hatersaurusrex t1_jdt50er wrote

Those people can't seem separate 'I personally don't like that' from 'That doesn't belong there and if you do it you're wrong'

I personally dislike pineapple on pizza (except a few I've tried where the pineapple is cooked down into more of a jam/chutney and seasoned with warm spices - those were phenomenal)

But just because I don't like big hunks of fruit on my pizza doesn't mean other people can't eat whatever the fuck they like on there. Especially on something like pizza where the whole point is to put different toppings on it. Eat a whole barbecued goat on there for all I care.


hatersaurusrex t1_jdt3fsa wrote

This article is interesting because it shows how innovative and foundational Greek immigrants were in creating some of our favorite foods - most especially when they're clueless about what the food in question should taste like so they just wing it.

Similar stories:

The Detroit Coney Dog was created by two Greek brothers who had been to Coney Island and eaten hot dogs there and wanted to create something similar in Detroit. They created the now legendary 'Coney Sauce' which is a delicious saucy chili topping, added onions and cheese and bingo - a classic is born.

Charlie Vergos was another Greek immigrant in Memphis who famously found an old coal chute in the basement of his restaurant and wanted to cook BBQ pork ribs in it. But he had no idea what they were supposed to taste like, so he just sprinkled dry seasonings on them, smoked them and hoped for the best - and Memphis-Style dry rub ribs were born.

I always get a kick out of these stories because it's clear these dudes could and did innovate wonderful things but don't really get the credit they deserve for it.


hatersaurusrex t1_jbr71z6 wrote

Since Nashville exploded recently, developers have been falling over themselves trying to build Tall&Skinnies on every square inch of space they can.

A few years back, they started demolishing historic studios on Music Row to build apartment buildings, and it took a concerted historical preservation effort to keep them from basically levelling the place and building apartments on its corpse - which then ironically would be marketed as 'Historic Music Row Apartments'



hatersaurusrex t1_jagpfrk wrote

Yes, I did indeed see that fans of The Rock, when added to those of Steve Austin, statistically outnumber those who know that wrestling is a fixed sham and maybe throwing elbows at each other isn't the best method of political discourse, but feel trapped and compelled to root for one or the other since there's no viable third option in a rigged system.

Who would you suggest comes in with the chair?


hatersaurusrex t1_jagjj65 wrote

"I'm a sensible moderate and can see party politics has totally devolved into the WWE, but reluctantly choose between one of two pandering, ineffective fully special-interest owned sycophants every single cycle because the henhouse is being held hostage by the foxes who have a gun to my sacred unicorn's head"

-Most of America, by far


hatersaurusrex t1_j9nbp42 wrote

>Dark Matter and dark energy are hypothetical forms of matter and energy that we assume must exist to make the universe function the way it is.

Similar to the old concept of 'phlogiston'

When early scientists created a reaction that gave off invisible CO2 (like the baking soda and vinegar volcano of our childhoods) they couldn't figure out why the resultant material weighed less than the inputs. So they formulated a working theory that there was an invisible substance called phlogiston that had negative mass, and it allowed them to continue quantitative experiments while using that as a placeholder.

I look at the concepts you outlined the same way. We don't know what they are, we can only describe some of their properties. When a new breakthrough comes along that properly accounts for them the way the discovery of CO2 accounted for mass loss in chemical reactions, the theory will rectify and we'll move forward.

But skeptics then, as now, like to point out these failures as a failure of science - but the truth is these are just placeholders for science to stick a working model until they can understand what's in the black box.


hatersaurusrex t1_j9n5pe4 wrote

You're looking for scientific evidence to reconcile religious belief.

You might as well be asking if there's climate data which shows global warming might actually be caused by Apollo flying his chariot to close too the Earth.


hatersaurusrex t1_j9n3ybe wrote

Even if it did, the idea raises far more questions than it answers everywhere else.

Simple optical phenomena like rainbows seemed ominous and magical to the ancients, and so a story was written that God invented the rainbow as a covenant with Noah.

But we know now beyond reasonable uncertainty that rainbows are caused by reflection and refraction of light when passing through water droplets. It's observable, quantifiable, and definable.

So that would mean that God would have had to completely change the physical properties of light and/or water just to create a sign in the sky. Since we didn't know about those other things yet, we believed he just did it and we couldn't explain how. But now we know better.

To accept the idea of God as the architect of everything is to also swallow 1,000 other observable falsehoods like this example that we can see aren't true. One day we'll figure out the mysteries of dark matter and black holes, and the idea that God created them for mysterious reasons will seem equally silly.


hatersaurusrex t1_j9hu9he wrote

You should dig into the stranglehold the Texas School Board historically had over school curriculum not only in the South, but often in the greater US as a whole.

Essentially they were the largest buyer of textbooks in the region, and as such they were in a position to dictate to publishers what could and couldn't be included in history books, or they simply wouldn't buy them. Lots of things got 'left out'

Also a little poetically ironic that Kennedy was shot from the top of their book depository building, which was filled with apologist and whitewashed history texts.


hatersaurusrex t1_j8zj8b4 wrote

I think King overall is hit or miss - and lots of people who love one thing will hate another, and vice versa.

I really liked his takes on Fantasy - The Dark Tower and it's tie ins to The Regulators/Desperation and others is sort of fascinating and really unlike any of his other work. I personally really enjoyed The Talisman as well, but it seems to be on the 'most hated' list. The book also opens on a young boy whose mother is dying of cancer, and I was a young boy whose mother was dying at the time I read it, so it probably has more personal impact for me.


hatersaurusrex t1_j8zbeiw wrote

>B. Write pulpier stuff as opposed to horror. It’s why most of the Bachman books (apart from thinner) are more sci-fi/ crime

They're also some of his best work. When he writes about things other than horror, he really shines. The Shawshank Redemption and The Running Man are two of my favorites.

Stand By Me was also really good, and many people still don't know that the movie was based on a Stephen King story even though his signature 'Group of adolescents going on an adventure and learning about dark things, one of whom has glasses and a smart mouth just like King' is all over it.


hatersaurusrex t1_j8zassh wrote

You're not wrong - he did say that somewhere, either in his memoir or in the foreword to The Bachman Books. I distinctly remember him saying his agent told him 'Steve, you could publish your grocery list and it would sell a million copies' and King wanted to prove him wrong.

All the copies of the books got remaindered and sent back, so his agent was right in the end. He formed a band at some point with some other authors called 'The Rock Bottom Remainders' and I think maybe the bit about the Bachman bet was in that.

I don't remember where I read it, but I definitely did.