Seems very much personal taste, that spans a wide range these days.

On suggestions from YouTube I tried 20+g coarse with low volume and temperature based on competition winning recipes and hated it. No body, thin and unsatisfying.

So I’m back to 12-15g medium, inverted, add some 90-95C water and stir out the fizz, then up to 180g water or so. Heavy repeated agitation early on, after maybe 60s uninvert for a gentle plunge. Usually dilute a little with some cold, drink black.

I checked the brew temp and full boil gives 96C in the press. I often do 200F 93C on the kettle for about 90 in the press. Sometimes I just boil and add a splash of cold.

My beans are medium roast - city+, no oiliness. I like pretty trad rich coffee and hate thin acidic tea like brews. Tea makes better tea than coffee does IMO. But I also hate acrid flat bitterness of dark roasts.

Sure, though to many of us it’s a lot of money and investment to take something from very unpleasant to kind of palatable.

That’s not the case around me, where the fancier the coffee shop the lighter the roast typically. And many smaller roasters are selling very pale cinnamon roasts under the heading “medium”.

The trouble is, many people really dislike an acidic light-bodied cup full of floral notes. Plus often they’re not especially skillfully made and I’m pretty sure some people are reacting to very thin acidic, sometimes woody and vegetal, cups and assuming that if they don’t like this, they must want dark roasts.

As usual, it’s shouldn’t be a binary, and they might enjoy a traditional medium roast, or perhaps a better prepared lighter roast. Personally I hate acrid, shiny-bean dark roast, but I’m not sure I hate it more than some of the cups of woody acid I’ve been offered from some enthusiast “high end” coffee shops around here.

That is a widespread assumption, since roasting breaks down the caffeine somewhat, but Hoffman did a test and found higher caffeine in darker roast brews, and speculated that while there was less in the bean, it may be more extractable. There’s also the issue that the more you roast the bean, the less each bean weighs so you get more beans per unit weight.

I’m not triggered by any of this. I’m not sure why my thinking the question is inane would count as “being triggered”.

Upvotes does not necessarily mean people agree with OP’s stance.

It should mean they think it’s a useful/interesting question and I think it very much is not. It’s just someone whining that it doesn’t look like something they’re used to and a bunch of very patient people generously leading them through the very basics of the language that’s well covered in many introductory tutorials - as such it makes it all a waste of time and worthy of being buried.

The more time I spend on Lemmy the more depressed I am about its potential.

Stupid, wrong-headed comments get solid upvotes if they also hint at some popular sentiment. I even see comments that are literally unreadable nonsense get solidly upvoted, either by bots or by people who just like the vibe they feel from scanning it and don’t care that it’s gobbledygook. Some content makes me wonder if half of Lemmy is just LLMs barfing back and forth at each other.

Then this post is heavily upvoted, even though it’s nothing more than “the syntax isn’t the same as the other language(s) I have seen, waaaaa!”. Is it just people like to see Go criticized? Because there are actual real issues that could be discussed.

But use type annotations everywhere and make sure your code is always checker clean (with checkin or PR CI hooks). And don’t turn off any lint checks through laziness, e.g. docstring checks. Even for a solo dev it’s always worth having everything typed, checker clean, and docstrings (even if they only effectively say “this thing really is what you’d assume”). It all saves time and effort in the long and even medium term.

I’ve worked on serious large scale Python projects and frankly it’s been very pleasant and productive, but only with the above conditions.

Black/white as bad/good is a clear case where there is a clear logical reason to change IMO. That perpetuates unconscious bias.

And yet there’s a big push to rename git “master” branches, which have no slave connotations and are more analogous to master recordings.

Its not like I’ll fight it, but it’s stupid.

You do? Because I don’t. There is nothing racist about the concept of master. Is a masterpiece racist? Are master tapes, Are post-graduate degrees racist? We may as well declare “work” insensitive because slaves had to work.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many terms we should adjust. I just can’t see how “master” is one of them.

It’s also been UK law for a long time.

There’s an entire universe of coffee between currently fashionable pale roasts and typical Starbucks destroyed black beans. That is not the alternative.

Well, it’s not modal by default. It is if you want it to be.

Ubuntu Mono since it was in beta and I heard the designer from Dalton Maag — the typeface design studio commissioned to design it — give a talk about how excited he was to be able to create a comprehensive, carefully thought out, and truly free/libre font.

I’ve never seen another one that I prefer the look of, and now it’s imprinted in my brain. People love to crap on Shuttleworth / Canonical / Ubuntu, but there are a lot of great things they’ve contributed over the years.

Kids often don’t know the difference between “wifi” and the Internet. It’s not an age thing these days.

That’s not the issue. The issue is inherently seeing white as meaning good and black as meaning bad.

I do think dropping master is absurd, since it in no way implies slavery or any such thing. master mostly has uses that are entirely inoffensive, unless post-graduate degrees are racist, for example.

But I do think there is some merit in moving off the idea of white is good and black is bad. There are some good arguments that we shouldn’t bestow magic powers upon words, but there is also a lot of merit in the idea that these words affect our perception in negative ways and there is really nothing lost by shifting to equally good alternatives.