I got a bottle of DPZ around a month ago as a I’m gonna try it thing. It is the absolute closest to the full on version of any diet drink I’ve tried. I handed the bottle to my wife to try, she liked it more than diet DP. Our H‑E‑B had them on sale and we bought 3 boxes the next day. Gave several of them out to friends and family, they all went out to find some because it’s that’s freaking good. DPZ is the only diet version of anything that hasn’t left a weird aftertaste in my mouth.
The Random Crap Thread 2: It Hits the Fan.
- Thread starter North_Ranger
- Start date
Really? I remember my first trip to the USA, getting a "real" coke for the first time, and going "eww, the f? This is what Americans have been accustomed to? Why?! Let's hope it never catches on!".
Of course, the slow downhill slope has been going on in dozens of fields for decades, I guess, so... Probably US coke 10 years ago is still better than modern day Belgian. I honestly wouldn't know, haven't had a regular coke in... Errrr.... 2 years? Or so?
Anyway, HFCS vs real sugar is a big treasure difference to me. Even if I can't appreciate the regular sugar stuff anymore these days, either.
For me the difference is purely textural. It has a slightly thinner mouthfeel with sugar than with corn syrup
Have you ever been to a job interview, and the interviewer asks you a question, and suddenly you realize you're not going to get the job?
I was the interviewer in this scenario. I just watched an interviewee deflate as she realized she messed up. It's like I could see her dying inside.
I was the interviewer in this scenario. I just watched an interviewee deflate as she realized she messed up. It's like I could see her dying inside.
I did and then the interview was another half hour. It was unpleasant.
Because I was curious, its weird how as time goes on, more and more of my life is documented on this forum.
Just tanked a job interview
GasBandit
Staff member
TBH I find it actually TOO sweet for my taste.
Dave
Staff member
Happened to me once. I was at a tech job and was asked a question about setting a DNIS. Done it a thousand times. My brain went *thunk* and the term DNIS was just...gone. I looked at them and said, "I know this. I do this every day. Here's how you get to it. The term is escaping me." The guy was like, "It's obvious you know it but this job requires you to explain these things to non-techs."
Interview over.
I've had Coke with real sugar, and while the taste is pretty much identical, I've noticed the aftertaste with real sugar is much smoother and doesn't have that weird, lingering taste that HFCS does.
Mr. Z picked me up a box. You're right; this is much nicer than Diet DP. However, I'm really not much of a soda drinker anymore, and I have no idea what I'm going to do with the rest. I only wanted one, but they didn't have any single bottles.
I went to an interview once where the posting said "must know SQL from a programmer's perspective, but does not need to be a DBA"
Then they started asking all sorts of technical DBA questions like "What percentage does the database size inflate for a clustered vs non-clustered index" (which is kind of impossible to answer if you don't know what values you're indexing on in the clustered index). And while I'd answered a couple of them, by the time they came to the 3rd or 4th, I was fed up with the bait-and-switch and said "I'm so sorry that you've wasted our time," got up and left the interview.
There are only three colors in a rainbow*. Everything else is your brain lying to you.
—Patrick
*Unless you are a tetrachromat.
Or a dichromat. Or a monochromat.
figmentPez
Staff member
You're just arguing semantics. How many colors there are in rainbow depends on how you define color. No matter how much you argue that "yellow" is just a mix of "red" and "green", there is still an objective difference between 589nm light and whatever mix of RGB phosphors that also trigger "yellow" in the human brain.
I mean, not really. How many colors are there in a rainbow? All of them. Even the ones we can't see.
...except for magenta, that lying sack of purp.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
I'm disagreeing with you because you've completely missed the point. You said there were only three, and now you're saying "all of them" except also saying "not all of them". You've completely missed the point that you have to define terms before you can argue about something, or the argument is pointless.
There are no colors in the rainbow, if you want to be REALLY pedantic. But that isn't very interesting. Every color is interpreted by the brain, even the ones that are optimally detected by a single cone in the retina. What is interesting is how we categorize colors, like yellow, from others, like orange or green, in spite of a smooth transition along the spectrum of wavelengths. Our brains seem to be optimized to categorize colors that include those of wavelengths we do not optimally detect with a single cone (even then, the cones' sensitivity curves overlap with each other).
Which brings us back to the inciting point: Is indigo one of the colors of the rainbow? Well, culture affects categorization of colors (some cultures have very few color categories!) so...yeah, for some people. Hooray for nuance and ambiguity!
Which brings us back to the inciting point: Is indigo one of the colors of the rainbow? Well, culture affects categorization of colors (some cultures have very few color categories!) so...yeah, for some people. Hooray for nuance and ambiguity!
figmentPez
Staff member
If you define color as purely a result of perception, then that's true, but I find that to be a ridiculously limiting idea. You might as well argue that "bread" only exists in the human mind, because the difference between a cracker, and a tortilla, and bread, and muffins, etc is arbitrary. While it's true that we do have fuzzy definitions of what bread is, that doesn't mean that physical phenomena don't have the property of being "bread".
The rest of my post was obviously a rejection of the pedantic definition.
figmentPez
Staff member
I didn't find it to be "obvious". I only saw it as a continuation of the argument that color only exists in the human mind, and "isn't it interesting how we categorize things that don't really exist"?
1. I literally said treating color as nothing more than wavelengths wasn't very interesting. The people part of the equation is easily the interesting piece, which is what I dwelled on for everything you didn't quote.
2. Categories exist in the mind. Are you arguing that breads and pitas and tortillas have a platonic category that exists independent of the mind? If not, I don't see your point as incompatible with anything I said.
"No you didn't."
"This is just contradiction!"
Yes it is!
This was kind of my point, really. Quantized "color" only exists in the human mind, the more objective term is "wavelength."
It ultimately ends up being a restatement of the Pile Paradox, since two people may disagree on the exact point where "blue" ends and "green" begins, and even if you narrow your sampling to just one person, their answer will probably change when sampled repeatedly.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
And it's still a fucking stupid point. It makes as much sense as arguing that "bread" only exists in the human mind. It doesn't matter if two people disagree on where blue ends and green begins. Blue paint exists. It is a physical thing, and it is useful to be able to call it blue paint. Nit-picking over specifics does not change the fact that color words are useful in describing real world objects, and that they are used to describe objectively significant differences. A snake with red-yellow-black stripes is different from a snake with red-black-yellow stripes, and no amount of "color isn't real" or "the snake doesn't have a color it reflects certain wavelengths of light which the human br...." is going to change the fact that one is venomous and one is not. Color is as fucking real as any other descriptive word that humans have.
That there can be a difference between subjective color and objective measurements does not mean that color does not exist. Hot, cold, rough, smooth, fast, slow, etc are all values that can have subjective experiences that clash with objective reality. However, that does not mean that any of them only exist in the human mind. A thousand degree ingot of steel is hot. It may be cold relative to the surface of the sun, but it will burn human body parts quite readily. "Hot" is not just in the human mind, even if you can trick touch receptors to feel "hot" at mild temperatures. It doesn't matter if people disagree about if 80 degrees is hot. Hot and cold are still real, just as yellow is still fucking real.