wjrii

From SETI's FAQ:

If an extraterrestrial civilization has a SETI project similar to our own, could they detect signals from Earth?
In general, no. Most earthly transmissions are too weak to be found by equipment similar to ours at the distance of even the nearest star. But there are some important exceptions. High-powered radars and the Arecibo broadcast of 1974 (which lasted for only three minutes) could be detected at distances of tens to hundreds of light-years with a setup similar to our best SETI experiments.

Every moment adds to our data of course, but the idea that we're at some sort of tipping point in how we should perceive the odds of extraterrestrial civilization is silly. Some of this feels like sour grapes from aging nerds who come to believe that it won't happen in their lifetimes, so it is obviously never gonna happen.

The description of the Hogarth series is probably about as close as I've seen to what OP seems to be asking for, but obviously creatives in all media have been adapting Shakespeare for ages.

They may find a basic "nuts and bolts" adaptation to be a bit lacking though. Ol' Willy Shakes tended to lift his plots from middle-brow history books and from earlier plays. The brilliance came in the specific use of language and from stretching the psychological intimacy and realism of the characters in ways that were unprecedented, but which has become the norm, and might feel stale at this point. Frankly, the plays would have been viewed as sloppy and vulgar by many in the upper class, even if they found them compelling in a "best of that lower sort of thing." Shakespeare had to hustle and write "proper" poetry to build a reputation during his lifetime, and what was the net result of being the most brilliant literary innovator in English since Chaucer and possibly ever? He got to be like the second or third richest man in little Stratford-upon-Avon and told enough lies and paid enough bribes to get his dad a coat of arms.

Space: Above & Beyond

I was enjoying the hell out of that show until they ran out of money and decided that since they were "Marines" they didn't have to fly their ships anymore.

That’s his preferred coffee taste and that’s what he demands the company makes.

I'm sure it's also completely coincidental that burnt coffee tastes mostly same no matter where and when the beans came from. :-)

I normally use that same coffee in an Ikea French Press and while I won't say it's gourmet, it meets my needs for "not particularly bitter caffeine juice". Honestly, I slowed it down the next time I did a single cup pourover and that took most of the battery acid notes out of it.

I don't have a particularly sophisticated palate and still want some sugar and milk in there; I just don't like Starbucks very much and hate paying a premium for a product that I like less than my homemade half-assery. :-)

If you need drinkable brewed coffee from SB, you have to order the blonde roast. They scorch the everliving fuck out of their regular stuff to ensure consistency regardless of source, so even if you normally don't, if you want "black" coffee from SB, you'll be better off with the blonde. If you're brewing by volume of grounds, lighter roast will have more caffeine anyway (they're the same if you brew by weight).

I remembered this episode existed, but forgot what they looked like. That facial appliance and makeup looks a lot like the Odo/Founders ones.

So it's not a lawsuit (yet), it's a complaint to the state attorney general of Washington accusing Starbucks of unfriendly consumer practices related to their gift cards, in part because they can recognize unspent gift cards as revenue, and also because it's instant cashflow for them even if the accounting revenue lags behind. The need to come up with a calculation for how much deferred revenue to recognize can be abused by execs to nudge the revenue higher (and with no additional costs associated with it, profit as well) and thereby improve stock price and trigger bonuses and whatnot.

The actual complaint reads as a bit of pearl-clutching ("involuntary subscription" because customers don't want to leave a balance OR talk to a real human at their local Starbucks!) , but on a the "death by a thousand cuts" model, yeah, I suppose Starbucks is being kinda dickish. The app doesn't give you as many rewards if you pay with CC, buries the other payment options a couple of layers deep in a menu, doesn't let you reload gift cards in increments equal to a purchase, doesn't let you split payment methods, and sets a high default reload so (on iOS at least) it isn't immediately visible that you even could scroll up to reload in smaller amounts.

It's sort of garden variety asshole app design meant to soft-lock customers in, but it's not really fraud in any meaningful way if someone is motivated. You add money, you get bitter overpriced coffee that your partner really likes for some reason. I prefer CHEAP, ACIDIC coffee because I did the pourover too fast on mediocre store-bought grounds that are too fine, LOL. Still, maybe worth a public scolding or some fines to get them to modify it so people can save a few bucks without diving into the finer nuances of their coffee app.

So, in the linked complaint (not a full lawsuit yet, btw), they cite "breakage" where Starbucks corporate makes an estimate each year as to the amount of banked gift cards they reasonably believe will never be spent. It looks like it has averaged about $185M in the last few years. This can be moved from deferred revenue to actual, and thereby improve the financials. This could theoretically be fucked with on the margins and allow execs to pocket more money, and to some extent it obviously encourages Starbucks to promote gift cards (in the broad sense) over other payment methods.

The whole complaint is odd. Starbucks obviously feels like they have a winner in this scheme, and almost everything alleged in the complaint is kinda fucky, to the point that I think it's worth pointing out as a consumer protection issue. That said, the individual impact on any one consumer is very small and there are numerous workarounds for a slightly motivated person, and the tone of the complaint comes off kinda like pearl-clutching and paternalistic. Maybe you have to write it that way to make sure it's taken seriously, but it's not making for very persuasive reading.

For now, it's still a very good way to find reviews and rundowns that were (probably) written by real humans, and for the more niche communities it's often still the only community with a critical mass of people participating. Its content is a resource that was created by the users, and I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Now that said, I never post anything there anymore, and I never browse without adblock, and I refuse to download their garbage app. It's a read-only resource for me now, and I'll survive just fine if it locks itself down completely.

This. 'Soccer' is well understood and unambiguous, though it might prompt certain assumptions depending on your audience. There are times and places you might prefer to say 'football' to mean 'Association football,' but if you just need to communicate simple factual information in two syllables, it's probably the best word for that.

And Australia, at least when they're not trying to suck up to the British.