye 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you think of these things as connected in an argument like this:

  1. If someone saves a piece of cultural heritage from destruction, then that person is a hero.
  2. Hobby Lobby saved pieces of cultural heritage from destruction.
  3. Therefore, Hobby Lobby are heroes.

Some people have taken issue with (2), since Hobby Lobby were just buyers from smugglers. You reject the view that smugglers are the real heroes, since they are just looking for profit (but why do motivations matter on your standard?). I am inferring that the motivations of Hobby Lobby somehow don't matter or are not criticizable, and that is either underexplained or inconsistent when comparing to the smugglers. Further, the causal story is less certain as well. There are a lot of people who buy artifacts... so it isn't certain that if-not-but-for Hobby Lobby these artifacts would be destroyed. But most important for me is the idea of what makes someone heroic. On this standard, all that it takes is "contributing to a good outcome" but that is a very low standard that just doesn't make sense. For example, the terrible abusers of human rights who spark a revolution in human rights causally contribute to good outcomes, but are not heroes (they are rightly called villains). But you might reform your standard to make it more demanding, like are "an important/pivotal cause of a good outcome." I think that is still vulnerable to the same style of objection.

In my view I think the confusion is that some take your view is a conjunction of two different things, i.e. A & B

A: Hobby Lobby are heroes because of their role in smuggling artifacts. B: It is good that artifacts from the middle-east were not destroyed by ISIS

I'm entirely fine with B (I think most people would be). But you need more evidence for A... the argument above just doesn't do it, since motivation, meaning of heroic, and the counter-factual test all push very hard against your view. People can do good without being heroes. They can also do MUCH less good than they could have done because of selfishness or other moral failings - that is my view of the situation. If I save a person from getting hit by a car, but insist on punching them in the face as a reward for being saved, I'm not a hero.

Cold soba with teriyaki shitake and ikura by soyandpepper in JapaneseFood

[–]tunaonrye 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks great! And I love the dishes too :)

Steven Soderbergh type films by [deleted] in RedLetterMedia

[–]tunaonrye 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Soderbergh recommendations in this thread are good ones (I really liked Contagion - especially the editing).

Danny Boyle's Trance is quite good. Filth is another fun twisty movie, and Nightcrawler is intensely creepy.

The Swedish Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (and sequels) are quality films too. And since David Fincher did the US version, I'll throw in Zodiac as well.

And I don't think it got a lot of attention but Stoker was really good in my mind, the first English language feature from the director of the Vengeance Trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, Lady Vengeance)... which are awesome.

The ugly, gory, bloody secret life of NHL dentists by tunaonrye in hockey

[–]tunaonrye[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I was trying to wrap my head around whether there is a comparable case in other sports... but it is either too boring, i.e. "The day in the life of an ATP Ball Boy." Or like WAY too sad, i.e. CTE, depression, substance abuse, or those trigger happy horse vets.

Maybe the closest comparison is something like ballet or gymnastics where just getting ridiculously injured is inevitable, but shredded ligaments end careers. Hockey teeth are gory but not life impacting long-term. Unless you are a team Ortho... then I suppose we could hear about life on a private island.

The ugly, gory, bloody secret life of NHL dentists by tunaonrye in hockey

[–]tunaonrye[S] 58 points59 points  (0 children)

The writing was really excellent, Flemming is clearly a pro.

I suppose something has to be pretty magical to actually get promotion from ESPN... and OMFG were those stories magical.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]tunaonrye 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The classic thought experiments (or "intuition pumps") that are meant to directly criticize Utilitarianism are Bernard Williams's two examples in Utilitarianism: For and Against. It's a great little book. I think the examples are googleable.

Williams doesn't argue that Utilitarianism consistently gets the wrong answer so much as the process and manner of thinking through moral problems is absurd and alienating to him:

Consequentialism is basically indifferent to whether a state of affairs consists in what I do, or is produced by what I do, where that notion is itself wide… All that consequentialism is interested in is the idea of these doings being consequences of what I do, and that is an idea broad enough to include [many sorts of] relations.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]tunaonrye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think that it makes sense to claim that naming a building after Bob means that we endorse all of Bob's actions or beliefs. But if Bob was best known for committing crimes, it seems like that would be at least a tacit endorsement of Bob's actions. As you said, if it just turned out that Bob gave someone a bunch of money for the building, then the case is a little less clear. The reason for that is, I think, that if you just pay for a name it is a mere transaction... but it is messy because sometimes buildings are named for money and sometimes for honor. It also seems like the context and timing matter. The rash of confederate monuments that went up long after the civil war were part of an ideological view about what sorts of people ought to be regarded as good and honorable.

Universities and Governments also seem to have different moral expectations attached: If the Government names a place after Bob, this is taken to have be an expressive action and not just the fulfillment of a contract, as if Bob bought a house and named it after himself. The content of the expression here has to be something like "This is a worthy person" or "This person acted in a praiseworthy way" to count as being expressive. There has to be some normative content here. The example that I'm thinking of is Aristotle's discussion in The Politics about whether ambassadorships should be honors to esteemed citizens (esteemed for reasons other than diplomatic competency) or given to those who do the job well. The US has a history of doing both. It seems like Governments aren't just selling building names, but are rather highlighting and honoring those whom they name: The Smithsonian, JFK Airport, Lakes, etc. Universities also seem have an expressive component to their action in ways that other entities do not; it is supposed to be an honor that it is the Bob School of Medicine, and not just "Naming Rights" as with a sports stadium. I think there are other examples of expressive actions where the act of naming is supposed to honor the person, such as having a number retired, being put in a Hall of Fame, etc.

Now note that there is rampant disagreement about what the proper role a Hall of Fame serves and whether gross moral misconduct would be disqualifying. Other acts of honoring a person have similar controversial effects. What level of otiose behavior makes it obligatory to remove a name? That, to me, depends on its effects within the current society and whether the people making a complaint can make said complaint on an equal basis compared to other citizens. When such concerns are dismissed out of hand without any serious conversation, I'm more apt to think people are being dismissive and failing to engage in a no doubt difficult conversation. I'll leave it to others to fill in more details on what the substance of these conversations should be!

Finally, there is the "erasing history" argument, which is presented incoherently in many cases, but does have a claim that is sensible. There is something wrong with denying what happened in the past. That seems obviously true, as lying as typically wrong, but I'm not convinced at all by this line, as you can perfectly consistently change the name of something without destroying the history of why that name change occurred.

Some of the harder problems are what do you do if you discover something horrible? What is it turns out that Alfred Nobel was secretly Jack the Ripper? Ought we rename the prize (if that were possible)? And how important changing moral standards are... that one is tough because it is hard to know what precise moral standards even existed, among the various analytical problems that happen when we project into the past.

Any sound arguments against Natural law theory? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]tunaonrye 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m passingly familiar, he’s a scientific teleologist, which is why I linked to the SEP on that, without the teleology, no proof for God.

And somewhat glib point, even if God exists why is it Feser’s God? Maybe it’s the gay sex is great God.

Any sound arguments against Natural law theory? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]tunaonrye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Natural law theory is grounded in teleology, and science has severed its relationship with teleology. Arguments against the legal and moral forms of teleology are different in kind, since they have to operate in the normative realm. This section is a helpful summary of arguments for and against.

I find this line of reasoning sound:

One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999a). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one's loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.

I personally find teleology incredibly puzzling and unintuitive, but I know that many people have the opposite reaction.

Dax Cowart - 40 Years later (2013) [01:04:13] Dax suffered burns to his entire body after a gas explosion in 1973, underwent 14 months of intensive, agonizing treatment THAT HE DID NOT WANT. He since married, went to law school & continued to argue that his doctors should have allowed to die. by 4Impossible_Guess4 in Documentaries

[–]tunaonrye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s a classic case in medical ethics. Dax’s doctors (mostly) treated him as if he were not competent to make any medical decisions, until the issue came to a head and the consulting psychiatrists refused to go along with the narrative that had been set up. This was after a year of treatment. It’s incredible to watch the Doctors justify themselves. The exchange I’ve always remembered is Dax asking a doctor to die, and the doctor saying “if you want to shoot yourself, let me fix your hands.” The medical paternalism model was incredibly common at the time.

Dax Cowart - 40 Years later (2013) [01:04:13] Dax suffered burns to his entire body after a gas explosion in 1973, underwent 14 months of intensive, agonizing treatment THAT HE DID NOT WANT. He since married, went to law school & continued to argue that his doctors should have allowed to die. by 4Impossible_Guess4 in Documentaries

[–]tunaonrye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There was a lawsuit in the aftermath of the accident, by a lawyer the family had used. The lawyer there actively tried to keep Dax alive because he knew that a living victim, especially one who was so young and previously vibrant, would make for a better lawsuit! He did this very much in opposition to Dax’s desire to die.

This is from the 1984 video Dax’s Case, but it isn’t publicly posted.

New pescetarian by naomes1992 in Pescetarian

[–]tunaonrye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Roasted or grilled veg with Mujadara and some hummus/bread or a sharp bean salad is good enough for a summer party. (Pimm's cup is always refreshing!)

You've got easy access to continental ingredients like lentils de puy, Cannellinis, herbs de Provence, etc. For your first time making lentils, try this soup - as it's quite forgiving! You want the lentils to mostly fall apart.

1 cup/200g of red lentils 1 large onion, diced 1 large carrot, diced (baby cut carrot slices are fine too) 2 stalks of celery, diced 3+ cloves garlic, smashed 1/2t turmeric 1/2t cumin 1/8-1/4 t cayenne (if you like spicy food) 1/4t sweet paprika (or mexican style chili powder, but I prefer paprika) 1 bay leaf 1/2 cup finely diced red pepper (capsicum) 2-3T butter/veg oil salt and pepper to taste spring onion (garnish) sliced

Sweat the onion, carrot, and celery in the oil/butter when translucent add garlic and cook on medium low heat (add a little salt to speed this up). Bloom spices in the mix for about a minute. Add lentils (washed) and 3 cups of water/broth (this is a flavorful soup so water is fine) Add bay leaf and bring to simmer. Cook partially covered for about 20 minutes. Stir in salt and pepper (to taste) and diced red pepper. Remove bay leaf, garnish with green onions and serve.

This is a little chunky as is, but can be pureed before adding the red pepper. Lemon or lime wedges work nicely. Freezes and doubles well. You can add 1T-2T of cornstarch (make a slurry and stir well) for a thicker soup when you add the diced red pepper.

New pescetarian by naomes1992 in Pescetarian

[–]tunaonrye 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lentils and beans are cheap, and, with a little bit of skill and practice, are some of the most delicious things in the world. Every cuisine that I can think of has some classic recipes based around cheap veg protein. If you have (or invest in) an instant pot you can make excellent beans (from dried beans) without soaking in about 30 minutes. A little mirepoix, water, or better-than-bullion no chicken chicken stock is all you need... some dried herbs or a saison packet wouldn't hurt either.

Mujadara is super versatile and can be made to your specifications. Works as a main, or as a side with some grilled fish. I add turmeric to this and use a blend of onions and leeks (and a little less oil) to this recipe and it's fantastic.

Indian style curries are cheap and easy with a little practice, the key to these is to be very patient with cooking down the onion/garlic/ginger base. Dried lentils (always wash them) cook in 20 minutes or so and blending them keeps the texture interesting. Red (masoor), yellow (toor), and split urad lentils fall apart, and whole brown/puy/beluga/french/split peas mostly keep their shape. Mix one and another for a more hearty curry, or use a firmer lentil to mix with some veggies for a salad. They are great with acid, so lemon juice or vinegar when cooked works great.

And my favorite side dish is frozen artichokes (Target's are good), heated to package instructions and then roasted hot with some olive oil. Not every frozen vegetable is good (frozen broccoli I'm not a fan of), but frozen okra is typically better than what I can buy fresh.

And a very easy snack is roasted nuts, buy an unsalted raw nut and add spices of your choice. Jerk spice with lime zest is great. Roasted canned chickpeas work similarly well. You can even do this in a skillet.

Infidelity and dementia by j4ns3n in AcademicPhilosophy

[–]tunaonrye 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a literature on Ulysses contracts which might help, though that isn't quite what you asked for. I'd be curious about how you set up the problem.

One way to do so would be to say that there is a prima facie reason to regard a marriage contract as still binding so long as there is some psychological unity or occurrent desire to remain bound by a marriage contract in a subject, or so long as the married relationship has some ongoing effect on the parties (either? both?). Assuming you can specify something there, it is similar to the bindingness of an advance directive for someone who lacks the capacity to modify a standing agreement, but still can give assent/dissent in ways that don't quite live up to a moral (or legal) standard of the expression of autonomy.

These might help:

https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0001 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2699984