I'm in my fifties, have been involved in computing since I was a kid and I like Apple's stance on this because the threat landscape has changed, particularly for non-tech-savvy people. If you want that freedom there are various *nix flavours to choose from, you're not compelled to use Apple.
I've seen those too. I was going to say that I've seen people put the bowl to their mouth and shovel food in with chopsticks, but now that I come to think about it that might well actually be from the series Tokyo Diner and Takeshi Kitano films, and may be deliberately uncouth characterisations...
I'm under the impression this is a Chinese vs. Japanese difference. Shoveling food into your mouth is perfectly acceptable in Chinese etiquette but discouraged in Japanese. Accordingly the Japanese cook their rice to clump together so it's easier to pick up using your chopsticks so that you don't have to resort to shoveling.
So what are you expected to do with the last few sauce-soaked grains of rice that would at best be able to be plucked grain by grain from the bowl, and even then would likely slip from between the tips of the chopsticks? Just leave them in the bowl?
I've heard that clearing the table of food would be considered rude in China, as it means you didn't get enough to eat, almost exactly opposite to the only food-related rule I was ever taught growing in the US - never waste food or serve yourself more than you can eat. That's probably just a "my family" thing though. I get the impression that even saving leftovers is rare among Americans these days.
There are still contradictory customs around this enough that it is standard practice to warn exchange students from Europe that if they finish absolutely everything on their plate that this is a signal in many American homes that you should be served more. This can lead to some real discomfort as the student tries to eat everything they are given which leads to being given more and more.
So at the same time it is considered poor taste to take more than you can eat, it is also considered poor form to offer a guest anything less than more than they can eat. This also shows up when people rate restaurants by the serving size.
I haven't been specifically informed as to either question, but I find that idea surprising, since noodles are infinitely easier to pick up with chopsticks than rice is.
> To use the chopsticks to pick something out from near the bottom of the dish.
I think there must be some bits that are lost in translation for some of these. This makes it sound like you can't eat all of the food in a bowl with your chopsticks.
Yeah, could be - that's kind of what I mean in terms of being lost in translation. It feels like there's missing information / context in quite a few of them.
Edit: In fact I think you're completely right - "picking out" something near the bottom of the dish does suggest that.
Let me check but I think it refers to a shared dish; at an izakaiya you often order a bunch of shared food plates and then serve yourself from them.
It is definitely rude to use chopsticks that you just put in your mouth to go rooting around for something in those. You are supposed to take from the top and ideally turn them around using the back end. Some people frown on using the back ends however as it may have been touched by your hand...
Edit add: It means to dig food out, either from your own dish or a shared one. Like mixing the food up to look for something you like in it.
Yes, that is why I said that some people frown on it.
However, the people that I learned etiquette from taught me to turn the chopsticks around. They were not low class by any means, company owners from Kyoto region.
Kinda sad for me to know this because one of my favorite things about chopsticks is their precision. I can pick exactly the piece of food I feel like eating in the next moment. This makes it sound like I'm not supposed to be picky.
> To keep putting the chopsticks into the same side dishes. It is proper etiquette to first eat rice, move on to eat from a side dish, eat rice again, and then eat from a different side dish.
More about politeness to other guests in the context of a shared meal than being picky (and probably also with some similar logic to the TCM theories of how and what to eat, and maybe giving face to the host).
This has been going on for at least three years, although perhaps they left more popular sites like The Verge alone. My wife's business rebranded three years ago and they kept the old brand as part of the title, presumably because there were lots of links pointing to it with the old title.
This is a very well-done piece in a good cause, but it would have been nice for the author to acknowledge the very obvious inspiration from Monument Valley - https://www.monumentvalleygame.com/mv1 - particularly given they're asking for tips.
Sounds like it might have been added later but it's in the credits now
>The idea for parallel paths and the illustration style developed independently, but the team did take inspiration for the isometric world and user experience mechanics from the game Monument Valley once made aware. If you enjoyed this format, give Monument Valley a play through the Apple or Android app stores.
How far back do you want to take this? Like why aren't they giving credit to the person who invented the pen? C'mon, this is a much more direct copy of Monument Valley than Escher.
Monument Valley is a copy of Escher so I’m not sure your point. Or maybe it’s an order thing? Then Monument Valley is a copy of the Escher scenes from the movie Labyrinth or maybe it’s a copy of a-ha’s Take me on music video?
I am OK with you personally practicing a religion and its rules.
I am NOT OK with you forcing me to follow some religion's rules.
And yes, I will look down on countries whom choose to force a specific religion on everyone. We can look in our own backyard, with multiple abortion bans, which lead to many women dying due to miscarriage and needing abortion. Was illegal (cause of baby Jesus, spit) so women died.
Or we can look at Saudi Arabia school fire in 2002 where the girls didn't have headdresses and were shoved back in. They died due to radical Islamic bullshit. Or the idea of "Religious police".
Religion and government should never mix. Not ever. Our founding fathers and Marx were all right about that.
Because people in the former group don't criticize those countries, they criticize Islam, and tend to categorize all Muslims (specifically Muslim immigrants) as ontologically evil.
Meanwhile people in the latter group tend to be very specific that their criticism is of a state and its policies, rather than the religion of Judaism or Jews in general, even though their efforts tend to fall on deaf ears.
>Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.
No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Ipso facto you are an ontologically evil person.
This is basic kindergarten logic if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement. You did not make a subjective statement about observation, you made an objective statement about belief.
>Dumb flex but OK.
I agree. It was dumb - "only Sith deal in absolutes" level stupid, and I don't know why you came back to double down on it.
>No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
Yes, people who believe in ontologically evil beliefs (such as Islam) are ontologically evil people. Not belief in the concept of ontologically, this is a misattribution error on your part.
>If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Islam is an ontologically evil as I stated above. I believe in ontological evil as a concept, but that does not make me ontologically evil.
Ipso facto you are misattributing this to ontologically evil as a concept. This is basic kindergarten logic and contextual understanding if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
QED.
>"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement
Yes it as, as the first sentence was "Islam is [an] ontologically evil [religion]."
>I agree. It was dumb
Glad you agree your flex was dumb, "ackchyually" level stupid, then you came back to triple down on it.
Maybe you're right though, no chance "The Religion of Peace" could be unpeaceful.
Indeed, it both feels like the same type of pro-theocratic propaganda. Its a way to disingenuously claim "you hate everyone of our group", when thats demonstrably not true. You likely hate the actions a country masquerading as the group inflicts against others.
My disdain is for all theocratic countries. I dont particularly care for any religion that takes over a government.
And I do include the USA in that, as theocratic fundamentalist christanity. Ive done so since changing the pledge of allegience and adding "in god we trust" on the currency.
reply