inglorian's comments

Another useful rule is that all grasses (and their seeds) are edible. Not particularly tasty or nutritious, but they won't kill you.

Actually, it doesn't really matter. Some argue that industrialized agriculture is in fact playing right into the plants' design. We contribute to their survival and spread by continually re-planting them -- corn, for example, is arguably the king of this kind of adaptation. For more on this, I highly recommend Michael Pollan's "Botany of Desire" or, for a shorter version, his TED talk on the same subject.

I would guess that the money was probably inherited rather than earned -- likely from James, as Lily was muggleborn. Even though they may have been a power couple, or as you say, a highly skilled witch and wizard team, they were only 20 when they died -- not really enough time to amass obscene amounts of wealth.

I don't know that they'll be outsourced. For those who buy crafts from Etsy, the whole point is that you have direct contact with the seller and you're getting a handmade, one of a kind item. I know several individuals who buy things from Etsy, and being able to get a cheaper version made in China doesn't deter them. I tend to lump the growth of Etsy in with the increase in people buying local, organic food and fair trade products -- the buyer consciously avoids supporting that kind of outsourcing.

Very nice. I like the simplicity of the syntax you've created for editing elements. Seems to work quite smoothly for me in Safari, OS 10.6

Diet almost certainly plays a role. The diet of the Tarahumara Indians (the subject of the 'Born to Run' book mentioned in the article) is practically meatless and consists of about 75% corn, with the rest made up mostly of beans and various types of squash. As a result their diet is about 80% complex carbohydrates, which is what allows them to run for those insane distances.

This doesn't seem to jive with the persistence hunting theory, since meat is one of the worst fuels for distance running (or any endurance sport).

It seems a little strange/unintuitive that the play/pause button isn't in the middle anymore. The body also seems strangely long. Maybe I'm missing the point of this redesign? Apple usually has good reasons for what it does; can someone explain why this new design is an improvement in usability?

"How about designing software that optimizes daydreaming? For example, one problem with drifting is that we’re often unaware we’re doing it. We can hit upon a cool idea but never even realize it. Imagine an app that randomly pings you to see if your mind is wandering — and if it is, lets you record what you’re thinking about."

Wow. That sounds insanely annoying. This suggests that, since we don't realize when we've hit upon a cool idea, we should just write down everything we're daydreaming about. Imagine having to read through all of that junk just to potentially find something good you might have thought of.

I suspect that the premise is wrong - we're probably not all constantly having genius ideas that we don't recognize in between daydreaming about dinner and youtube videos. If an idea comes up while I am daydreaming that is useful and relevant, I almost always realize it, even though I may not always write it down. Cultivating the habit of writing these ideas down is useful and necessary, but I don't see how a constantly-pinging app would help with that.

The article describes the new fast-casual restaurant style, which sounds a lot like a modern startup in its ethos:

>>Bill Kim’s [fast-casual] restaurant...“We’re going to serve really good, vibrant flavors. It’s going to be $15. [Customers are] going to be in and out. I’m not going to serve dessert or drinks..."

In other words, make what people want, make it really damn good, and strip away everything else. We know this works for startups, but I wonder if it will work as well for (higher-end) restaurants, which generally try to sell an atmosphere and experience.

This is probably the one he had in mind: http://paulgraham.com/love.html

I've never seriously run barefoot, but I can confirm that it improves your balance and form to walk barefoot as well.

When I had issues with my hiking boots on the Appalachian Trail, I took up barefoot hiking and noticed an immediate change in how I stepped: more on the balls of my feet and less on my heels. And you'd be amazed what your feet can get used to; the first two weeks were hell, but about a month later the rocky, sharp, debris-covered ground didn't bother me at all and in fact I had LESS foot fatigue than I experienced while wearing boots.

You do get some serious calluses though, which as a female I was less than happy about...

I actually wouldn't recommend this. Doing something else (watching tv, working, driving, even walking) while eating takes most of the enjoyment out of the food. Also, I can imagine very few foods conducive to eating while walking that are not street- or fast-food.

I don't know if invites can actually be shared, but I'd appreciate one if so. Thanks!

http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01G5M5dvqqt--v6P30IQKjSQ==...

Yeah, that flash intro that you can't skip isn't at all annoying...

Ouch, I'd advise you to never go skiing without copious amounts of sunscreen. I've gotten crazy sunburns from the sun reflecting off the snow.

It is possible that the women in these scenarios are entirely at fault, but unlikely. Relationship problems usually stem from both of the people involved.

>>They may hate sex, but they do it

I don't know ANY women who hate sex itself. Perhaps the man has gotten lazier as well, in regards to sex?

>>They go to the gym...if they become a fat slob the guy will leave

Women's bodies are not the only ones that deteriorate. Are all of the men of your acquaintance perfectly fit as well? Furthermore, many women's bodies change in unexpected ways after childbirth...it is entirely normal to take up to a year post-breast feeding to recover, and that is provided that the women has time away from the child to exercise.

>>They act nice

As another woman on the thread mentioned, it is not only women who can be petty in relationships. Her "bitchy" behavior is almost certainly at least partially the husband's fault.

Perhaps the husband began working more hours, which combined with childcare, left the couple no time to be together?

It cannot be denied that marriage is hard. But it is far from impossible, and far from unsatisfactory when done properly. However, it takes work on both sides to maintain and adapt. I am not denying that the woman causes problems of her own, but relationships are rarely broken just by the fault of one person. You are probably getting a biased account because you are hearing it from the husband's perspective. Their wives may have things to say that would surprise you.

You are right, that is terribly sad. I also find it very strange, though: unless I am missing something, the woman isn't going to be better off on her own (especially with children) than with the currently-unemployed husband, unless she somehow expects to marry another high-earner immediately (this seems very unlikely). How is it a better decision financially to get divorced in this situation than to stay together? Divorce alone is extremely expensive, and if the couple did not sign a prenuptual agreement, presumably the man cannot be forced to pay high alimony payments if he is unemployed.

Are American women so adept at hiding their "true" selves for so long? Perhaps your friends are poor judges of character, or simply didn't date them long enough to properly assess how they would function as a married couple.

Where I come from, it is taken as common knowledge that you should live together for a significant amount of time before getting married (2+ years is usual). Also, big extravagant weddings are not the norm -- most of my immediate and extended family got married by signing papers in a courthouse, or in a small ceremony at the most.

>>She doesn't need to hide who she truly is, because with the divorce option on the table she hit the jackpot.

I find this surprising also. From what I hear, divorce is terrible for everyone. I can't imagine that so many women marry into a relationship they don't expect to maintain (emotionally and sexually), especially with the way love and marriage are so glorified in the US.

I'm always surprised to see the extreme bitterness that comes out on these threads.

>>Every single married guy I know is MISERABLE. The sex pretty much stops within the first couple of years. And the woman gains mega weight, because now that they "got" you, they don't need to keep in shape. And then the whole bitchy wife comes out treating the guy as a second class citizen.

You do seem to know an awful lot of extremely unhappy couples. That's not my experience at all. For example, my parents are in their fifties and still have sex 3+ times a week, a fact I wish I didn't know. I know many other very happily married couples.

Obviously, my anecdotal evidence is just as useless as yours...I don't see how we can generalize that there is nothing to gain by being married.

The divorce rate is 50%...but the failure rate of startups is even higher. Starting a startup and failing can also ruin you financially and burn you out -- should we then assume that it is a stupid idea to start one?

>>Marrying an American woman is pretty much the worst decision you can make.

I am not an American girl, though I recently moved to the states. I am European myself -- and I have met just as many cultured, intelligent, kind American women as European ones. Why do you hate American women so much? Perhaps by "nice European girl" you are imagining an especially submissive woman? Perhaps your experience with American women only extends to suburban princesses and soccer moms?

Either way, I can assure you that your explicit hatred of American women ensures that you will never meet one that you will like.

I'm not sure...in your parent post, you mentioned being "accurate to life" as an important measure. While subjective, verbal examinations (and all the possible unfairness they entail) can be significantly more true to life (in the real-world, post-school sense) than the multiple-choice/short-answer tests that are common today.

"Objective" tests are best for only the very few things that can be "objectively" measured. Often, they succeed only in rewarding mediocrity and parroting.