|
Coolness Averted posted:The iced coffee thing is just taken out of context. They're not selling you a 'coffee to iced coffee converter' to take home. 7-11 is prepacking ice in a cup that's probably fits their coffee lids and is more heat resistant than their big gulp to pour their hot coffee into it. This also gets them out of the liability of someone pouring hot coffee in a cup then adding ice and getting splashed. I'm really amazed you can type while simultaneously jerking off corporations. That takes some coordination!
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
mycomancy posted:I'm really amazed you can type while simultaneously jerking off corporations. That takes some coordination! There's a chance that they don't charge extra for the cup with ice already in it than they would if you just put ice on a cup, which I guess would be okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Adding 7-11 coffee to ice will make for the weakest coffee imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Adding espresso to ice is the only acceptable option. I bet somewhere there's a drip coffee called 'espresso coffee'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 03:54
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Adding espresso to ice is the only acceptable option. like that steve1989mreinfo guy adding smaller amounts of water to the prepackaged ration coffee dealies
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Adding espresso to ice is the only acceptable option. i used to make firehouse coffee in the air force with espresso grounds in a drip maker. tastes like complete poo poo but the caffeine content was amazing from the fine rear end grounds
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of iced coffee anyway. It's called coldbrewing because it is a different process that results in a less bitter flavor than a typical hot brew. This is why room temperature coffee tastes awful, the heat masks the bitter terpenes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
I thought cold brew and iced coffee were separate things. Like cold brew is a brewing method, but iced coffee was just coffee with ice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
coffee tastes like diarrhea no matter how it's brewed
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...c&sf199691220=1 Private interests have been projecting advertising onto the sydney opera house to promote horse racing events which they have a stake in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
expresso
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Graphic posted:coffee tastes like diarrhea no matter how it's brewed You've drank diarrhea before coffee
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Siljmonster posted:You've drank diarrhea before coffee diarrhea is better because i can drink that for free
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
Graphic posted:diarrhea is better because i can drink that for free Do it on livestream and you can earn money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
Graphic posted:diarrhea is better because i can drink that for free In a monetary sense, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:Won't someone think of all the super rich??? quote:Wealth psychologists assist many modern wealthy families, most of which built their wealth in one generation. They may not be comfortable with all aspects of being rich, and may have a lot of guilt associated with it. Even for those people who find themselves financially prepared, more are beginning to realize they may not be psychologically or emotionally prepared to cope with wealth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:In a monetary sense, maybe. No, it's also freeing in a spiritual sense
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Dead Beef posted:Wealth Psychologist is a thing Jamie Johnson's "Born Rich" shows that most kids who were handed a billion dollars were put on benzos to suppress the guilt You're either born a heartless monster...or you can be molded into one
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Dead Beef posted:Wealth Psychologist is a thing That reminded me, the BBC did a story about the military sending people to philosophy classes so they can argue down drone pilots' ethical questions like "if I'm not being immediately threatened by these people and am in fact hundreds of miles away, how is it ok for me to rain death upon them with no warning" and presumably "are we the baddies?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EilSu70gfb0
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Was it ITT someone posted a link about how the ultra rich are actively complicit in death by spending their money in a certain way? It had a great quote about how some arsehole could've funded education for African Americans across the entire USA, but instead blew that money on a yacht. I should have saved the link. I've tried googling but all I get is puff pieces about how great the rich are and how fancy their yachts are and aren't you jealous EDIT - this was a link request, in case that wasn't clear Also gently caress off qkkl Barry Foster has issued a correction as of 14:23 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
I bet there are a lot of people that try to counter argue stating that the rich buying yachts creates jobs because look at all the people employed in the yacht building business. I'm sure that's way more helpful to the economy than educating a significant portion of the population.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
It's the classic "kill vs let die" debate. Is letting someone die morally equivalent to killing them? Is not spending money to improve the education of African Americans morally equivalent to passing legislation to worsen the education of African Americans?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
those same people are actively working to kill us all via global warming, so it's moot either way 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It's the classic "kill vs let die" debate. Is letting someone die morally equivalent to killing them? Is not spending money to improve the education of African Americans morally equivalent to passing legislation to worsen the education of African Americans? That's why they have to do both, just to make sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Was it ITT someone posted a link about how the ultra rich are actively complicit in death by spending their money in a certain way? Current Affairs has a couple: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/more-evidence-that-extreme-wealth-is-totally-indefensible The responses are, as expected, hilariously terrible, and point out issues that are already addressed in the articles http://thepolitic.org/opinion-wealth-is-not-immoral/ quote:Holding onto money that we do not need is no more immoral than holding onto that extra kidney we all don’t need. You could save a life by donating your second kidney just as you could save a life by donating your excess wealth. Still, we do not look askance at everyone in possession of all of their organs. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
That analogy holds true if I'm collecting millions of people's second kidneys. Just don't look in my garage is all I'm asking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Current Affairs has a couple: Yes! Thanks a bunch, bud
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:The responses are, as expected, hilariously terrible, and point out issues that are already addressed in the articles That quote says a lot about their view of money. The system creates and destroys money. My money is part of the system. It's not part of me. If you tax my money, that's the system doing something to itself and I'm just along for the ride (which is all I ever was). But their like 'fuh fuh fuh I am my money and my money is me, it's part of me and I am part of it *swoon*. fuh fuh fuh'
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Given how comparatively cheap it would be to eradicate hunger, poverty and illiteracy world-wide, and how rich people generally generate and (don't) spend their wealth, they should absolutely have it expropriated for the good of mankind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
SplitSoul posted:Given how comparatively cheap it would be to eradicate hunger, poverty and illiteracy world-wide, and how rich people generally generate and (don't) spend their wealth, they should absolutely have it expropriated for the good of mankind. It may be cheap now to eradicate hunger, but what about when the world population is 20 billion? 50 billion? At some point it will stop being cheap to eradicate hunger, and you'll be stuck with 25 billion hungry people instead of 3 billion. So you traded 3 billion people being hungry forever for a few generations of a hunger-free world, followed by 25 billion people being hungry forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It may be cheap now to eradicate hunger, but what about when the world population is 20 billion? 50 billion? At some point it will stop being cheap to eradicate hunger, and you'll be stuck with 25 billion hungry people instead of 3 billion. So you traded 3 billion people being hungry forever for a few generations of a hunger-free world, followed by 25 billion people being hungry forever. Why cure this sick child's cancer? They might just get DOUBLE CANCER later on 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Why cure this sick child's cancer? They might just get DOUBLE CANCER later on I don't think your a real doctor, everyone knows it is called Cancer Squared.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Malthus can suck my dick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It may be cheap now to eradicate hunger, but what about when the world population is 20 billion? 50 billion? At some point it will stop being cheap to eradicate hunger, and you'll be stuck with 25 billion hungry people instead of 3 billion. So you traded 3 billion people being hungry forever for a few generations of a hunger-free world, followed by 25 billion people being hungry forever. Everyone who is born will eventually die. Might as well not be feeding anyone now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It may be cheap now to eradicate hunger, but what about when the world population is 20 billion? 50 billion? At some point it will stop being cheap to eradicate hunger, and you'll be stuck with 25 billion hungry people instead of 3 billion. So you traded 3 billion people being hungry forever for a few generations of a hunger-free world, followed by 25 billion people being hungry forever. Just eat the people. Infinite source of delicious meat staring right at you in the mirror.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It may be cheap now to eradicate hunger, but what about when the world population is 20 billion? 50 billion? At some point it will stop being cheap to eradicate hunger, and you'll be stuck with 25 billion hungry people instead of 3 billion. So you traded 3 billion people being hungry forever for a few generations of a hunger-free world, followed by 25 billion people being hungry forever. Dude, you suck
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
qkkl posted:It may be cheap now to eradicate hunger, but what about when the world population is 20 billion? 50 billion? At some point it will stop being cheap to eradicate hunger, and you'll be stuck with 25 billion hungry people instead of 3 billion. So you traded 3 billion people being hungry forever for a few generations of a hunger-free world, followed by 25 billion people being hungry forever. I wish I could report you IRL so you can be banned from life. What the gently caress is this dumb rear end bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Rarity posted:Dude, you suck I think they're making a funy joek post about how Americans don't understand how the demographic transition works, because surely nobody's that stupid on these forums right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:24
|
|