I think they’re saying this:

Family meals would comprise of three restaurants worth of people since they’re all immortal

Separately, you can never retire since you will never hit retirement age

Not going to lie to you, this is exactly what i did :)

It’s from God emperor of dune, i think it’s the fourth book in the series by publication, but not chronologically.

I guess this might be a spoiler if they eventually make it a movie, but basically, the son of Paul merges himself with a sand worm and becomes effectively immortal. It’s both interesting and bizarre.

There’s a lot more to it than that but i don’t want to ruin the story for anyone

I did a quick Google search, and I’m guessing miso is the ulcer treatment misoprostol that you shouldn’t take during pregnancy. A d and c is a dilation and cutterage, an invasive surgical procedure that removes something from the uterus. In this instance the something was a nonviable pregnancy that went awry from possibly the medication (or other factors).

Admittedly i was also confused about miso, and immediately thought soup? I was extremely incorrect

I appreciate your reply and question. I think it comes across rude because the correction wasn’t really necessary to understand the context of what was said, and it’s even less of a correction and more of a personal preference. It doesn’t add much to the conversation, which makes it seem more like grammatical pedantry. The fact that it wasn’t entirely correct made it seem even more out of place.

For the record, I’m not accusing you of being rude, just identifying how the comment came across. I’m not assuming intent with your original comment and apologize if it seemed like I had.

I actually don’t think this is correct. Whom is used when the unknown person is the object being impacted (to whom did you sell your car). In this sentence, “who” is actually referring to a person performing the action (the sentences “who questioned him?” And “where are those who questioned him?” Would use who, not whom. You wouldn’t say “whom questioned him,” but whom could be used to replace “him,” such as “he questioned whom?”).

As I alluded to above, you can usually see if it’s who or whom by changing it to he/she (who) or him/her (whom). You may need to adjust the sentence slightly, but it will normally work. Above you need to remove the “where are those” portion to find the answer.

So I believe that your correction came across a bit rude, and I’m fairly certain it is also wrong.

Looks like a Milchkaffee, which is kinda like a cafe au lait

They’re saying that allegedly, Christians are not big on voting, and this statement is meant to encourage those non voters to come vote just this once and everything will get better. Then you can go back to being a non voter.

I think.

Horrible wording no matter how you slice it, though.

I think they’re referencing the manga/anime death note. So they’re just writing in the names of countries hoping they will die.

Did a light google search, looks like the individual is the former prime minister of poland (between ww1 and ww2), and a fairly prominent statesman, who I’m guessing hated those other countries.

I don’t think it’s fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can’t ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don’t blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.

I don’t have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.

I think the question really should be not “have they ever been wrong,” but instead, “do i think they’re wrong on purpose.” A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.

I can totally understand, and that makes a lot of sense. I think the sheer volume of accidents in the post are what’s so shocking. I’ve only been in a vehicle with an obviously reckless driver two times (so far. And to clarify, two people, once each), and from my perspective, some people really shouldn’t drive. Heck, one of those two times was supposed to be a casual date (she was picking me up, we were in college), and i asked her to drop me off immediately. Big nope.

That’s why i added not high volume times, so specifically not sitting in traffic. I’m suggesting that the act of driving itself isn’t horrific, though yes, sitting in traffic is awful.

I can agree with some of your response to what was said by the other commenter, but my impression is that person was shocked that someone at a young age has been involved in double digit accidents that mostly sound like their fault. Some people really just are incapable of driving, though that shouldn’t diminish that small lapses or true accidents do happen.

I would disagree that driving in general is miserable, though I’m sure this can vary by location. While i would prefer better access to efficient public transit (live in the USA), being able to get in a car and go anywhere is pretty freeing, provided it isn’t during high volume times, especially on a freeway.

I’m not the other commenter, but I’m fairly certain they’re making a play on the title of this post, which just ends with “They.”

Yeah man i don’t think you’re following me at all. I’ll give my bottom line up front: I’m not criticizing food culture in the US, I’m retelling the perspective about American food identity that was reflected in the docuseries. I agree that there is a wide diversity of good food in the US. That’s not the discussion here.

I’m completely aware that foreign cuisine in the USA is culinarily distinct from their home countries. Legitimate Chinese restaurants don’t serve general tsos chicken, and legitimate Mexican restaurants don’t serve tex mex.

But they’re also not identifiably “American cuisine.” Your additional point doesn’t seem relevant. New imported items? So like how tomatoes are ubiquitous in italian cuisine but come from the new world? I’m not sure what the messaging is here.

I understand there are regional differences. Not arguing that point either. It’s also not MY point at all, i was, again, retelling the point in the episode of the documentary chef’s table that i found very interesting. Besides, most regional differences are a specific dish (philly cheese steak, chicago style pizza, etc). Those aren’t entire cuisines, they’re a single dish. I don’t think chili in and of itself defines an entire culinary experience, even though various regions of the US are extremely particular about what even constitutes chili.

Speaking of regional differences, look at india for an example. It’s 1/3 the size of the US, but has multiple identifiable regional cuisines, while also having an overall “indian” cuisine. Goa in particular has a pretty distinct cuisine compared to northern India. But we’re not discussing chinese food or Mexican food in india, because that’s not really relevant.

Respectfully, i believe i understand your point, but you’re not understanding mine. I like to think that i understand food culture better than the credit you’re giving me. I am in no way suggesting that the US has no food culture. I’m trying to state that the documentary episode made has a chef who shared the perspective that there’s no such thing as authentic “American” cuisine.

Hope you have a great day.

Right, but that was the point of the episode of the documentary. At a basic level, American cuisine is based on plentiful food sources, and we get things like burgers and hotdogs. I recommend watching it, it was quite interesting. I’m not trying to suggest that this is the only explanation, but it was an interesting theory nonetheless.

Sure, some regions have some variety (as you mention, a casserole). Size is a factor, but similarly maybe countries have some form of culinary identity (russian, chinese, brazilian). They have sub cultures as well. I’m not well versed in them, to be honest, but i know they exist.

It was an interesting point that i found to be somewhat profound especially as i explored other cuisines, which are typically developed during hardship.

Yeah that’s fair, but in some ways other young countries have their own distinctive cuisines that are popular, such as Mexico and Peru. Additionally, i don’t think the blend of other cultures is really the problem in having an identity. Other countries have plenty of immigrant populations, but they still have their own identity. For example, turkish doner is huge in Germany, but German cuisine is very much its own thing. Then you can even dial it in even further, looking at bavarian, franconian, swabian, etc.

I don’t think i made my point clearly enough. I get that there are regionally distinct cuisines such as cajun cuisine, but my point was that this occurs even in smaller countries and locations such as the UK, which has numerous culinarily distinct cultures despite being a fraction of the size of the US. I’m not sure why you’re completely ignoring my point there. I’m also not sure how highlighting Americanized versions of other cuisines is relevant at all. I understand that other cuisines coexist inside of the US, but they are not actually US cuisines. Are you suggesting that Mexican food existing in California or the midwest is one possible definition of US cuisine? Because this actually feeds into the point that American cuisine doesn’t really have its own distinction.

I’ll try using Germany as an example. German food has an identity, wurst, schnitzel, etc. sometimes it’s borrowed (wiener schnitzel from vienna), sometimes its distinctly German. But Germany also has various regions with their own distinctive cuisines (former independent states like bavaria, swabia, franconia, hesse, etc each with their own cuisine). This would be like cajun is in the US. On top of that, there’s plenty of transplant cuisines, such as Turkish doner which is quite popular. This would be like mexican food in California. Yet, german cuisine is still able to stand out as its own thing.

I also completely disagree, North African cuisine as an example absolutely has some level of shared culture. Sure, Morocco and Libya have different cuisines for example, but they sit on the southern Mediterranean and share spices, vegetables, etc, and have a shared history.

I understand that I’m not a food expert and I’m citing a documentary about food experts that was interesting. I’m not certain why this feels like an attack. Additionally, that doesn’t mean it’s my only source of information.

I typically don’t watch documentaries, and I watched the entire series. It’s pretty well done!

Each episode follows one world renowned chef and their personal history, their food journey, their take on food in general, and where they are now. The first episode was an Italian chef who tried to bring home cooking to restaurants in Italy and was met with backlash by the community (you can’t monetize Mom’s home cooking). The second one was about a highly regarded chef who moved to Argentina to cook for a remote village and that’s pretty much it (as far as i recall) because it was way less stressful cooking a whole pig underground than running a 3 Michelin star French restaurant.

Fascinating stuff.

I think they would identify as more as their own regional cuisine, as opposed to being a part of some larger US identity. I think this would be similar to understanding of french or italian cuisine, but then if you dig into specific regions you’ll get “tuscan” as opposed to prototypical “italian.” That nuance for “US cuisine” is not as well defined because it doesn’t exist in the same way, even though regional cuisines are totally distinct in their own way.

I used the UK as an example because they have distinct regional cuisines like Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Yorkshire, etc, even though it is geographically quite small. To me, that defies the logic that the US can’t have a more distinct food identity but then also coexist with various subcultures across a larger geographic area.