Definitely it's massively less compelling in areas with extremely high electricity costs. That's pretty much as expensive as electricity gets in North America, isn't it? I think it's significantly more compelling basically anywhere else. E.g. in Ontario where I live, if you're set up appropriately and charge between 11pm and 7am it's $0.028/kWh (CAD), i.e. less than 3 cents per kWh, or roughly 1/35th the price you're paying.
If I've done my math right, that's works out to be less than 2$ USD per 1000km? A difference of 108$/1000km is 1728$/year for the statistically average-driving Ontarian. Adds up pretty fast!
I have a hard time with threads like this because it feels like half the comments are straight out of an Apple ad. "It's simple", "It just works", "PC is some nerd twiddling bits but Mac is cool and gets things done". It feels like a cheap shot, but when "the nerds" are proclaiming Apple the one true OS the hacker ethic is really suffering.
My wife switched from Android to Apple, then Apple back to Android a couple times. Turns out they're really not that different, and the "simple" one is the one you're used to (noting in the Android ecosystem companies like Samsung really do a disservice by trying to stand out from stock in a different-but-no-better way).
I have a Garmin Fenix 6 that definitely can do this, I do it all the time. You can customize the display so that it only displays the heart rate, or e.g. the heart rate and heart rate zones. While the Fenix 6 is expensive, I think there are a whole bunch of watches in that segment at different price points that will do what you want.
I think the general category you're looking for is devices that support ANT+.
I think this is too loaded and subjective to form a useful conversation around. Maybe you can expand and get more specific answers? For example,
> Android phones still feel like cheap plastic to me
I personally think "cheap plastic" is often the dramatically superior choice for phones from a functional perspective. It typically implies easy and low cost to replace, as well as lightweight and durable. Permeability to radio signals is also a solid bonus. There are definitely tons of plastics that are not cheap feeling, unless one is of the mindset that plastic = bad in this context.
Yeah, I get that. I think just a terminology thing. It seems like you're using "casual" to describe your mindset whereas I'm understanding "casual" to be offhand, or without significant investment. Forgetting about the absolutely massive time investment, spending > 2000$/year on running shoes alone is a distinctly not-casual thing to do.
> it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon runners out there
Maybe this is the disconnect? People who have ever run a marathon at all are < 1%, and people who continually run marathons casually are a niche within that niche. If the audience is "people who run more than 50km per week" then I think "casual" probably gets the right idea across, that's just a teeny tiny audience.
This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".
I think generally "green building" (at least the mainstream stuff) focuses on insulation + air tightness, and then mechanical ventilation. In that context, operable windows would be mostly be a "just in case of overheating" or similar, and the expectation would be CO2 et al would be managed by the ventilation.
Is it possible your parent's house is not well insulated/sealed? Potentially _really_ uninsulated? I've talked to people here (45 degrees latitude) who are happily using their heat pumps and we're looking at models for ourselves. One caveat being the people I'm talking to live in above average performance homes (in terms of insulation and air sealing).
I'm not sure, reading the local stats really discouraged me and also made me aware of some stuff I had been recycling that wasn't actually handled so would be redirected to the landfill anyways.
I guess because some is better than none? I think it's a good question though. If people stopped thinking of recycling as effective, would "reduce" and "reuse" get more limelight to the point of being an overall win?
I think by and large recycling programs could generally be described as "a sham" pretty accurately. I'm sure there are good programs somewhere, but locally I think it was estimated (ballpark, just trying to remember) like 5-10% of recyclable plastic ends up being recycled vs. in a landfill or incinerated. Of that, some depressingly small amount is actually usefully recycled.
Back of the napkin, if you buy a 30-pack of recyclable cups and are diligent about taking the foil off roughly 1 of those 30 will be meaningfully recycled. Obviously not "you" here, just trying to make a statistics point that recycling is usually (depending where you live) closer to a lie than not.
> I've had "good" black coffee. Too acidic and bitter.
Without trying to talk you out of your preference, I think there's a distinction that might be useful here. A "good" buttery chardonnay isn't going to be enjoyable if you just don't like white wine. There are a ton of great coffees that do not have acidic and bitter as significant tasting notes, so it might be a case of finding a better match to your preferences?
Even with your Mr. Coffee if you use a metal filter compared to a paper filter I imagine you'd notice a flavor difference to the point where you'd have a preference.
That said, I don't think there's necessarily a coffee for everyone - it's just not tasty to some. Even then, you might find a medium roast with some dried fruit or toffee tasting notes, prepared as a pour over or similar by a local hipster might be notably less nasty than what you're drinking today.
> I've tried some of the pretentious coffee before. It's just not as good. It distracts from life. Cheap standard coffee just gets out of the way and enhances life.
While my personal preference is the opposite, I guess I feel the same way about vehicles, to the point where I've found a freedom in having a slightly beat up, feature lacking car because it doesn't matter if it gets scratched and there's less to break.
That gets me thinking one could make this statement about virtually anything though. "It's just not as good" is completely subjective and one's "it distracts from life" is another's "enhances life". To each their own
I think this is the same principle as pretty much everything. Variety is almost always sought after, and then within that variety specific characteristics are cherished. I think the "anti dark roast" thing is "anti uniformity". The darker the roast, the closer every bean gets to tasting exactly the same.
For example, why do people dump on pop music and think of jazz as "real music"?
Ah, then I'm following. I would generally agree with you! Despite the labeling differences, I think almost all of those are going to be roasted to the point where that's all you can taste (rather than the bean). In a sense, the processing for all those offerings is basically "how can we make everything taste extremely predictable and uniform?". Most of the difference will be hot/cold, watery/concentrated.
If you're interested, I'm 100% positive you'd be surprised at how many different flavors are available in coffee. I'd second the recommendation of qbasic_forever above. It can make a fun date with the wife, or if you have a locally available coffee subscription that can be a fun way to see some variety at home. Funky fermented flavors, maybe juicy acidity - I promise there are coffees that would be unrecognizable as coffee.
All that said, you might not like any of them. If what you're drawn to is the roasty flavors and bitterness then you'll lose some of that in exchange. All that to say, I'm 100% certain you'd be surprised by the variety of flavors if you were to pursue it, but there's no reason to if you're happy with what you've got. It only gets more expensive and less accessible...
As someone who really enjoys coffee, this is wild seeming to me. Have you sought out "different" coffees, or just don't naturally encounter them? For example, have you ever had any light roasted coffee? Or naturally processed? My first time having either of those I was shocked how unlike anything associated with coffee they were. Admittedly I didn't like either on the first try, but they were definitely VERY different from standard dark roast offerings.
I experienced a very similar thing. With the pandemic I've been splurging on coffees, exploring different types, finding ones I really enjoy. Then I went out into the world and had a coffee from a regular ol' sandwich shop style cafe. Boy was it not what I was hoping for.
It turns out that over the course of the pandemic I've really refined what I actually like in coffee (for myself, not trying to say it's generally better) and basically nowhere serves it. Now I'm in a pickle - I absolutely love love love the coffee I get to have every morning when I wake up, and I don't generally enjoy the bulk of the coffee that's available in the world at large.
Before I enjoyed coffee so much I was able to enjoy coffee much more broadly.
I agree that it's not really about the "quality" of the taste of the thing, I strongly disagree it's generally about tribal membership and signaling. I'm reasonably deep into coffee snobbery now, but not as a part of any group - the only person who knows would be my wife. I genuinely enjoy good coffees and often it's the highlight of my morning. I don't think I'm unique in that, especially since the pandemic.
That said, as with craft beer I think it's very often not about the objective quality (if there is such a thing) so much as it is the novelty. I'm guessing the people you portray negatively are more interested in the fads and trends and always chasing something new than enjoying what's in front of them. The perk of that is funding a broader assortment of offerings, the downside is as you mentioned that it can bring elitism and gate keeping.
I think your "tiny gains in subjective taste experience" is glossing over very real and dramatically different flavors (like a sour beer vs. a hoppy beer).
The moka pot is how I transitioned from coffee as a utility drink to coffee I enjoy drinking. James Hoffman (popular coffee YouTuber) has a video[1] where he goes over what it takes to get consistently good results out of the moka pot - it's not easy. Used naively they kinda go heavy "bitter and dark".
What appealed to me about the moka pot at the time was the reeeeeally "strong" coffee flavor. As I've moved away from it, I think my palate was just geared towards really dark roasts - very little the bean brings to the table at that point.
Definitely it's massively less compelling in areas with extremely high electricity costs. That's pretty much as expensive as electricity gets in North America, isn't it? I think it's significantly more compelling basically anywhere else. E.g. in Ontario where I live, if you're set up appropriately and charge between 11pm and 7am it's $0.028/kWh (CAD), i.e. less than 3 cents per kWh, or roughly 1/35th the price you're paying.
If I've done my math right, that's works out to be less than 2$ USD per 1000km? A difference of 108$/1000km is 1728$/year for the statistically average-driving Ontarian. Adds up pretty fast!