Yes

Good point, i totally misunderstood the “picture this” lead in. Yeah it’s a completely feasible situation though it does seem extreme.

I don’t know how accurate this is. Every time i try googling this, i get multiple help forums (brand website, Microsoft help, reddit discussions) for how to troubleshoot, with no ads for new laptops. While i typically provide a more specific search (e.g. my laptop brand and model won’t boot), i tried googling “my laptop won’t turn on” and received similar, albeit less specific, suggestions.

I wonder if the original poster often searches for laptop prices to find deals and maybe it defaulted to that?

To be fair, about that women’s world cup team, if i recall correctly it was a PR move to play an exhibition match with those kids and they were not trying very hard to win. I don’t think they would truly lose to U-15 if it was, for example, a tournament.

Your overall point has merit but i think that specific example gets overused a bit.

Not a reddit fan anymore, but this makes me think of r/portugalcykablyat

I feel like the wealthy people you see are the ones who either get excitement from flaunting it or from lying about it (for example, mtv cribs was all fake). There are plenty of stories (yes i know they’re just stories) about multi millionaires who drive the same old truck, wear regular blue jeans, and have a nice quiet (albeit larger than average) home.

It’s not crazy at all. I just think we see the outliers more frequently than not because they want us to see them.

Looks like the label says blueberry

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.

Good call, i forgot about that one! Also i just looked up stills of walking tall and the rundown, and he had hair in the rundown, and a buzzcut in walking tall, so add another movie that could be just like the ones pictured.

I would guess the rundown and walking tall. Both are actually decent

Not to spoil it, but edward norton does a good job of playing an unlikeable main character. It was silly but fun and worth the watch i think.

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 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.

Lol fair. Though I don’t mean to suggest that there is no hardship anywhere in the US (i think that’s why chicken wings became popular), but across the board, food has historically been more easily accessible in the US than most nations than pre existed it. Sure there are some regional delicacies, but no true US cuisine. I’m sure that could be partially explained by the geographic size as well, but there are some distinct differences in UK cuisine even though those cultures are significantly closer.

I thought this was an interesting topic of one of the episodes of chef’s table (netflix docuseries). The chef focused on what real “american” cuisine looks like, and since cuisine typically comes out of hardship, American food doesn’t have as distinct of an identity since the USA has typically been a country of “plenty.” Was really a fascinating point, and it made me look at food culture in a very different way

Definitely not questioning your opinion and review of the game (i quite enjoyed it but that’s my opinion). However, i do not believe that most people would see 7.5/10 and think “that’s a high score.”

One variable here is medium bias. Different mediums of entertainment have different “average” scores. It seems (i think) like things that take more time to enjoy (video games, TV) have higher baseline scores that are considered average than say a movie. (As an example, metacritic has different score tiers for movies than it does for video games, for their video games, anything 60-79% or 6.0-7.9/10 is mixed or average, but this score is 40-59% for movies).

I would further say that, across the board, a score of 5/10 would almost certainly be considered well below average for a game (or even a restaurant for that matter). I would be willing to bet that average for a video game would fall into the 7-7.5 range for most people. There are probably other biases at play as well, many of which i believe are impacting the scores in the first place (for example, the way people rate movies may be even more critical, and then perhaps there are so many highly rated games that it brings up the average there).

Something that i know i consider is that video games can absorb 10s, 100s, and even 1000s of hours of time, and i wouldn’t want to sink that kind of commitment into a 5/10 game, which probably got such a score due to a combination of bugs, bad story, and poor mechanics. Plus, the lowest ever rated games are 1-2/10, and you’ll be hard pressed to find any game rated below that (which further drives up the average).

I know that If i saw a game with aggregate reviews of even 7.5, i would think it had major problems and may not be worth my time investment. 7.5 is almost certainly not a “high” score, though i can appreciate you being very deliberately mathematical with your scoring.

Checked it out, it’s pretty good but also reminds me of regular jazz, just with a bit more virtuoso mixed in as opposed to free play, so it’s less laidback. Interesting concept