(Part 3) Top products from r/UBC

A programmable coffee maker is one of the best purchases I've ever made. I now wake up to hot coffee so I can just grab it and go. I have this one that I bought when it was on sale and I love it but don't buy it for the price amazon has it now. Before I got the machine, I did pour over coffee with a Melitta cone. The cone is ~$6 at London Drugs, filters are ~$2 for 100 and you just need freshly boiled water. I have a food scale, so I weighed out coffee grounds (16 grams water to 1 gram coffee approximately) but you can also use a measuring spoon. It's 2 tbsp per 1 cup of water. When you add the water to the cone, pour about 1/4-1/3 of the water in to cover the grounds, wait about 30 seconds then slowly pour the rest of the water in. For the milk part, if you're fond of lattes, heat some milk up in the microwave/on the stove and use a frother (IKEA has them for ~$3) to make it all foamy and pour that into your coffee.

To get set up to make pour over coffee will cost less than $20 including whatever kind of coffee you buy. A bag of coffee will make you around 25 8-oz cups of coffee depending on how strongly you brew it. I prefer pour over to French press because French press coffee is always a little silty and I don't like that.

If you have questions, I'm happy to answer! I drink entirely too much coffee and went far down the coffee rabbit hole when I started drinking it.

Could everyone add a quote from the book they're reading? A good quote could draw my interest. Helps me find new stuff to read!

As for myself, I'm currently on Vagabonding: An Uncommon Guide to the Art of Long-Term World Travel. Here are a couple of quotes from said book:

"We need sometimes to escape into open solitudes, into aimlessness, into the moral holiday of running some pure hazard, in order to sharpen the edge of life, to taste hardship, and to be compelled to work desperately for a moment no matter what."

"In this way, vagabonding is like a pilgrimage without a specific destination or goal— not a quest for answers so much as a celebration of the questions, an embrace of the ambiguous, and an openness to anything that comes your way."

Not really "celebrity status" but Daniel Vickers in the history department had his book mentioned in the Good Will Hunting bar scene which is neat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azM6xSTT2I0 @ 3:00

https://www.amazon.ca/Farmers-Fishermen-Centuries-Massachusetts-1630-1830/dp/0807844586

http://www.history.ubc.ca/people/daniel-vickers Publications

I've been going back and forth between these books for a few weeks/months now:

• Metamorphoses by Ovid
  
• The Mysteries of Religion by Stephen R. L. Clark
  
• A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy edited by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore
  
• Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages by Umberto Eco

if a window fan like this fits in your window I highly recommend

I've been using Uni-ball 207s for years. I always make sure I have a good supply especially around midterms and finals.

A bike and the bus pass included with tuition is enough to get you anywhere in the city. As it's been pointed out, UBC is on a high hill so take that into consideration when leaving campus by bike. Note that all buses have bike racks on them, so if you just can't make it up the hill, you can hop on a bus to make it the rest of the way.

The only thing I would suggest beg you to do is to invest in a very, very good bike lock or two. UBC is polluted with bike thieves who will pluck a bike from a rack in broad daylight. A good U-Lock, properly attached, may deter most thieves - but pairing it with a heavy duty chain lock (like this) will be much more secure - especially if you are on campus late at night. It may seem like overkill, but overkill is better than leaving class to realize your only mode of transportation was stolen out from under you.

If you use a cable lock, your bike won't last a month.

What about stainless steel straws

Edit: this is a joke but ok

I use the Pilot Ballpoint fine pen https://www.amazon.ca/Pilot-Better-Ballpoint-Stick-35011/dp/B00006IEBA

This is why the Aeropress was invented. A french press typically produces gritty coffee, while the Aeropress uses a paper filter and is much cleaner. Filters cost $6.50/350 or about a week's supply if you drink as much coffee as most grad students...

Uniball Jetstream is a solid pen, especially this one
https://www.amazon.ca/Jetstream-Rollerball-Retractable-Bold-1-0mm-73832/dp/B0016P6CUU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1518465343&sr=8-3&keywords=uni-ball+jetstream

You can also find the rollerball version at staples near UBC

Okay since no one is actually answering your question: The wood being burned down at wreck is most often just drift wood or stuff from the forest that someone grabbed.

If you decide to do the same, just...please don't try to burn the larger logs. It never actually burns and just leaves a huge charred patch on the log and it's a dick move.

As far as where to buy firewood, sometimes larger grocery stores sell it, like Save-On or Safeway (the IGA on 41st used to have bundles but...the IGA is gone, so that's not useful). Or, I kid you not, check craigslist. People sometimes just post free firewood if they've recently taken down a tree in their yard or something.

Amazon.ca also totally has firewood, but shipping is $50!

>CPR

The country did not exist prior to the arrival of the Europeans, who built it from the ground up. The country was built by pioneers and settlers, as well as high birth rates in North America. Non-traditional immigrants, broadly speaking, are non-European immigrants. The contributions of non-Europeans have been fairly limited historically. https://www.amazon.ca/Canada-Decay-Immigration-Diversity-Euro-Canadians/dp/1910881953

these ones

gotta get quality stuff

I have this textbook from when I took it online a couple years ago. You can have it for $20

I'm assuming you mean HINU 102:
Introduction to Hindi Grammar

Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Israel-M-Gelfand/dp/0817636773 and you're more than set for algebraic manipulation.

And if you're looking to get super fancy, then some of that: https://www.amazon.com/Method-Coordinates-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/0486425657/

And some of this for graphing practice: https://www.amazon.com/Functions-Graphs-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/0486425649/

And if you're looking to be a sage, these: https://www.amazon.com/Kiselevs-Geometry-Book-I-Planimetry/dp/0977985202/ + https://www.amazon.com/Kiselevs-Geometry-Book-II-Stereometry/dp/0977985210/

If you're uncomfortable with mental manipulation of geometric objects, then, before anything else, have a crack at this: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Graph-Theory-Dover-Mathematics/dp/0486678709/

There isn't a single sentence in your post I don't agree with (^_^).

Well, except for one:

As a cognitive systems alumni I'd say you'd need to operationalize what "sentient" means before you say plants are not sentient. There is quite a bit of literature on plant intelligence. Plant Neurobiology and plant cognition are both actual fields. Plants have analogous processes to what you might see in a rudimentary brain and hell, some even use neurotransmitters to communicate and problem solve. The link is for hormones but acetylcholine esterase, glutamate receptors, GABA receptors, and endocannabinoids are all used by plants as outlined in this 2006 book

I used to be pescatarian because I cared about mammals but found it incredibly difficult to feel anything for fish - creatures so drastically different from us. Also where was the evidence that they feel pain in any capacity we should care about? That's where research I read made me change my mind. Turns out there's good evidence most fish feel pain and most are more intelligent than I gave them credit for.

I bring this up because I find a lot of vegans categorically think of plants as fundamentally different sentient-wise for no other reason than because they are plants. This seems to me the definition of speciesism. Thinking of sentience as a spectrum with no clear boundary for what is sentient and what isn't seems a healthier worldview more in line with reality. Consider a meat-eater that took enormous great care to cause no pain to the meat he is eating. A preachy vegan walks in and tells him what he is doing is wrong. Consider the meat-eater sharing this quote from the New York Times:

"When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins ... If you think about it, though, why would we expect any organism to lie down and die for our dinner? Organisms have evolved to do everything in their power to avoid being extinguished. How long would any lineage be likely to last if its members effectively didn't care if you killed them?"

Although only suffering animals feel anguish, plants, like all organisms, have evolved mechanisms for survival. No living organism can be described as "wanting" to die for another organism's sustenance. So, if you kill an organism for food without causing it anguish, what's the moral difference between doing that to an animal vs a plant? I don't see one. And doesn't the care I have taken to not cause my meat any pain showcase how much care and respect I have for my food? What respect do you show plants as fellow living organisms by categorically refusing to eat anything but them?

Legitimate questions worth pondering I think. Now, I don't think there are any plants that deserve the label "sentient" and the pain research seems mostly that plants "probably don't feel pain in any way we need to care about" so we're in the clear as vegans/bivalvarians if that's what we care about. But then it follows that there's no moral problem with eating meat if you cause the animal no harm. You cant say "the animal doesn't want to die and has some right to life because of this." The same can be said of plants. Arguing that the animal is just much more "complex" and thus deserves life likewise doesn't work. That is subjective and moreover smells like the same kind of rationale that leads to the irreducible complexity fallacy. Just because something is more complex doesn't magically endow it with mystical properties. It's all molecules and electrical circuits at the bottom for both plants and animals at the end of the day.

However, since ethical meat is virtually impossible to get hold off in the 21st Century, (even the rare ethical farms have serious legal issues that prevent the animals from receiving adequate care) unless I were to go and kill my meat myself, I'll be vegan.

And yea... on a complete sidenote... honey is a topic I'm currently looking into and not completely sure of. Currently I try to only buy local but I don't go out of my way to avoid it. It's probably the most hazy ethical thing in my diet right now and I think it'll probably be the next thing to be removed from my diet if there is a next thing to remove :S . Interesting side-sidenote: Goat is the most eaten meat in the world. And yet... there is no such thing as a goat factory farm (or they're incredibly rare). Lamb likewise is very difficult to factory farm and is not economically feasible so sheep just tend not to be factory farmed (source). not only that but if well managed goat and lamb are easily some of the most environmentally friendly forms of meat. So goat and lamb chops might be returning to my diet one day if I can find an ethical source I can trust!

> No, you didn't. All you did was keep repeating the mantra that the "claim in question is not required for his argument". My point has nothing to do with the validity of the argument if his claim is corrected. It's about Peterson repeatedly talking out of his ass without having done his research, which adds up to people justifiably questioning his credibility.

Yes, I did. Your statement:

>Presumably he's making those claims because they're either required by or strengthen his argument. Why else would he include these claims in his presentation?

And I addressed and disproved that statement.

Certainly, he was wrong in stating the number of AIDS deaths. But given that the inaccuracy is minor, not within his field of expertise, and doesn't change his argument, I don't consider that affecting his credibility.

Perhaps you do, but then again - you seem quite biased against Peterson. I doubt you'd say the same if someone you support made a similar error.

Example of your bias:

>Peterson tries to make a smart sounding argument about how "groups are aimed at something because they can't be aimed at nothing because nothing cannot be aimed at something".

As I said, so? You yourself admitted that he wasn't wrong in saying. You just said it was an argument without any substance. And yet, you try to present it as an example of Peterson "getting things wrong".

>Peterson puts forth a conspiracy theory about how his grant was denied as a form of political persecution.

Ok, and? Again, you haven't actually proven he was wrong. At best, you can say he hasn't provided enough evidence for the claim.
And yet again, you seem to think it's an example of him getting things wrong.

So two out out of four are already failures. I don't feel like listening to a podcast, and I admit I'm not familiar at all with the concept discussed in the first link.

I also note that you completely ignored my statement proving you wrong about the Obama example. And you also ignored my example about Benjamin Perrin. Unless you would agree that Perrin should be disregarded in everything he says?

>May I put forth another possibility: You're an idealogue who will dismiss any critical opinion of Peterson because you're happy to buy into the "Hurr durr SJWs!!!" narrative and his neo-Marxist conspiracy theories. As much as you'll deny it, you're really no different than the people who show up to shut down Peterson's talks and call him a "crypto fascist".

Not at all. There's a significant difference between someone trying to prevent another person from speaking simply because they disagree, and someone who doesn't. You don't see me, or anyone else, trying to shut down left-wingers saying damn stupid or outright false shit.

E.g. BLM co-founder can have a public event outside where she yells that Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist terrorist (obviously completely bullshit), and no one tries to prevent her from speaking.

And I actually am attempting to engage with your arguments. You can't say the same about people trying to shut Peterson down.

Not to mention, I am happy to admit when Peterson says something incorrect, or at least something that is questionable.

For instance, if you had listened to his talk on Friday, you'd know he claimed that income inequality is one of the biggest correlators/predictors of crime, which seems obvious enough. But then he also said that income inequality has been increasing. Except crime has gone down in North America over the last several decades. So how can his argument be correct then?

I actually did ask him that. He didn't have time to give a full answer (it was just after the talk had ended) but he pointed me to a book by another scholar, which is presumably where he learned about that research.