One thing that's happened since the pandemic is I've been eating a lot more oatmeal, and I've formed some opinions about oatmeal best practices. First of all, oatmeal really ought to be cooked on the stovetop from non-quick cooking oats. It's easy and the texture is way better.
Oatmeal is a grain like any other and it needs to be seasoned as you would season rice. It needs fat and salt, even if you're going to have it sweetened.
My go-to sweet oatmeal is with butter, maple syrup, and fresh berries (and salt -- 1/4 tsp kosher salt for 75g of dry oats). For savory oatmeal, try it with salt plus pepper, good olive oil, parmesan cheese, and the zest of half a lemon.
This is really easy -- if you have a block of parmigiano reggiano in the fridge, just grab your microplane and grate it and zest the lemon right over the oatmeal.
As for the olive oil -- I think most people use this wrong in their kitchens. You should buy one with a nice, prominent flavor for applications where you can actually taste the oil, such as adding it to rice or oats. You should not be using it as your default cooking oil.
Personally I love this oil. It's expensive, but again -- you shouldn't generally be cooking with it. Use it for applications where you can really taste it, and sauté in a more neutral oil. fioreoliveoils.com/products/corat…
In response to some responses, I'm not saying *never* cook in olive oil. You should use a lower-price EVOO to make, e.g., tomato sauce. And I use the good stuff to saute a shallot when I'm making rice. But a lot of people will even saute meats in EVOO, which I disagree with.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The problem with Josh Hawley's theory of politics is that being a sociopath and being a whiny little baby are only two of Trump's many traits, and copying them alone will not get you elected president. Trump also, for example, has charisma.
One reason New York mayors and governors always hate each other is NYC does a lot of functions normally reserved to state governments, so they have more opportunities for turf wars.
For whatever reason, they seem to get along better when they’re not from the same party.
"When something's ugly, talking about beauty isn't just permissible, talking about beauty is obligatory," says Sen. Sasse, never wavering from his commitment to florid-yet-vacuous rhetoric.
Sen. Chance the Gardener (R-Neb.)
Now he's talking about getting from a silver frame to a golden apple, and about little league.
So we hear a lot of "shaming doesn't work," and of past examples of epidemics where shaming didn't work, or was counterproductive, but I'm wondering if this is over-learned like "travel bans don't work." What if the shaming relates to activity that can't easily be concealed?
Like, the shame story with HIV is clear: you attach stigma to the disease and then people don't want to get tested, or don't want to disclose their status, and they can keep engaging in risk behaviors without telling the world. How comparable is that to COVID?
I don't know the answer. I'm not pro-shame. Also, unpleasant social interactions have their own costs even when they do "work" at the margin. But I think there's been a problem where past empirical results get turned into general principles that aren't actually so general.
This isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Intertemporal distribution is possible bc of international trade. More cash doesn’t have to just chase a fixed-ish quantity of goods and services; we can buy more goods this year and next from abroad. In fact, the trade deficit is already way up.
That’s made possible by net saving in other countries, and because our government borrows money to issue the checks, we’ll offset it with more net saving in future years to pay off that debt.
This seems abstract but it’s literally what happens when people take their stimulus checks and go buy electronics.
One of the surveys this story relies on to claim a sweeping climate stress problem is a Harris poll conducted for the American Psychological Association. This is where the 47% number comes from. Is this number plausible? Do other results from this survey make sense? Let’s look.
That poll first asks if climate change is the most important problem facing society today. 56% say yes. But what if you don’t ask a leading question? We can compare; Gallup asks open-ended what’s the biggest problem facing the country. Only ~3% give environment-related answers.
So we can see that priming people by asking directly if climate change is today’s most important problem, you can get more than an extra 50% to say yes compared to how many would say that unprompted. Already a bad sign about this data.