Happy to help! It’s worked great for me, and a buddy of mine also liked it, so I’m fairly sure it’s not a fluke. :P

Also, my ratios were by weight. That’s only relevant because that’s what makes me push up against the maximum solubility. If you go volumetric, you have more wiggle room. The second point will be less relevant, but it’s still faster and easier than heating it in a pot, IMO.

Oh, and as a bonus: you don’t need to wait for the syrup to cool down.

If you’re going to make simple syrup, use a stick blender.

Firstly, it’s easier and faster than heating the sugar and water in a pot, which is the most popular method.

Secondly, you don’t lose any significant amount of water to evaporation. That’s not a big deal if you make 1:1 simple syrup, but if you’re going 2:1 (which I prefer), you’re already very close to the maximum solubility of sugar in water at room temperature. Losing a few grams of water can make it supersaturated, which leads to sugar crystals falling out of solution over time. Not a big deal, but a little annoying.

If you give it a try, bear in mind that you’re going to get a cloudy syrup at first. That’s totally normal, and it’s not undissolved sugar, it’s just air bubbles. They’ll float out over time.

Totally understood, and I apologize for implying you might have. It was not my attention. I just meant that, even though it’s something I avoid jumping to conclude, it does happen, and there’s reason to believe it’s the case with Rowling. She’s got issues. It doesn’t absolve her of anything, but there’s a little pity in my condemnation.

Yeah. I know that calling bigots secretly closeted is problematic, but IIRC she has outright said that, if she were a young person today, she would question her gender identity.

JK Rowling did that not too long ago. (She didn’t call it Jewish, but absolutely called it lies and propaganda that trans people and trans researchers were early targets for the Nazis and victims of the Holocaust.)

I don’t say this to obsess over the Harry Potter author, but to point out that you don’t have to go cherry picking to find this shit. She’s a prominent person using her platform to spread bigotry and misinformation.

And remember how they made a big deal about Bernie’s age in 2020? They asked for medical records, and even after getting letters from two or three doctors, that wasn’t enough. It was like the birthers all over again: when they got what they asked for, they moved the goal posts and wanted the long-form documents.

Meanwhile, not a peep about Biden, who is Bernie’s junior by fourteen fucking months, as if that made all the difference.

And then, four years later, it wasn’t an issue anymore. Just run the guy again.

On top of that, the DNC would condescend to anyone left of center about electability.

That REALLY depends.

Year One? Absolutely.

The Dark Knight Returns? Agree to disagree.

All-Star Batman and Robin? Christ no, it might be the worst.

I believe that’s Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.

It’s especially sticky because “Men’s Rights” is a bait-and-switch, ripping off “Men’s Liberation.”

Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements, because patriarchy hurts everyone. That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.

So Men’s Rights does the thing where it appeals to people with genuine grievances, but offers them a bullshit solution that benefits grifters and people in power. It’s not this systemic problem, it’s this group of people, and if only we could deal with them, everything would magically fix itself. In this case, “It’s not patriarchy, it’s not capitalism, it’s feminists, and women in general. If only we could get them back in their place, your life would be back on track. So vote for me/sign up for my course…”

So, bringing up the ways in which men also suffer under sexism can kick up some dirt to muddy the waters, intentionally or not. Some will be bad faith actors who just want to shit on feminism. Others will be taking the feminist side on this. And those in the middle, who see things turn toxic, can go any way—but if they stay neutral, or especially move right, then the reactionaries gain some ground.

So I don’t know what’s in OP’s heart. But, at least from way too many fights online, I’ve found that the best course of action is to assume good faith, and give reactionaries enough rope to hang themselves. They don’t have the better ideas, and they don’t have the better plans, but they’re good at shit-flinging. If you just make a good case, they tend to unmask pretty quickly and fall apart. There’s no point trying to convince a die-hard bigot, but you can play to the audience by just making the better case and helping bigots embarrass themselves.

In my opinion, at least, for whatever that’s worth. Sorry for the rambling!

Thanks! I actually took time to make my comment shorter, so I’m glad I successfully got straight to the points. :)

Also, to be blunt… we’ve seen this before. We know from recent history what happens when the DNC nominates the safe, centrist, establishment candidate, who fails to appeal to voters and loses to a Republican. That was 2016. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. And who did the DNC rally behind right before Super Tuesday? That’s right… Joe Biden.

If you think it would help, sure thing!

Hoo boy. Against my better judgment, I’ll wade into this pool.

1. If voting for either party gets you the same result, fascists wouldn’t be so focused on elections and trying so hard to take the vote away.

2. Withholding your vote doesn’t do anything. When has losing an election pushed either party left?

3. Voting doesn’t prevent you from engaging in other forms of direct action.

Both parties suck. People will needlessly suffer and die no matter who wins. But there are also people who will suffer and die under one party but not the other, and the same can’t be said the other way around. Our democracy is fundamentally flawed, but voting is a tool at our disposal, and we’re in no position to turn anything down.

I went hiking recently. State park, at least a mile from the campground, peaceful and quiet.

Then I noticed something scrawled on one of the trail markers. Some dipshit wrote “Fuck Joe Biden” on it.

Holy shit, how miserable do you have to be to do that? To carry a marker and tag a tree just to express how you can’t stop thinking about the guy, and make it other people’s problem, even in the middle of nowhere when you’re not even around.

Yeah, I used to use it to fix my RPG PDFs. (Seriously, it’s astounding how many publishers either omit or completely fuck up bookmarks.) I found out it went to shit when trying to help someone else do the same, and the newer free version was significantly cut down.

Absolutely. While I can be convinced on markets for some things (with regulation to protect consumers and prevent monopolies), it completely falls apart in others. Necessities absolutely should not rely on free markets because capital holders hold an extortionate amount of power, most people have little to none, and if it’s more profitable to let some people die, then the profit motive will let those people die.

In case you want the good faith counterargument (I know, I know, socialist wall of text):

I’d be willing to bet you have a different definition of “capitalism” compared to socialists. For most people, capitalism is just trade, markets, commerce, etc. None of that is incompatible with socialism (broadly speaking). When socialists talk about capitalism, they’re referring, specifically, to private ownership of capital. It’s not the buying and selling, it’s that ownership of companies is separate from labor.

We don’t owe technological development to capitalists, we owe it to engineers, scientists, and researchers. We owe art to artists, performance to performers. Socialists want those people to be the primary beneficiaries of their own work, not someone who may or may not even work at a company, but whose wealth means they can profit off of other people’s labor by virtue of owning the property those people need to do their jobs.

And you’ve probably been bothered by enshittification in one form or another. Some product or service you like has probably gotten worse over time. That’s not a decision made by the people who take pride in their creation, or the laborers who want long-term security. It comes from the capitalist class that doesn’t really give a shit about any of that, they just want quarterly profits, long-term survival be damned. That’s capitalism, as the meme was getting at.

Yeah, that drove me absolutely up the wall. Russia’s economy was liberalized after the fall of the Soviet Union, and China even invited Milton Goddamn Friedman to consult on their economic plans.

Sure, but I think this example also commingles labor with ownership (as is often the case).

Like you said, your plan involves building a four-family home. That’s labor and worth fair remuneration. It’s just that, in order to get that remuneration you’d be taking payment from tenants who build no equity for their money. Yeah, you’ll have to renovate in 30 years, but you’d still have property and the money paid in rent while they don’t.

A landlord can also simultaneously do valuable work supervising and managing a property. That’s not mutually exclusive with profiting from ownership, and we can separate how we evaluate the two. It even comes up with billionaires: Bill Gates obviously did work worth payment as CEO of Microsoft, it’s just not where he got most of his fortune. It can simultaneously be true that he’s a talented guy who deserved to be paid, but most of his fortune came from exploitative business practices and profiting off of the labor of others.

Also, to be clear, there’s a difference between structural and individual criticism. Obviously slumlords are pieces of shit, but there’s a difference between that and someone who really does work as a property manager doing right by their tenants, or a family renting out a part of their home to make ends meet. I can think that landlords should be judged on an individual basis, while landlording as a thing shouldn’t exist.

And thank goodness for that! I hope the trend continues until we have actual, livable places.