Happy to help! It's worked great for me, and a buddy of mine also liked it, so I'm fairly sure it's not a fluke. :P
Also, my ratios were by weight. That's only relevant because that's what makes me push up against the maximum solubility. If you go volumetric, you have more wiggle room. The second point will be less relevant, but it's still faster and easier than heating it in a pot, IMO.
Oh, and as a bonus: you don't need to wait for the syrup to cool down.
If you're going to make simple syrup, use a stick blender.
Firstly, it's easier and faster than heating the sugar and water in a pot, which is the most popular method.
Secondly, you don't lose any significant amount of water to evaporation. That's not a big deal if you make 1:1 simple syrup, but if you're going 2:1 (which I prefer), you're already very close to the maximum solubility of sugar in water at room temperature. Losing a few grams of water can make it supersaturated, which leads to sugar crystals falling out of solution over time. Not a big deal, but a little annoying.
If you give it a try, bear in mind that you're going to get a cloudy syrup at first. That's totally normal, and it's not undissolved sugar, it's just air bubbles. They'll float out over time.
I hate how relevant this question is in so many situations.
I do think the problem is rooted in Joss Whedon, or rather, movie studios looking at Avengers and thinking, "This, all the time." People got tired of Joss Whedon himself (among other problems with him), much less more corporate, soulless imitations.
I just found it by chance a couple years ago, and its entered regular Halloween rotation. It's also a very silly movie at times, but it has something to say. If it weren't played straight, it would undercut the whole thing.
I can't help but imagine that, if they tried to make it today, it'd just be noted to death by the studio. "Say less, quip more." Then you'd get a ho-hum vampire action-comedy with a whiff that it was something better in a previous draft... like Renfield.
Daybreakers.
First, it's a mid-budget movie, and Hollywood doesn't make much of those nowadays.
Secondly, it commits to a wild premise: vampires become the dominant life form in the world. It's fun, but the actors play it straight. If the tried to do that now, it'd be full of quips and winking at the audience rather than committing to the bit.
This is especially true with generic medicines.
The cheapest I can get Claritin in my nearest supermarket is 50¢—$1.12/pill.
The store brand can be as low as 7¢—37¢/pill.)
The CostCo version is 2 or 3¢/pill.
All of them are the same. 10mg of loratadine, highly regulated by the FDA.
They can differ with inactive ingredients, so maybe you'd like a syrup or something from a name brand. But it legally has to be the same active ingredients, in the same amounts, in the same forms.
I'd really like to give Monster of the Week a try! I really enjoyed when The Adventure Zone ran it.
Haha, thanks. I just meant that sentence at first blush, I know it's a reasonable position after that. :P
I'm not sure I'd like it, because I "got" Blades in the Dark, but realized it wasn't for me. It does what it does well, but my group and I didn't like so much the "one session, one job" paradigm, and it seemed too abstract at times. I read a comment that said narrative games are like writing with the other players, and it seemed to click. I might just not like that kind of approach, as a matter of personal preference.
But I might like DW2 more, as it incorporates more of a traditional style. That and, to be honest, I might love Blades and other FitD games with some light tweaking. I need to explore!
One near me got into trouble for their "In Trump We Trust" sign, because it violated town codes. It was a BIG ass sign. I never need ice cream so badly I'd put money in a fascist's pocket.
Also... how does anyone look at that sign and not immediately see that it's a cult?
Of course, I think it's undeniable that there's anti-Chinese racism, and it can play into attacks on China, especially from the right. The thing is, my criticisms of China are things that I hate about the US and its allies. It's not that China is some strange, unique evil. On the contrary, they're similar.
In another comment, you talked about how genocide requires mass killings, but I wouldn't limit it to that (nor would the UN). And yes, that makes the US complicit. The genocide of Native Americans didn't stop with murder, but included stealing children to "reeducate" them. The eugenecist movement sterilized women without so much as their knowledge, much less their consent—and they were predominantly Black, Asian, and Native American. The Tuskeegee experiments also left people sterilized, and that's just part of how it ruined and ended lives. Obviously we've seen "Islamic extremism" used as an excuse to demonize Muslims in general, ignore material conditions that lead to violent resistance, and justify brutal repression.
We've already talked about evidence, and I don't know what to tell you. You also said that you don't trust any citation in the Wikipedia article, so that's cutting out sources I would absolutely lend weight: the UN, the Asspociated Press, Reuters, academic journals... and if your response to the UN report isn't "technically this would mean it's ethnocide," then I don't think we're going to have a productive conversation.
A while back, I read an article by Dara Horn about the failures of Holocaust education, and the rise of antisemitism. One point that really struck a chord with me was that Holocaust education focuses too much on the "They were just like us" angle. Jews weren't oppressed for their similarities, but their differences. To focus on the similarities to conemn their oppression carries with it the implication that, if people are different, it's okay, and the more different they are, the more you can justify hate and oppression.
So imagine my disappointment when I read an article of hers condemning student protests. She repeated the lie about "From the river to the sea (Palestine will be free)" being a genocidal slogan. She juxtaposed it with antisemitic attacks, implying a connection. She denied that it was a genocide, which would of course justify demonstrations. She praised cracking down on student protests in general. She mournfully talked about overlooking Harvard, disappointed that the school she went to was awash in antisemitism, and all I could think was... Harvard is still standing, Gaza is in ruins.
Is the treatment of Uyghurs the same as the treatment of Palestinians? No, not as far as I can tell. It's just that that isn't the threshold. The genocide of Palestinians doesn't only slightly cross the line. And while both antisemitism and sinophobia are undeniably real, have lead to attacks and oppression, and color some of the criticisms of Israel and China, that doesn't represent real criticisms of states, not people. And those criticisms aren't new, they are familiar. It's the banality of evil. It's capitalist empires doing what capitalist empires do.
/u/[email protected] is right on the money. Mana paces the game, so anything that can break that is super good. In an otherwise even matchup, if one player has a Lotus while the other doesn't, that can easily make the game. It's not going to win the game in and of itself, but it's a huge enabler to play the thing that will win you the game, before your opponent can reasonably do anything about it.
On top of that, it's literally good in all decks. It's been banned in every format besides Vintage, where it's restricted to one (and not including casual/fan formats). It had to be banned partly for power reasons, but also because it makes deck-building less diverse. There's no deck that wouldn't want a Lotus if it could have one, much less four.
It's also part of the Reserved List. After WotC overprinted cards, they essentially promised not to reprint certain ones. I think it's a dumb decision, but they've annoyingly stuck to it (and players are worse off for it). Black Lotus is on that list. And it was alreadly limited in printings, because it was a rare card, and a bit of a design mistake.
It's also simply an iconic card. Despite being a design mistake, it's a major part of Magic history, and gets referenced all the time. To some extent, it's famous for being famous. That makes it the biggest prize for collectors.
So, all this together, it has an incredibly high demand, a very limited supply, and no indication of a reprint anytime soon.
So I printed off a proxy at a professional card printer for 30¢. :)