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.
This is more of a system issue than bad behavior of an individual charity.
Charities can underpay a little bit, because working for a charity has its own appeal. But if you want a talented, experienced person to run your org, you have to consider what they could make if they worked for someone else. San Diego is not a cheap city, and has its fair share of CEO positions.
If you really want to stretch your dollar though, local food banks are probably a better bet.
No, they've been getting progressively crazier since 2016.
2000 was fairly divisive, it went to the Supreme Court after all. But it wasn't even a fraction this dramatic, people mostly shrugged and figured GWB would be like his father, which was unfortunate, but sane at any rate. Nobody was really predicting 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.
2004 was pretty dull. John Kerry challenged GWB but felt sort of like an empty suit.
2008 was nice, Obama was a strong and exciting candidate vs the very known quantity of McCain, who was a moderate repub known for bipartisanship. Sarah Palin provided for hours of entertaining impersonations by people like Tina Fey, but since she was the VP candidate nobody really cared.
2012 was dull. Romney was a strong candidate, another moderate repub. But Obama was fine, he hadn't broken the country or anything. Brought us out of a recession, even if people were upset about bank bailouts and stuff. Lot of people got health insurance.
Then it starts getting spicy.
"If I have to create stories so that ~~the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people~~ we win, then that's what I'm going to do."
Yea, we already knew that JD, thanks.
Eh, there's one additional way we can stop them. A landslide victory that puts her massively over the electoral college threshold would make a handful of compromised counties completely irrelevant.
lol This is almost as good as getting him to say out loud that he's never had sexual relations with any living room furniture.
Ah, LinkedIn, exactly where I want to get nuanced answers to weird questions from.
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.