Just posted this a bit ago:
“Sean Aloysius O’Brien… They fished his body out of the Allegheny river a week before the strike ended. Thirty two bullets he had in him. Or was it thirty four?” -Miles O’brien
Damn, do you think he worked for Boeing
Two tips, one meme.
Only slightly related. One weird thing I noticed when moving to Japan is that peanuts and beans were way more expensive than the US. I guess the equivalent here would be moyashi (bean sprouts) and cabbage.
Interesting! What is considered the cheap source of proteins over there? Is it just soy?
soy (in the form of edamame, tofu, and natto) is probably the cheapest option. Eggs are usually next on the list for people over here.
Edit: seafood might or might not be an option before eggs depending upon where one lives. Organ meat as well as we eat heart, liver, etc. a lot here as well.
There’s a caveat:
Don’t unions really restrict your salary growth in fields where there’s actual potential for it?
I’m in software engineering and I reckon a whole bunch of people would be unhappy if their salary was in a direct relationship with their years of experience.
Though if the gravy train ever ends, I’ll be the first to advocate for an union.
No. In Germany the big companies all have unions. You can always try to negotiate for better conditions, but it always has to be at least the union Tarif. If you can show that you are worth more you can get it.
Okay, that’s actually a good thing. I’ve heard unions in the US apparently often restrict individual bargaining, as that would undermine the collective bargaining of the union. So in that case, your coworker who’s been working for 20 years, will make twice as much as you do at your 2 years, despite the fact that all he does all day is scratch his balls, while you bust your ass off. And you have no way of earning more than them.
Either way it doesn’t affect me because I’m in Estonia and in a field where we generally get paid well enough even without unions. But I also know this won’t last forever, because right now there’s way too many unemployed software engineers.
Don’t unions really restrict your salary growth in fields where there’s actual potential for it?
Nope.
I’m in software engineering and I reckon a whole bunch of people would be unhappy if their salary was in a direct relationship with their years of experience.
Why would increasing your bargaining power lower your wages?
If you read my other comment, basically I’ve heard from other commenters online that some collective bargaining agreements restrict individual bargaining. That would suck. If the union only sets floors instead of absolutes or ranges, that is another thing entirely and something that I’m very much in favor of.
Those commenters have no idea what they are talking about. You are always stronger aligned with your fellow workers.
Ducks are delicious and eat the way you describe. If I eat ducks I’m eating those things once removed and enjoying it, too.
Hey man if you have a legal place to hunt, go wild!
Buying anything but the cheapest of meats these days is eye watering.
Hell, even if you can easily afford way more than that, you are still closer to the person who can only afford $2 of food a day than a billionaire.
The difference between a million and a billion is about a billion
Ain’t that the truth! I’m a lay off and a medical emergency from needing to do this diet.
Billionaires are either an apocalypse or a revolution away from needing to do this.
One of these is much more likely to happen tomorrow than the other.
deleted by creator
Cooking rice is a notoriously hard problem (and for that reason I recommend noodles instead) but my tip is:
- Don’t (!) do the 2:1 thing where you mix 2 cups of water with 1 cup of rice. Some of the water will boil off and the ratio will be distorted, except if you close your cooking pot, in which case it begins to foam like crazy and give you something to clean up
- Do just fill a large pot with lots of water and make it boil; then when it boils add the rice and cook a certain time with the pot open. I’ve made the best rice this way.
Just turn down the heat when it starts boiling and you won’t have any mess at all. Boiling pretty much anything without using a lid is just plain dumb and a waste of energy. The only exception being if the point of boiling is to reduce water content.
Level 1
2 to 1 ratio.
2 cups of water, bring it to a boil 1 cup of rice, add after water is boiling Reduce heat to simmer (simmer is less than medium but higher than just warm, on my stove it goes up to 10, I turn it down to 2.4). Put on lid Wait 20 minutes Eat
If it starts to boil over with the lid on just lift the lid so it will go back down. I add either some oil and salt or some (1 or 2 tblsp) salted butter to the water. People will tell you to rinse the rice first, but that’s level 2, get to level 1.
deleted by creator
Add rice and water in a 1:2 ratio (by volume, eg. 2dl rice to 4dl water for 3-4 people), add salt and heat to a boil. When it boils, turn down heat so it only just simmers slightly and wait until no excess water is left. Keep the lid on the whole time. This method works with jasmin and basmati white rice for me.
It’s possible but the cheapest rice cooker is going to be more consistent than a seasoned pro. I can cook rice fairly well without a cooker but 1 out of 10 times it’s awful.
deleted by creator
That’s why you learn to make fried rice. Just use day old badly cooked rice.
I’m seriously baffled by the amount of people in this thread having issues with something as simple as boiling plain rice. What the hell, its not fucking rocket science. Do you have trouble boiling pasta too!?
Rinsing rice does wonders. Without a rice cooker you’ll need to strain it, but it’s still worth it.
- Measure rice by volume. Let’s say 2 cups worth
- Put into fine colendar and rinse until the water comes out clear. Mixing with your hand will speed this up. You can also do this in the pot you’re going to cook in and dump water out
- Put strained rice in your pot
- Add cold water. The ratio of water to rice matters a lot and varies by species of rice. The ratio will be printed on whatever container your rice came in. For Jasmin rice it’s 2 water to 1 rice, so for our two cups of rice you’ll need 4 cups of water
- Cover, turn on medium-high heat, being to boil. Don’t go far because it will boil over when it does boil
- Turn the heat down to low, crack the lid, and set a timer. The amount of time needed will vary based on rice. For Jasmin, 15 minutes is a good check-in time
- Pop the lid. See water bubbling up? If yes, replace lid and come back in a few minutes. If not, use a wooden spoon to get a peek at the bottom of the pot. See water? If yes, replace lid and come back fairly soon to check again. If not, your rice is done. Turn the heat off, fluff, enjoy.
We made rice for years using this method and it is a very reliable cooking method. Rice doesn’t really leave you a lot of wiggle room though, which is where a rice cooker comes in handy. As an added bonus, some rice cookers come with water lines in them. I measure my dry rice into the cooker, rinse using the cooker, dump most of the water out, and fill to the appropriate level.
Different species of rice have very different textures and somewhat (subtle) different flavorss.
Some rice, like basmati, can be cooked using the pasta method (intentionally use way too much water and strain the excess off after the rice is cooked). I guess all rice could be cooked that way, but you would be giving up some starch.
Plain white basmati rice.
One cup rice. If it’s not washed, wash it.
2 1/4 cups water.
1 heaping teaspoon salt.
Put rice, salt, and water in pot.
Bring to boil. Stir a little to keep rice from sticking too much.
Soon as it boils, take off heat, put heat to low, then put pot back on heat and put a lid on it.
~ 20 minutes later, check. Should not be any water in the bottom of the pot. If no water, eat!
Even if it says it’s washed, wash it anyways. Starches rub off from the grains moving against each other in the bag.
Just get a rice cooker. It’s worth it.
This. It is absolutely worthwhile and a cheap one uses incredibly rudimentary technology to the point it could and will be reinvented post-apocalypse
Jasmine rice. Makes a huge difference if you like white rice. Tastes like from a restaurant and pleasantly sticky.
It’s possible, the secret ingredient is keeping an eye on it.
Measure one cup of rice, whatever the volume of the cup is now add double the amount of water and bring to a boil. Once it starts boiling lower the heat.
Here comes the secret ingredient, keep an eye on it. You’ll soon notice it’s not as watery anymore, but you still see bubbling. Stir and check it’s not getting stuck to the bottom. When you see the water is practically gone, remove from the heat and cover pot with lid. Let rest for 5 mins.
Done, perfect rice!
If it’s starting to get stuck to the bottom, removing and letting it rest with a lid on for a few minutes usually helps in unsticking it and making it fluffier.
If you didn’t keep an eye on it well enough and it’s burning at the bottom, remove immediately and transfer as much of the unburnt rice to another pot, cover and let it rest. (Add water to the burnt bottom in the original pot and cover as well, it will help with the cleaning)
Cook on lowest heat. Check in 20 minutes. If dry, add water. If watery, drain the excess or continue cooking into porridge.
I cook rice without a rice cooker all the time, and some of the tips you’re getting seem dubious to me. Rice is pretty forgiving though, so maybe those recipes work, but I do it a bit different.
I treat all species of rice exactly the same, and they all come out perfect. Short/medium grain rice comes out just sticky enough so you can grab chunks of it with chopsticks, long grain rice comes out beautifully fluffy, no stickage, with all the grains nicely separated.
I use a 1:1 rice to water ratio, plus an extra quarter cup of water. That bit is important - the extra quarter cup is what evaporates off and escapes as it boils/simmers, the rest is absorbed into the rice. Doesn’t matter if I’m cooking one cup of rice or ten, I use an equal amount of water plus a quarter cup.
I bring the water to a boil first, then dump the rice in. Wash it or don’t - I usually don’t, and the difference is slight. Once the rice is in, I turn it down to a simmer, put a kitchen towel over the pot, then squish the lid down over the towel, onto the pot. The towel helps make a better seal to trap more of the steam, but without the danger of making a pressure bomb. The towel also prevents condensation from collecting on the lid and dripping into the rice, which can make it soggy towards the end of the cook. I simmer it for 20 minutes, turn off the heat, then let it rest for another 20, with the lid still on. Leave the lid on until after it’s rested, or else some steam will escape and your rice might end up “al dente”. Once it’s rested, take the lid off and stir it to fluff it up a bit, and you’re golden.
I’ve been making it that way for years with several different kinds of rice, and it’s worked like a charm for all of em.
I have better luck with a pot on the stove than a rice cooker. Start with some olive oil, add the rice, add water so the water line is 1cm above the rice line. High heat. Stir occasionally. Once it’s at a full boil, give it a final stir, turn down to low and put a lid on it. Let sit for 10 min. Turn stove off. Serve with butter, pepper, salt. Boom.
This is for white rice btw.
If it helps, you can think of a rice cooker as a “boil under all the water is gone” hotplate. They’re great for soups.
I love my Instant Pot. You can probably find used ones now. It makes perfect rice and I use it to make oatmeal from steel cut oats nearly every morning. I also use it to steam vegetables like broccoli, especially potatoes for when I make mashed potatoes.
Seconded. Great rice. Excellent flexible do-everything-reasonably-well appliance.
Ok. Let’s do this! If you have a 4 cup pyrex/microwavable measuring cup, it is much easier.
- Sauce pan with a lid. Nonstick is fine.
- 2 cups of rice using dry measuring cup
- 3 cups of water
- Salt if using unsalted butter
- 2 tablespoons of butter
- Put empty pan on stove and set heat to medium-high. If these are steel pans, stick to medium. Go towards high if nonstick as it takes a bit to heat up.
- Put water and butter in microwavable cup and throw it in the microwave until it starts to simmer, maybe 3 minutes? Depends on microwave and dish.
- While you are waiting on microwave, put dry rice in pan and gently stir/fold. They will start to turn white, but don’t let them burn. If you need to take the pan off and turn the heat down, do it. We are just preheating the rice and pan up. Add salt if needed.
- Get ready. As soon as that water is hot enough to boil or close to, take it out, pour it in the pan. It will be violent.
- Do a quick stir, throw the lid on, and turn the heat down to the lowest setting. The water should fully cover the rice.
- Walk away. The bottom might toast a little, but that is fine as long as it doesn’t full on burn.
After 20 minutes or so, you can do a real quick check and if it looks kind of wet, throw the lid back on and wait.
At this point, you should have perfectly acceptable rice. Take the lid off, stir the rice with a more folding motion to let it steam any additional moisture out.
deleted by creator
You can always buy a rice cooker but I think it’s good to learn how to cook without specific instruments, it also cuts down clutter in the kitchen.
I take a similar approach, but wanted something better for rice, so I bought an aluminum pot with a ceramic coating on the inside as an alternative to a rice cooker. Does a great job with rice and can be used for many other things as it is a normal pot/dutch oven.
What’s the difference between a chick pea and a garbanzo bean?
spoiler
I’ve never paid to have a garbanzo bean on my face
A bag of dried chickpeas makes for two weeks worth of hummus.
Follow me for more health and finance advice
As long as you remember that without tahini, garlic, olive oil, salt and some lemon juice all you’re getting is pureed chickpeas.
Maybe if you’re a hummus eating coward!..
Or you get a very big bag…
To be clear, if you’re at all concerned about maintaining a food budget, even if it’s $500/week the billionaire class is still your enemy.
I want $500/week for food!
To be clear, the billionaire class is your enemy
To be clear, the 100 million class is also your enemy
I am always amazed how everyone is so focused on billionaires only
It’s just a class that is absolutely exploring people. You can’t become a billionaire without it. You can absolutely become an honest millionaire so it wouldn’t make sense to use that.
Yeah like there are folks who are worth 10ish million who just bought a house 50ish years ago that gained a lot of value and had dual incomes that saved all their money for retirement.
100 million folks are on THIN ice, but there is probably an author or inventor out there who made something really nice and everyone they worked with was also well taken care of. Most of them are probably garbage, but not all of them have to be. Some famous actors also were well known for making sure everyone got paid what they deserved on set and were very generous.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
By all means, show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions and actually earned it. I’m down to change my view.
You really pulled the extendo grip out, huh?
probably an author or inventor out there who made something really nice and everyone they worked with was also well taken care of.
JK Rowling should be a billionaire, but she keeps giving money away.
Yeah but she’s a garbage human being.
Lack of understanding of class. Billionaires are just the obscene top of the top of the bourgeoisie and they do excercise disproportional power in the ruling class, but the class war isn’t only about them, it’s about the system which makes their power possible. For example China also have billionaires, but they aren’t even 1/100 of a problem there.
Pareto principle. Eat the billionaires, distribute their wealth: 20% of the effort for 80% of the result.
Easier to focus on a few, very public individuals.
with 100mils you can buy two luxurious houses and still have enough money to spend a million each year which is more money than most people make in their entire life, so yea kind of on the border.
Any billionaire can lose 90% of their wealth and have above 100 million left.
Many can lose 99% and have above 100 million left.
Some can lose 99% and still be billionaires.
The 100 millionaire will still have a million or more left after losing 99%, but that’s not “live like hogs in the fat house forever” money at least. It’s just “I don’t have to worry if I lose my job” money.
A hundredbillionaire can lose 99% of their money and not make any perceptible changes in their lifestyle.
I propose the following:
Gap individual wealth at 50000x the national median annual income. Max wealth anyone in the US could have is, at present, under 2 billion. Other countries will vary, but generally it’s plenty enough to motivate people to innovate, but nobody gets to be Bezos or Musk wealthy. Yachts should count towards this wealth gap, at a depreciation rate of 5% a year off the build cost. Primary residence doesn’t count unless it’s also used for generating income. You get to have one car, regardless of price, that doesn’t get counted towards it, and the other ones count at market value. So you can have your classic car that appreciates in price, and a daily driver - without having to worry about the classic car’s effect on your wealth limit.
Side effect is that now suddenly rich people near the gap will be a lot more interested in paying better wages to the working class. Why? Because then they’d get to keep more of their money. And to raise the median efficiently, you need to be raising wages for the poorest among us first and foremost.
In general; I think even 2 billion is too much. Nobody needs that much money.
At best; I think no one should be able to have more than about 500 Million. You get one house, and one car for each adult family member if you’re married with non-adult kids. Adult kids don’t add uncounted vehicles; they have their own limit. Anything that is seaworthy or airworthy counts as about as much “Wealth” as you initially spent on it minus a reasonable depreciation rate yearly as determined by the market, so no buying a thing and having it lose 30% of it’s value the moment you drive it off the lot after buying it.
Additionally; to block too many shenanigans; wealth added by any property that is bought sticks; 3 years at minimum. This prevents people from storing too much excess in property and shell-gaming it. A company you own or have stake in cannot lend (in a long term) or gift you property in excess of 1% to 10% the wealth limit. (Depending on what the thing is). Companies may also not hold property or money in lieu of an individual personally; everything the company owns must have a global company function; and not personally benefit one or more people only. (Basically no executive-only or owner-only Jets; everyone from the tiniest manager on up should have access to it if there’s a business reason for it)
Oh I agree that even 2 billion is too much, but my reasoning is that proponents of capitalism often make the claim that capitalism drives innovation (you try to fill some market niche in order to get rich) so if they are right, then 2 billion should be enough that this still works.
I had yachts depreciating to zero in my example because it’s estimated that you have to spend about 10% of its’ purchase price annually anyway, so anyone keeping a 20 year old yacht around is going to be spending a lot of money on it that will fuel other parts of the economy.
Holy cow, they can lose 90% of their wealth and still be above 100 mil. The math checks out, but my gosh, how rich are they?!
It’s ridiculous.
Numbers are funny, anyway. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s net worth is closer to yours and mine than it is to Elon Musk (Forbes list currently placing them at ~100 bill and ~250 bill respectively). But that’s only in absolute terms. In reality, Jensen’s got like 8 or 9 orders of magnitude more wealth than I do depending on how far into the month we are, and on the same order of magnitude as Musk.
Either one losing 99% of their wealth would still be above a billion.
Well, at least now I feel that Musks tweet about liberty and being oppressed and blah are even more funny than ever. He has literally the wealth to buy countries, if he would wish to.
Hey, there might be some politicians on here who can always call up their good friends whenever they need something!
To be positively translucent, even someone with $1,000,000 in the bank has 1000x less than the poorest billionaire. For other disturbing facts, see https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/.
Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn’t stuff their money under a mattress.
For everyone following along at home: this website is worth a click if you’ve never seen it before!
Represented as a volume is also great. If I’m not wrong, his wealth in 500€ bills is a 165 m (180 yards) cube. One million is 3 l (a little less than 0.8 gallons).
“Also, do you really NEED to sleep?”
Mmm, delicious advice duck … is telling me to eat the rich?
Welp, who am I to question it’s wisdom, must be the right thing to do.Good shopping list though
Could get all of it but the peanuts and 0.21 pence over
I hate billionaires, but I like steak… I guess they aren’t my enemy after all? I guess I’ll rethink my life… Maybe they aren’t so bad, eh?
The meme only says “if … then …”. It does not imply the reverse relationship of “if not … then not …”.
This is really pedantic, but conditionals do imply a specific inverted inference. Specifically in this meme though, the correct inversion is “If the billionaire class is not your enemy, then this budgeting is not relevant to you,” which I think we’d both agree with.
It’s not about what you like, it’s about what you can afford.
If you hate billionaires but like steak, have you tried eating the rich?
