(Part 3) Top products from r/starterpacks

My everyday cookbook is How to Cook Everything Fast by Mark Bittman. I recommend it for anyone who's past the boiling water phase and is competent at reading recipes, but who wants to learn to put things together on their own - the stage I was at when I got it. I could prattle on about this book, but the most important things to me as a novice cook are:

1. It emphasizes flow in the kitchen. Many recipes assume you already have everything diced, peeled, cleaned, etc. This book assumes you just came home from the grocery store. It lists everything you have to do in an order that makes sense, like reminding you to preheat your oven or get your oil hot before you start vegetable prep.
   
2. It encourages substitution. Most of the recipes have several variations and there are a few "recipe-free" recipes, telling you how to put together a basic soup, braise meat, or cook a pilaf with whatever you have on hand.
   
3. True to name, it's quick. Cooking a 3 hour recipe is great for special occasions, but not every night. Most of the recipes take about 30 minutes - add sides (which it will recommend for you, by the way) and cleanup, and you're looking at 45 minutes to put a full dinner on the table. You get more cooking experience in this way too.
   
4. A few different cuisine styles are emphasized, so you'll learn which spices, meats, veggies, etc. play nicely with each other. Even so, even the most poorly equipped supermarket will get you through 90% of the recipes. Similarly, the only special equipment he calls for is a food processor. No waffle iron, ice cream machine, or sous vide recipes here.
   
   By the way, it's crazy cheap on Kindle right now. I'm not a huge fan of the e-book layout - I vastly prefer my paper book - but if you wanted to check it out for $3, now's the time.
   
   I'd recommend anything by Bittman. There are a lot of New York Times articles you can read by him for free, too. He takes a very laid-back, intuitive approach to cooking that encourages experimentation, and I love that!
   
   Another favorite that used to be on my shelf but I lost in a move: Kitchen Quick Tips from Cook's Illustrated. I recommend just about anything from the America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Illustrated family. It's not a cookbook, but it's full of little tips on all sorts of kitchen things - the most efficient way to dice an onion, peel a potato, remove a stuck wine cork, etc. It's the sort of stuff you'd see on /r/Lifehacks but all collected into one place.

>In 1890 the average person didn't have electricity, indoor plumbing, television, computers, phones, internet, or a car. There were no planes or really fast means of transporting goods.

And now basically everybody has those things in the First World. (except planes) It's incredible, the great accomplishment of the free market.

>In 1900 90% of people lived at our current poverty line. How can you compare the two?

It's not just income. Ice was something for just rich people. Going in planes was just for rich people. Sugar was still pretty expensive. People's lifestyles have only improved.


>The world was simple back then. Most of what people consumed was made locally out of necessity.

Yes, it was simple, and most people lived friggen awful lives. I'd recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Good-Old-Days-They-Terrible/dp/0394709411 People lived in cities working 14 hour days living in hovels, or they lived in the country ploughing the land by hand to the possible great reward of being evicted and starving. Now we all complain about surprisingly small things comparatively.


>They didn't need to worry about absurd costs of living.

Yes, because they lived in basically closets. Or they lived in company houses where the mine owners basically kept them as slaves. Or they worried about being able to eat.

>So you're saying because they made about 15-20% less, comparatively, 120 years ago that means everything is okay now?

It's not all ok now. I'd never say that. But, if you took 99% of people today, and 99% of people 100 years ago, they would all choose to live today. No question. No question at all.


>If you took an extra 15-20% of someone's income but they didn't have to pay all these extra bills, I don't think people would complain.

But they also wouldn't get twitter, tinder, Facebook, tv, air conditioning, fans, ice, college, literally anything that people these days may take as a "right."

>Health Insurance

Yep, if you got sick you'd just die on the street or hope a church would take care of you.


>Power/Heating Bills

No, instead they had a coal stove that would put soot everywhere and choke everyone up. People lit with candles and would worry about fires.


> Cell Phone Bills

People clearly think their cell phones are worth it, they have them. I think anybody would pay their cell phone bill to get it given the chance.


>Internet Bills

Who is being forced to buy internet?

> Cable Bills

Who is being forced to buy cable? I don't think my family had cable until this year for watching the election. Nobody needs to worry about cable bills. If they can't afford it, they don't buy it. People choose to worry about it instead of going without. People back then just went without. My family could afford cable, they didn't want it. How is it a worry? If you can't afford a luxury, don't buy it.

>Credit Card Bills

Because people lived on only 3 shirts and 2 pairs of pants.

>Daycare fees (most women simply didn't work, obviously)

Rich women didn't work, normal women did. Either in factories, farms, or taking care of rich people's houses. Or just managing everything. Washing clothes by hand, making food, basically making a livable house without electronics.

>Gym Fees

How is that a worry? Again, if you can't pay for gym, don't use it. Or, if you want to worry financially so you can use the gym, that's absolutely your choice, but thats not a modern worry. Somebody back then would come home and pass out.

>Kids' Sports/Activity fees

Don't need sports or activities if they're working in the factory. ;)

>Car Payments, Car Insurance

Cars are a great modern luxury, yes. I will agree they are necessary for most people, especialy for those outside of a city. But plenty of people live without cars.

>Trash collection fees

Is't a great privilege that we get our trash collected?

>Water fees

It's so nice people don't worry about cholera.

Almost all the things you mentioned are incredible privileges that anybody from any time in history would kill to be able to have. I doubt anybody would honestly go without phones, internet, running water, electricity, etc and trade to live 100 years ago.


I think you are making a good point though, which is in simpler times people simply didn't think this stuff was possible, but now we take it for granted. And the baby boomers and greatest generation definitely had it better than us, but 100 years ago compared to now was a living hell.

There are probably three separate things that need to be distinguished there: (1) it's objectively important, (2) it is actually important to the parents, and (3) the parents can speak theology well enough to say why it's important to them.

For (1), it's possible that we're in a cultural moment where most people are oblivious to really important things. Every age has its blind spots. Christians certainly believe that this is true, at least the majority of us.

For (2), of course, church may not actually be important to the family, but they may need to appear like it's important for whatever reason. I think that a big chunk of the decline in church memberships is that fewer people feel this pressure. There have always been people who would go to church just because they felt like they ought to, for social or political (Soviet-related) reasons, and now just... don't.

For (3), to take a non-religious example, you don't need to be able to write a book - or even a paragraph - on how nature affects mental health to accept that going outside is important. There are certain things that you can only pick up on the importance of by experience.

It was brutal. I wasn't that good. But there were many people who were superb. It was such a pleasure watching them perform.

Here are some sci-fi recommendations (you may have read them already, but I thought I'd offer anyway):

Serious Scifi:

Anathem the "multiverse" (multiple realities) and how all that works
Seveneves feminism meets eugenics—watch out!
The Culture series by Iain Banks, esp Book 2, the Player of Games Banks is dead, but wrote some of the best intellectual scifi ever

Brilliant, Visionary:

Accelerando brilliant and hilarious; and it's not a long book
Snowcrash classic
Neuromancer another classic

Tawdry yet Lyrical (in a good way):

Dhalgren beautiful, poetic, urban, stream of consciousness, and more sex than you can believe

Underrated Classics:

Voyage to Arcturus ignore the reviews and the bad cover of this edition (or buy a diff edition); this is the ONE book that every true scifi and fantasy fan should read before they die

Stress Pattern, by Neal Barrett, Jr. I can't find this on Amazon, but it is a book you should track down. It is possibly the WORST science fiction book ever written, and that is why you must read it. It's a half-assed attempt at a ripoff of Dune without any of the elegance or vision that Herbert had, about a giant worm that eats people on some distant planet. A random sample: "A few days later when I went to the edge of the grove to ride the Bhano I found him dead. I asked Rhamik what could have happened and he told me that life begins, Andrew, and life ends. Well, so it does."

>Liberals are more intellectually enlightened and realize that race and ethnicity are social constructs

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract


Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons. Source: http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

The rest, blah blah, Trump voters are le stupid and Clinton voters enlightened, as posted in liberal rags. Neat. I wonder why Clinton won handily with illiterates and Trump with higher income groups? I guess because obviously getting a bunch of useless degrees means you're smarter and so much better than the people actually making money.

Also what's interesting is all these sooper smart college kids who say the right things about race are secretly as racist as anyone else:

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html

> gain attention by speaking out against the DSM

I wasn't aware of his speaking out against the DSM, but if he has, then he's in pretty good company

This is a worthwhile read on the subject: https://www.amazon.ca/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265

Okay. Here's some books and stuff. The first is co written by the most famous ethicist alive.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199603693/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

https://www.amazon.com/Value-Reality-Desire-Graham-Oddie/dp/0199562385/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435241913&sr=8-1&keywords=Value%2C+Reality+and+Desire

https://www.amazon.com/Sources-Normativity-Christine-M-Korsgaard/dp/052155960X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466476980&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=thesources+of+normativity

http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/chang/Papers/Railton-MoralRealism.pdf

http://davidobrink.com/publication/autonomy-ethics

http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/WOE.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YYZW49H like so?

I recommend Hercule Poirot Complete Short Stories Collection.

Yep. 1986, in fact.

Though, it actually started out in a serialized format 16 years prior, too.

Sounds a bit like House of Leaves. Talk about a weird, non-linear book with footnotes galore.

https://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Formation-Attitudes-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394718747/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1497972931&sr=8-3&keywords=propaganda

something something The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck

This was my book for a 400-level class. I still own it, but it looks ridiculous.

Check out Get Smashed for a rundown of just how nuts the world actually was back then.

As for Don, I think you overestimate the creative control he had. He lost the Hilton Account because he didn't perfectly meet the idiotic client request. He lost the Lucky Strike account because of something he had absolutely no control over. He didn't get the Honda account, even though he outplayed everyone else (it's implied they eventually get it, but relying on clients 'eventually' giving you their business is a good way to go out of business).

I agree that a lot of creatives look up to him because he was an incredibly creative figure, but more than that it was how smooth and charming and just generally old-school masculine he was. A lot of the men I know in advertising are constantly struggling with this idea that they're not doing real manly work, and that really everything we do is this empty, parasitic drain of just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet. Don was the opposite - he didn't move numbers around. Hell, he didn't care one bit about numbers. He acted! He did things. He fought in a war (even though he hid and pissed his pants.) He had sex with lots of secretaries. He was a gentleman's gentleman. And he had damn good ideas all the time.