Bougie_Birdie

There's a few ways to interpret this question.

'Smooth' and 'Chunky might refer to the size of the leaf. More processing often means cutting the tea leaves into smaller pieces, but you can also get whole leaves.

'Smooth' tea might be tea with no added ingredients. 'Chunky' tea could be tea that has fruits, nuts, or other infusions included.

'Smooth' tea might refer to teabags, while 'Chunky' could be steeping loose. 'Chunky' tea may also be the practice of not removing the leaves before consuming.

'Smooth' might refer to powdered tea like matcha - although if we are talking about matcha then the preparation involves whisking away clumps. In which case the 'smooth' matcha tea can be prepared with only a light stir to be served 'chunky' style.

'Smooth' might refer to a less bitter flavour. 'Chunky' might refer to a stronger flavour, particularly if the infusion is somehow exotic.

The most fun interpretation is that this a joke, in which case I like mine to be smooth, but a little chewy

I barely have two dollars to rub together and I still try to

I guess I'm probably overdue to make a donation myself

I also have the impression that motion blur causes frame drops. Then again, some games do seem to hiccup when turning regardless of if motion blur is enabled.

Now I'm wondering if it's causation or just correlation. Intuition suggests that additional post-processing would at the very least exacerbate frame drops even if it doesn't cause them itself, but I've never done a deep dive to find out.

I agree that it's healthy to be able to disconnect from the news.

I also think that current events are going to get real bad, real fast, real soon. Then again I'm part of a minority that has some of the most vile rhetoric thrown at them, so that probably colours my opinion a smidge.

I hope you get to vote in the next cycle. I also hope that everyone starts doing something for their community beyond showing up to vote once every four years. The world's not going to change for the better otherwise.

You can get pretty good results by saying, "Well {verb} my {noun}!" It always ends up sounding quaint. It's like the mad libs of incredulity

• Well kiss my grits!
• Well steam my hogs!
• Well string my banjo!
• Well iron my shirts!
• Well paint my deck!
• Well trash my patio!
• Well crash my harddrive!
• Well tear my pants!

I have a Day of the Dead (1985) drinking game that includes taking a drink whenever the alcoholic says, "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph." It's the only real catch-phrase in the movie, and since he's usually taking a drink too I don't feel like I'm drinking alone.

Depends on the article.

If it's something I have a genuine interest in, then heck yeah, I read the article. I like me some long-form discussion, so if it's a high quality article then I need to read it in order to make a high quality comment.

If it's about politics it requires more nuance. I'm not going to stay quiet about things that do have the potential to affect me, the people I care about, and humans in general. I'm also not going to go out of my way to consume a ton of propaganda. That's when the pithy jokes come in, usually with a goal of calling out misinformation or general assholery.

By and large, the vast majority of headlines are bait. You're not going to get a clear picture of what's going on from a loaded title anyway, and it's alarming how often people make the opposite inference from the headline compared to the body of the article. I suppose it's human nature to look for easy answers, but if you only look at the summary then you're allowing other people to form your opinion for you. Those people always have an agenda.

In this political climate, the news is probably going to make the average reader angry. If it does that means it's working - either because they're consuming hateful propaganda or because they're being agitated against the evils of the establishment. This is by design: you can garner more clicks from angry, frightened people, and they're usually easier to control that way.

I agree that you can't take on the burdens of the world as an individual. But ignoring problems that have no will to resolve themselves only allows those issues to perpetuate themselves. Something about evil succeeding when good people do nothing.

I can confirm that it's not, I haven't tried WoD yet.

I do recall there being a similar mechanic in at least one version of Call of Cthulhu. Among all your character stats you also had a Credit Rating. I think it was left a little bit vague about how to implement it, but a successful check basically meant that you convinced the target you were good for your debt.

I got the impression that it was supposed to be more about your social credit and your ability to convince people of your honourable reputation, but I definitely used it to buy a car once.

Dumb fuck!

(/s this is the meme, I wish you the best)

I'm afraid I don't remember the name of the system or else I'd link the rules, but I do remember playing a game where I really liked what they did with inventory and currency.

Basically, the game divorced the rules from the settings' currency entirely. So if you're into homebrew, that means it works equally well with gold, credit chips, reputation, bottle caps, and seashells

When you defeated a monster, finished a quest, or found hidden treasure, you would acquire LOOT. Get ten LOOT and you level up at the end of the adventure.

Instead of writing down and purchasing all of your basic equipment, you would have a certain number of GEAR points. If you found you were in a situation where you needed some item, you could mark off one of your GEAR to retroactively have brought that item with you.

I liked it because it sped up play and was super newbie friendly. You no longer run into a situation where a career adventurer plum forgot to buy torches before spelunking. It also meant you didn't have to roll a check for each item in the dragon's hoard to see if you could afford to feed your hirelings.

If that system sounds familiar to anyone, please let me know. I wouldn't mind taking it for a spin again

I don't disagree with the message (we should all eat less meat) but I have a couple of nitpicks with the data / presentation.

In a couple places there's mention of billions of aquatic animals being on the block. It's too broad of a descriptor - a billion whales looks different from a billion krill. A whale probably eats a billion krill on its own (note: I have no idea, I just know whales are big and krill are tiny)

Pie charts should almost always include percentage labels because people are in general bad at making visual comparisons within a circle. That may not be overly necessary here where the intended message seems to be that chicken vastly outnumber all combined livestock, but it's always something to keep in mind.

However, the most egregious issue: the final point says that 5,313 million (5.3B) additional humans could be fed, which is equated to every region/country on earth. So the global population. Which is fairly easily verifiable to be about 8 billion people - which means the quoted figure is only approximately 65% of the global population. This calls into question every other data point in the infographic.

While typing this up, I did give the last point a more charitable read and thought maybe the message was that if everyone switched to vegan diets, we could feed that many more people which means nobody in any nation would have to go hungry. But even if that's the interpretation, it doesn't seem to be in line with the other points being made, and it makes me question if I'm interpreting the rest of the graph incorrectly. So even with a charitable view it's still a confusing point.

Anyway, again, I like the overall message because it's clear to me that we should strive to eat less meat and this graphic outlines the myriad positive impacts that might have. But the goal is to educate people, and if there's a whiff of misinformation surrounding something that people feel most passionately about, it calls into question what other things people are misinformed about

The caption is mislabeled, but don't worry, I've got your back:

Left: Biology majors looking at Computer Science majors all day

Right: Bugs looking at bugs all day