Kyiv Post tends to be a little less bombastic with their reporting:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/79532

They word it differently, saying the US warned that Russia was “considering” an attack. This is probably true, and has probably been true every year for the past several decades. Simply because a nation’s military planners “consider” pretty much everything they can think of.

Yeah, that’s … unfortunate. Can always just ask one of them if it’s cool.

Employees go through the canisters and pick out the obviously moldy ones. They’re trying to work fast, though, so they can miss some that aren’t obvious. The decay can also get much, much worse just in the time the product sits on the shelves, depending on how good the refrigeration in that exact spot is.

Anyway, open them up and examine before purchase. The employees will not mind, it’s what they’d do too.

edit: Assuming there’s no sticker. If they’re sealed with a sticker then I wouldn’t break it.

Yeah, they interviewed someone who talked about this on NPR the other day. Neat little tidbit.

So, a few years ago this stuff was fine. You can’t spin up a brand new global supply chain overnight, and that was generally understood and accepted, just like how we couldn’t find enough 155mm arty ammo for awhile. These things take time, and that’s okay. And fine, we weren’t predicting the Iran War, and that would definitely interfere with plans. Fine.

This is all getting less acceptable as time goes on, though. Now 2027 is a reasonable goal, that’s five years from the start of the main invasion. Let’s just hope we can stick to it.

Wouldn’t the name be in Chinese, with a translation to English for us? Which would usually include translating it into standard English grammar instead of the grammar it was in?

You know, if I was translating no hablo espanol, I wouldn’t be like “yeah, he said ‘no speak I spanish’”.

Why does a major international newspaper not use the proper adjective form of the word “China”?

Oh he knows. I bet he’s known since the second month of his special military operation. He just can’t do anything about it, he’s on railroad tracks that lead nowhere except disaster.

He’s a strongman, his power is based on his reputation, which is based on being able to make decisions that result in keeping the Russian people safe and secure. Had his invasion succeeded, this would have been good for him. But it didn’t, so now everyone has to ask: what have they paid, what have they gotten for it, and are they happy with their leadership based on that?

I think it’s pretty hard for anyone anywhere to argue that the past few years have been good for them, so Putin has to worry about his popularity. But wait, there’s no way to realistically remove unpopular Russian leaders, and that means … his actual life is in danger if anyone wants him out badly enough, which you gotta figure some powerful people in Russia probably do by now.

That’s the problem for Putin. Peace will be the death of him, and he knows it.

Yeah, I think that’s most people. Have you tried a light roast coffee though? They’re not common at all, and most people don’t like them in my experience. Those two things are probably related.

Okay that’s fair. Would you notice the flavor difference between strawberry and choc milk though? Because that’s on par with the flavor difference between the two coffees. Dark roasts taste roasty, light roasts taste fruity. My comment on bean color was a minor side note that I ended with, the much bigger difference is in the flavor.

Given then that we have these multiple, fully independent differences that could be noticed (different beans, different flavor, not having caffeine), a bunch of people missing all of them is not likely imo, unless all of them are particularly oblivious. All it takes is one person to notice, after all.

Possibly. I will admit that it’s uncaffeinated people we are asking to distinguish between the two, which is worthy of consideration.

Still though, it’s like looking at toast and not noticing how toasted it is. Colors are something that just stand out, a lot, unless you’re pretty distracted. If we were running a single individual through the trial then sure, but multiple people? I don’t like the odds.

The red flag for me was saying he switched the decaf for the highest caffeine roast available.

Decaf is roasted pretty dark, because the roasty flavors that creates help cover up some of the flavor destruction you get from the decaffeination process.

High caffeine roasts are light ones, though, because the roasting process itself slowly degrades the caffeine.

Thus, he’s saying he replaced a bunch of dark roast decaf coffee with one of the lightest available, and nobody noticed. That’d be like swapping someone’s chocolate milk for strawberry milk and them somehow not noticing. You’d even see the difference the moment you looked at the beans, because almost-black and very light brown are different colors.

Next time someone wants to share this story, say you replaced the decaf with a similar roast of regular. That will at least sound plausible to the coffee people.

But the dozen or so workers on board didn’t seem bothered.

I mean, yeah, they’ve still got that whole “earn a paycheck” thing to worry about.

My daughter asked me recently, How do you go up to someone that you don’t know and talk to them? Today, you’re not only interrupting a social dynamic, you’re also interrupting people’s interaction with their devices. I notice it in my own family, because she comes up to me and I’m on my phone and I feel annoyed sometimes, like, I’m in the middle of reading, can’t you see?

It’s all in the “excuse me”. I think it becomes easy to think of the two words as just a saying that begins conversation, but I like to look at the actual meaning. It’s an apology, no different from walking up to someone with an “I"m sorry, but…” or “Pardon me, but…”

So lean into that with your tone and body language. Begin your interruption of someone with a genuine apology for bothering them. Okay, good, so you did something wrong, but immediately apologized for it, and if everything follows the normal rules of politeness, the receiver will automatically forgive you for your interruption because you gave an earnest apology for a very minor social infraction. You are now at a neutral position with the person, having done nothing particularly wrong or right, but you now have their attention and can say/ask whatever.

If you want to practice, try practicing with a compliment. “Excuse me … pause for response, if positive/neutral then… that’s a really nice hat you’re wearing. Just thought I’d let you know.” and end conversation. Nothing really gained or lost here, but you got to practice some, and very few people will care about the interaction enough to give you more than a second’s thought afterward.

Once you lift the narrative requirement, the number of hits balloons into the millions. I would personally draw the line between education and edutainment on the issue of thoroughness. Education needs to be fairly thorough, while edutainment can skip all the boring (but necessary for full understanding) parts and exclusively handle the fun ideas-based stuff, usually with some oversimplification here and there just to keep things moving in an entertaining way.

I would describe Kings & Generals on youtube as a solid example of good quality military history edutainment.

If you’re looking for a medical drama that health care workers seem to find an acceptable representation of their work, take a look at The Pitt. Apparently they put a lot of effort into being as accurate as possible.

Overall I think your definition of edutainment as requiring a narrative is overly restrictive, I think we could call narrative-less science shows like this edutainment, despite lacking narrative:

https://youtu.be/5HKH1ZjGutA

All that said, the specific combination of scientific accuracy, narrative and for-adults does seem to be a rarer combination of traits. I cannot think of very many at all, and those I can do tend to fudge some of the accuracy here and there for dramatic appeal.

Now that’s a sign of an impending apocalypse.

Except that in my experience, even a supporter of said party, when talking about how a member of ours “just toes the line” is communicating a negative, not a positive. That’s not a good, genuine guy we’re proud of, it’s someone to watch out for.

Colloquially too, the way I was raised, it’s a bad thing, you did not want to be a line-toer. And I’m not referring to discussions of politics, but how it was used in day to day conversation. I’ve been accused of toeing lines, for instance, with the implication being that continuing may get me in trouble some day and I should be a little more careful.

Perhaps it’s a regional thing.

The same dynamic I was discussing appears in that case as well. The politician may not agree with the policy, and may be willing to violate it, but still toes the party line.

If someone was doing something somewhat shady, but still keeping within the bounds of some rule, you might say they are similarly toeing that line.

The big question to me has become, can you toe a line in a positive way?

Yeah, I just made another edit to my original comment. lol