• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 4th, 2024

help-circle
  • For non-stickiness though it’s basically on the tolerable end - put oil in it and most stuff will slide around but sometimes you don’t want too much oil so its a trade off

    Not sure if you are saying the non-stick surface of a seasoned (carbon steel or) cast iron pan is inferior to PFAS options, that’s how I’m responding below.

    Speaking from experience, I’ve screwed up seasoning pans before I got it what I’d call right.

    A poorly seasoned polymerized surface on any metal (cast iron, carbon steel, stainless steel, or titanium) will always fair poorly, though more healthy than teflon style pans.

    A properly seasoned polymerized surface on any smooth metal is easily on par or superior (regarding stickiness) with non-stick PFAS or metalized ceramic.

    It absolutely requires minimal oiling when properly seasoned. I absolutely use less oil in my carbon steel pans than I would with ‘non-stick’ pans.

    Another issue I see frequently is putting food into a pan that is too cold.

    I think stainless steel is a great option in its own right - it’s not really non stick but it can be made tolerable with oil and can be scrubbed back to condition and thrown in the dishwasher.

    Stainless steel can be non-stick using either the Leidenfrost effect or seasoning/oil polymerization. I do like being able to put my dishes through the auto-wash. My carbon steel and cast iron surfaces being the exception.

    I sometimes coat my cast iron pan in oil, but more often than not I don’t.

    I’m telling you what my experience is. I have pans that have a self healing non-stick surface. I don’t put soap on my cast iron or carbon steel unless planning to re-season. I boil water and may agitate it with salt if something sugary stays stuck to the surface. The flame/heat sterilizes, and the water+salt granules removes particulate.

    I can fry an egg with less than a light spray of oil and produce a picture perfect egg consistently.

    I’m in process of removing all of our PFAS or newer titanium ceramic gear due to it failing from scraping or flaking.

    I am not eating out of your kitchen, not trying to tell you how to manage the tools. Offering suggestions, I feel could make life easier for you.

    If it works for you, and you’re happy - carry on.







  • You can replace the OS on most Android devices.

    Specifically- devices made by Google have been unlocked allowing replacement of the software.

    You still have to put together a working kernel and drivers, environment, etc.

    Not much stopping folks from doing that though.

    GrapheneOS, Ubuntu, and others have made headway for some devices.

    Each device potentially uses different hardware implementation and features.





  • Mjpasta710@midwest.socialtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comevergreen meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This is false. The Chinese Revolution against the Nationalists was bloody, yes, but was caused by Nationalist oppression. What they have now is a functional state with high approval >ratings (and no evidence shown of fabricated approval ratings or oligarchy on your part). They aren’t perfect, but they are much better off.

    Thanks for providing counter examples of how they aren’t fabricating data. Since you claim it’s only about banks

    As noted, I’m against telling people what to do. Fascists and Marxists do that historically. Your response isn’t well they’re better and they don’t do that.

    This happens under Capitalism, to a worse degree.

    All Vibes, no substance.

    Except you did defend them against improvements like Marxism.

    I asked you to provide examples of Marxism being a better working system. We haven’t gotten there yet. We still have to prove Marxism is a workable improvement over existing systems.

    It was drastically reduced or outright eliminated, and these countries are better for it.

    All Vibes, no substance. Where’s your source?

    Who is Amnesty.org From the Link: They’re not just one nationality or think tank. It’s a global movement of more than 10 million people which campaigns for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.

    Their stated vision: is of a world where those in power keep their promises, respect international law and are held to account.

    Your stated vision: Establish a single ruling party to (tell everyone what to do) ensure everyone pays tribute to a single party that makes sweeping rules over everyone, and lies to everyone about what they’re actually doing.

    They’ll become nobles of the in clique who get to exploit the proles for their labor and resources. If you disagree with the in clique, guess you go back to being a lowly worker.

    How it is: Where China is now Express too much dissent and you can’t even get public transit tickets. Banned from buying tickets

    More Amnesty.org links, more western chauvanism, it’s clear you’ll continue batting for fascists.

    As stated. Not about telling people how they have to do things. Not a nationalist. You’re trying to attack me now? We’re debating ideas. You accused me of all vibes no substance. I start providing substance and you switch to all vibe. Again I attest, you are arguing in bad faith.

    Keep saying fake news. You sound like you work for Trump, a solid fascist. Do you?

    I am so glad you provided sources to back up your… Postive Vibes.

    That link you didn’t provide, it is totally convincing everyone that the humanitarian reports are entirely fabricated.

    The reports coming from independent journalists and screen recordings of folks being threatened for expressing dissent. Fake news according to you?


  • We aren’t moving from it, I don’t see what cherry-picking has to do with the subject at hand.

    No, you provided a single example of the CPC doing something bad in the context of a country with citizen approval of the CPC at >95.6%. It is important to compare the US and other non-Marxist states because your point appears to be that Capitalism is better >than Marxism.

    My argument is that violent revolution doesn’t seem to work out as well as advertised, especially with Marxism. The Chinese revolution killed millions of people, many who were innocent. All to end up with an oligarchy ruling over them and fabricating statistics.

    Who is cherry picking? Everyone knows that China’s economic data is much worse than the official numbers. Just how big are the lies?

    Abstract: China’s statistics are widely viewed as unreliable…

    What do you mean by saying I have the right to “tell others what they can or cannot do?” That doesn’t make any sense, are you >arguing against the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etc.?

    By Tell others, I mean just that. Marxism may have started out wonderfully ideal. In reality if you express opinions outside of the acceptable party lines - You are silenced or worse. This is true of all of your examples of Marxism.

    China From the Report: “The government continued to systematically target human rights defenders…”

    Cuba From the Report: “Surveillance and harassment of activists, opponents, journalists and artists continued to be widespread. Arbitrary detention and criminal processes without fair trial guarantees remained common and people deprived of liberty faced harsh prison conditions.”

    Definitely not telling folks what to do. Definitely Ideals to hold up in arguments.

    I’m concerned for America too. I didn’t hold them up as an ideal. USA

    The French Revolution didn’t kill its intended targets. Except for that whole mishap, totally worked out. They punished the wrong people and led to a decent system for a while. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/01/why-is-france-so-corrupt-fillon-macron-le-pen/)

    The American Revolution seems good on paper. It worked for awhile. Citizens United is an issue to me. Admittedly didn’t read everything about the Haitian revolution, though slaves(opressed) rising up against their opressors has a bit of schadenfreude in it for me.

    Those didn’t end up in regimes that are not (at least temporarily) governed by their people.

    Additionally, Revolution absolutely improved Cuba, Russia, Haiti, China, France, etc. You have to be arguing for fascist slavery, Tsarist >Monarchy, colonial slavery, colonial nationalism, and monarchism to be better than what came after. I hope you aren’t a fascism or >slavery supporter.

    I disagree that revolution has resulted in the best possible position for Cuba, Russa, China and other Marxist regimes you’ve held up.

    As stated, I’m not for telling people what to do. Doesn’t seem as if you asked, but I’m against slave labor, authoritarianism, patriarchies, colonialism, corporotocracy and feudalism. Not all revolutions have ended poorly, they have almost all been very bloody.

    Capitalism itself decays over time, conditions get worse. The Capitalist class will not willingly hand over the reigns and improve >society via giving up power.

    Capitalism never died in the places you think Marxism ruled.

    It has.

    Thanks for providing the wonderful shining examples of: Russia(what remains of the USSR), China, & Cuba.


  • Mjpasta710@midwest.socialtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comevergreen meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Oh so we’re moving on from the topic of a working example of Marxism then. Why because I posted some links on the topic?

    Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.

    You really went to what-about? I provided sources as to why they aren’t examples of working Marxism and you did a what about.

    I’m frustrated with trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that they have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do. I don’t pretend I can tell others what to do. I don’t think our system is perfect. I’m not about to pretend that a revolution will end up better than where it started. Historically, it’s rare. Even when it happens, it doesn’t last.

    Revolutions are as inevitable as the people who are willing to cooperate to make things better allow. In other words, it’s completely evitable.

    I think treating folks fairly and not exploiting labor is a good idea. Marxism hasn’t led us there historically.





  • Mjpasta710@midwest.socialtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comevergreen meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.

    You’re advocating revolution, if I’m reading your words correctly.

    That involves a radical restructuring of society. You’re advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.

    As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don’t comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I’m saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn’t line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.

    It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn’t stood the test of time.

    So if there’s to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.


  • Mjpasta710@midwest.socialtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comevergreen meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.

    Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.

    China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.

    “The truths of Marxism are myriad, but it all comes down to one line: ‘Rebellion is justified!’” When the CCP was waging revolution and still trying to gain national power, this statement was a powerful shot in the arm. Once it became the ruling party, to bring this up again was to invite revolt against itself. That was exactly what happened in the Cultural Revolution. Its result was catastrophic, because Mao as a revolutionary was unable to make the transition from “breaking” to “making”. He once claimed: “There is no making without breaking. The making is in the breaking.” But that was just revolutionary romanticism misaligned with reality. In truth, it is much harder to “make” than to “break”. Source - https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/new-paradigm-needed-china-cannot-achieve-common-prosperity-marxism-and-class-struggle

    You’re expressing wonderful ideals.

    They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.

    My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.

    When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.


  • Mjpasta710@midwest.socialtoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comevergreen meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty… Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where’s the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?

    Let’s copy that now. (I can’t find an example of it).

    When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.

    You’re proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.