I haven't had any opportunity to try a barleywine that wasn't my wash going into a still, so you're right on that one. That said, there's fairly limited profiles to a lot of those types of beers.
IPAs do have a lot of variety, and all you have to do to change it up is use different hops. I don't love IPAs, and I hate that they're all I see in beer aisles, but I also don't shop beer very much so whatever :)
I heard a real-world explanation about why IPAs are the most common and commonly-sought craft beer. Half the reasons are unflattering, but a few are valid.
So I'm "basic" nowadays re: beer, and I despise IPAs because I literally cannot stand the bitter&pithy ones (esp Grapefruit Pith), and there's no easy way to know what an IPA will taste like till you've paid for it and cracked it open. I also get reflux and nothing blows that shit out of the water like an IPA. There's a hops shop down the street from me, but if I'm going to brew a beer (super rare, I usually make whiskey or mead) it's gonna be something will a chill flavor profile.
Just looked it up, and the regional VPs at Amazon are making an average of $190,000/yr. That's not chump-change, but it's definitely firmly in the "US" side of the "US vs THEM" equation. It also means if you cut all regional VP salaries in half, it won't amount to more than 0.1% of Bezos' typical earnings.
Even Amazon's CTO only (yeah, "only") apparently has a total comp package of about $300-500,000/yr.
Here's the list of the problem folks. And to clarify something that helps your point on the "But this one person's..." I GUARANTEE if executive compensation were capped based upon some multiple of individual compensation, they'd find the fucking money to give people raises.
If a CEO can only make 100x what workers do, that's still unreasonable, but I guarantee those guys making $20M/yr will find a way to up the average salaries of workers as close to $200k as they can manage. And if we weren't at-will employment in the US, they wouldn't be able to just do it by laying people off.
So yes, taking money from just Jeff Bezos the people in that list will have the very effect you and I want... everyone making more.
I know. There are absolutely families I know that have this type of conversation. Just because it was funny 30 years ago doesn't mean it can't still be funny now.
It's not cerebral like xkcd, but sometimes I want a comic that I'm not the only person in my town that gets.
Check out the instances that have defederated with the radicalized ones? I hang out in 2 Lemmy instances, still working to finish migrating from here to the other.
I'm not ok with the death penalty for serial killers and rapists, and I think the laws we have now (if they were enforced) cover for corruption.
I have a rule. No matter how shitty the rules, nobody should die for playing by them. Ex Post Facto protections are a hallmark of preventing justice from being another name for authoritarian persecution. Of all people, it tends to shock me that Communists struggle to see that when they are the first to back extreme versions of ACAB-attitudes.
I know rich people who are... just fucking rich and that's it. Lottery, good job. Smart little investment. Most rich people don't destroy lives directly for monetary gain. Is there an indirect effect between wealth distribution and suffering? SURE, but holding someone accountable by violence for something they indirectly effected when it was legal? I just can't see it no matter how they frame it.
It's like COVID opposition. When we didn't have laws against their bullshit (COVID spreader parties?) it is unjust to now go back and pass a law to punish there behavior merely because it caused hundreds of thousands of extra death.
I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of "bourgeoisie", or merely "the rich". And (I'm sure you can understand why I'd have a problem) that some folks talk like I'm in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.
I know it's not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I'll happily have a beer with you.
I don't think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling "no true scotsman" even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.
Yeah, it's the bit where I've gotten threats on my life.
Sorry, cited the wrong dictionary I guess. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social%20democrats . I'm surprised at Webster disagreeing with everyone else. I figured every dictionary would agree. The dictionaries using my definition are:
Collins, Dictionary.com, Oxford English Dictionary, Brittanica, Cambridge, Wictionary
So I've got mud on my face, citing the only source that disagrees with me.
But fine. If it really matters that much to a couple people, then there's not a term for what I am. I'm not a DemSoc because I don't realistically think we will achieve complete socialism in my lifetime and I think that's OK in the short term as long as we improve things, and actually preferable until people actually want socialism. That doesn't make me a capitalist.
So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?
Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.”
That’s what a demsoc is. Social democrats support capitalism with social programs.
You should tell Webster they're wrong. And Wikipedia. And Brittanica.
By their definitions, a Socdem's insistence on using democracy at all costs is what differentiates between them and demsocs.
By why is it so important for you to insist everyone use your nonstandard definition of the terms? Also, your calling us "succdems" tells me exactly everything I need to know about your permission. If I'm not willing to murder people, I'm less than human to you enough to be given a silly nickname.
“Tankies don’t have a soul and they’re going to kill you first so it’s okay to let the nazis kill them actually” I’m a REAL leftist :D
At this moment, you're on the wrong side of the "First they came for" poem because you're the one rejecting the Left.
Flavor nuance. I don't like hopsy beer myself, but there's a LOT of different profiles out there. I've even found a few IPAs I liked.
That I'll agree with. Not a lot of drinkers respect the mashbill anymore.