Domino Quartz's Delightfully Quaint Random Banter Thread #248

[Bartmanhomer]

I need to add more diversity to my D&D: The Dragoon Family Story. What I mean is to add more dwarves, elves, halflings and half-orcs

[DataNinja]

I mean you're RIGHT almost every instance a friend told me "you're reading to into things" I was right and it was actually gay they were just avoiding saying it directly, but the point is because I keep on saying it people see me say **** like "Bravern is about a gay love triangle between a Japanese man, an American mechpilot, and a bio-mechanical mecha" and assume I'm reading into things when no it's directly explicit they're in love.

Really, if anything, you're underselling how gay it is by saying it's "directly explicit."

[Anonymouswizard]

I need to add more diversity to my D&D: The Dragoon Family Story. What I mean is to add more dwarves, elves, halflings and half-orcs

I'm sure these varied races are all riding horses to war, to make them proper dragoons.

[Ionathus]

This discussion reminds me of watching the last season of Legend of Korra and people seeing signs of [SPOILER REDACTED. GO WATCH IT, IT'S A GREAT SHOW]. I thought they were reading too much into things or at the very least that it would never be made actual text, but it turned out I was quite wrong on that one. (Okay, so technically it wasn't text until the comics, it was just very, very blatantly implied in the show).

Spoiler: Korra

Show

I was one of the people who didn't see it -- not because I was In Denial About Lesbians Existing, but because I thought they were going for a different unique angle to the series: namely, taking the stance that "it's okay to not shoehorn a romantic conclusion into a story." When I saw the LoK finale, I thought "oh, that's actually really sweet! They're letting Korra just be a powerful and driven hero who's not tied into an unnecessary romantic subplot!" And I completely missed the subtext.

I had never really minded Aang & Katara in the original, but I did think that having the last shot of the show be their kiss was kind of an anticlimax. I like Aang and Katara as a couple...I just don't think their romance was all that central to the show. Give us their kiss, then have the last shot be something more dramatic.

This is absolutely rife in Western storytelling, going back a long, long time. Many of Shakespeare's (upbeat) plays have laughable final acts where he just tries to cram as many viable couples together as physically possible. A Winter's Tale is particularly silly, as the main king character's wife comes back from the dead by magic (and instantly forgives him for his awful behavior towards him), and then the king says "hey listen being married is the best thing! [Main Servant 1] and [Main Servant 2], I've decided you two should get married too!" and everyone greets this with wide celebration. This despite the fact that MS1 and MS2 have barely interacted in the show.

All that aside, when I actually had someone explain the LoK ending to me, I saw it immediately. And when I rewatched Season 4, you really see it. Originally it just seems like a great friendship but there are absolutely a lot of clues. LoK was one of the groundbreakers in queer cartoons -- they had to be sneaky. So I don't blame people who argue that it's not canon going purely by the animated show (ignoring the followup comics). Creators can speak to what they intended, but they can't claim they executed something that's not in the work. However, all that aside, I see it now and I think anyone claiming it's completely wrong is really misinterpreting season 4.

...Real talk, do that many people not know how to read a nutrition label or is this that thing where people just assume that anyone who is fat is also stupid?

Yep -- that many people really don't know. Nutritional literacy is a skill that has to be developed, just like financial literacy. Most people just muddle through, trying to find things to eat that strike a survivable balance between cost, taste, and nutrition. The biggest problem is that you really need to be an informed consumer to grasp what you're actually eating, especially in the US.

Example: When I was a kid, the Food Pyramid was presented to us as the gold standard for diet. The Food Pyramid told you to eat EIGHT TO ELEVEN servings of processed grain a day. Going by the shape of the pyramid, that's telling people to get over half of your daily calories from processed grain -- which your body is (evolutionarily) quite unfamiliar with and thus doesn't know "what to do with" in the way it knows how to break down fresh plants, meat, and dairy. It's cheap and logistically easy calories (which explains why it's been the vast majority of most diets since the agricultural revolution), but it messes with your nutrition in weird ways.

But you almost wouldn't notice how reliant we are on it, because wheat and wheat by-products are huge in the Western world, and have been for centuries. I started tracking my processed grain intake recently for dietary reasons and its ubiquity is staggering. Bread, pasta, cereal, sandwiches, most desserts...it's really striking to notice how much grain I've been eating without even realizing it. Food culture in America is all out of whack, for a variety of reasons I won't get into. But the long and short is that yeah, we're only just now starting to teach a (slightly) better approach to nutrition -- MyPlate, the revision to the old Food Pyramid, is a step in the right direction. It still oversells the importance of dairy, and could stand to reduce the meat overreliance as well. But I do like the plate graphic -- it's a clearer visual indicator for portion control -- and I like the fact that a full half of the pie chart is meant to be fresh plants (vs. the 20ish% meat and the 30ish% processed grains).

[Peelee]

But the long and short is that yeah, we're only just now starting to teach a (slightly) better approach to nutrition -- MyPlate, the revision to the old Food Pyramid, is a step in the right direction.

I'm guessing that's a simplified image breakdown of the dietary guidelines the USDA revises every 5 years to incorporate modern scientific research and analysis?

[Ionathus]

I'm guessing that's a simplified image breakdown of the dietary guidelines the USDA revises every 5 years to incorporate modern scientific research and analysis?

Bingo. USDA runs the department that puts out MyPlate.

I'd love it if we could do away with the glass of milk in that graphic as well -- since milk is another thing that's calorically great but not really necessary for modern civilization...and also a frequent irritant for a huge chunk of the population (especially non-Caucasians). But that's another battle entirely. Dairy is similarly huge in the US, just like grain, and I can't tell you how many people I know who swear by a glass of milk a day.

For my money, the popular "Got Milk?" campaigns and the old Food Pyramid were probably the two most damaging nutritional concepts to most Americans my age. Adults don't need dairy for good nutrition, full stop. It's one of my favorite kinds of foods, but it absolutely should not be held up as a nutritional necessity.

[tomandtish]

Yep -- that many people really don't know. Nutritional literacy is a skill that has to be developed, just like financial literacy. Most people just muddle through, trying to find things to eat that strike a survivable balance between cost, taste, and nutrition. The biggest problem is that you really need to be an informed consumer to grasp what you're actually eating, especially in the US.

It gets even tougher when you realize most serving size info doesn't max what people actually eat. A can of coke used to be 1.5 servings. Even now, if its a bottle then 8oz is a serving. Cereal/Granola serving size is 1/2 to 1 cup.

This is not how most people eat these.

[Ionathus]

It gets even tougher when you realize most serving size info doesn't max what people actually eat. A can of coke used to be 1.5 servings. Even now, if its a bottle then 8oz is a serving. Cereal/Granola serving size is 1/2 to 1 cup.

This is not how most people eat these.

This is very true -- portions and serving sizes are really confusing and unintuitive. I'd argue the more processed your food gets, the more important it is to pay attention to serving sizes. Which feeds back into my point about processed/unprocessed food.₁ For most people it's almost physically impossible to eat an actually unhealthy amount of fruits or vegetables. They've got so much fiber and water that you get full quickly. But I can eat an entire basket of tortilla chips and never think about the fact that I'm consuming 10+ entire tortillas. The calories you're eating are much less obvious.

That goes double for candy and soda and similar treats, but I feel like everybody gets that sweets are supposed to be a treat. But many people think bread is not only healthy, but necessary.

One example from my own experience: only in the last year or so did I realize that the majority of calories in chips and salsa is from the chips. I wouldn't have thought this just because the way they're both presented, and the salsa is packed with the majority of the flavor IMO. But the salsa is just vegetables and spices, and the chips are -- go figure -- processed grains

1. By which I don't just mean "added sugars, salt, and preservatives" which is its own can of worms but I think gets too much of the "insidious eeeeeeeevil chemicals" attention. I just mean that when you convert a plant into flour, you condense it and sort of "hide" its calories.

[Peelee]

This is very true -- portions and serving sizes are really confusing and unintuitive.

Deliberately so, I'd argue. The famous example being a Tic Tac, divided on the label such that the portion size is equates to less than half a gram of sugar, which allows them to list 0 grams of sugar per serving. Despite them being 90% sugar.

[Batcathat]

Spoiler: Korra

Show

I was one of the people who didn't see it -- not because I was In Denial About Lesbians Existing, but because I thought they were going for a different unique angle to the series: namely, taking the stance that "it's okay to not shoehorn a romantic conclusion into a story." When I saw the LoK finale, I thought "oh, that's actually really sweet! They're letting Korra just be a powerful and driven hero who's not tied into an unnecessary romantic subplot!" And I completely missed the subtext.

I had never really minded Aang & Katara in the original, but I did think that having the last shot of the show be their kiss was kind of an anticlimax. I like Aang and Katara as a couple...I just don't think their romance was all that central to the show. Give us their kiss, then have the last shot be something more dramatic.

This is absolutely rife in Western storytelling, going back a long, long time. Many of Shakespeare's (upbeat) plays have laughable final acts where he just tries to cram as many viable couples together as physically possible. A Winter's Tale is particularly silly, as the main king character's wife comes back from the dead by magic (and instantly forgives him for his awful behavior towards him), and then the king says "hey listen being married is the best thing! [Main Servant 1] and [Main Servant 2], I've decided you two should get married too!" and everyone greets this with wide celebration. This despite the fact that MS1 and MS2 have barely interacted in the show.

All that aside, when I actually had someone explain the LoK ending to me, I saw it immediately. And when I rewatched Season 4, you really see it. Originally it just seems like a great friendship but there are absolutely a lot of clues. LoK was one of the groundbreakers in queer cartoons -- they had to be sneaky. So I don't blame people who argue that it's not canon going purely by the animated show (ignoring the followup comics). Creators can speak to what they intended, but they can't claim they executed something that's not in the work. However, all that aside, I see it now and I think anyone claiming it's completely wrong is really misinterpreting season 4.

Spoiler: More Korra

Show

Yeah, I kind of agree about fiction having too many unnecessary romance subplots in general. I love a good romance as much as the next guy, but they frequently come off as rather uninspired (I do think the one between Korra and Asami work quite well because it's mostly implied and understated instead of devouring the plot). On a related note, I kinda hate how frequently close friendships (traditionally typically between a man and a woman, but now there are obviously more combinations on the table) seemingly has to turn into romance.

On the topic of romance in LoK, I also quite enjoyed the part of the clip show that was basically just prince Wu and one of Mako's relatives roasting Mako for being so bad at relationships.

[Ionathus]

Spoiler: More Korra

Show

Yeah, I kind of agree about fiction having too many unnecessary romance subplots in general. I love a good romance as much as the next guy, but they frequently come off as rather uninspired (I do think the one between Korra and Asami work quite well because it's mostly implied and understated instead of devouring the plot). On a related note, I kinda hate how frequently close friendships (traditionally typically between a man and a woman, but now there are obviously more combinations on the table) seemingly has to turn into romance.

On the topic of romance in LoK, I also quite enjoyed the part of the clip show that was basically just prince Wu and one of Mako's relatives roasting Mako for being so bad at relationships.

Spoiler: Yet More Korra

Show

I agree that Korra & Asami works well! For the understated reason, but also because it feels like they actually bond over meaningful experiences. So many uninspired romances are just "well these two are the leads, so...*shrug*". Giving the characters chemistry and history together is huge.

I adore close friendships in media. We don't get them nearly enough -- and whenever they do happen, the romance speculation is inescapable (looking at you, Sam-Is-Gay-For-Frodo jokes). One of my favorites is Gunnerkrigg Court.

Spoiler: ...can you spoiler a spoiler? Gunnerkrigg Court

Show

Annie and Kat are best friends growing up, and even though one of them is revealed to be bi (lesbian? it's not 100% clear) further into the storyline, the comic never once even toys with the idea of romance between these two. I really appreciate that celebration of close friendship...plus, the series still doesn't erase WLW romance to do it! They have a lesbian/bi(?) main character in both a committed relationship and with a close female friend at the same time.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm sure these varied races are all riding horses to war, to make them proper dragoons.

Cool.

I'm relaxing at home.

[Bohandas]

It gets even tougher when you realize most serving size info doesn't max what people actually eat. A can of coke used to be 1.5 servings. Even now, if its a bottle then 8oz is a serving. Cereal/Granola serving size is 1/2 to 1 cup.

This is not how most people eat these.

It's not how anyone eats these.

The serving size is tailored to be small enough that the food sounds healthy to inattentive readers. It has no correlation whatsoever to how the food is actually likely to be consumed. If it did than anything that comes in a can would always be exactly one serving

[halfeye]

It's not how anyone eats these.

The serving size is tailored to be small enough that the food sounds healthy to inattentive readers. It has no correlation whatsoever to how the food is actually likely to be consumed. If it did than anything that comes in a can would always be exactly one serving

While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I have seen catering cans of corned beef or peas (fifty years ago, but I'm sure they still exist).

[Anonymouswizard]

While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I have seen catering cans of corned beef or peas (fifty years ago, but I'm sure they still exist).

The thing with those catering cans is that they're meant to be shared between like twenty people. I deal with them at work, and the person opening the tin is not supposed to be the one eating the food. So they definitely do exist.

For smalltins I suspect those 'half a ton is a serving' deals are assuming you're prepping for two. I know that you can buy single serving tins of beans now, but I'm not sure who buys them.

[Peelee]

For smalltins I suspect those 'half a tin is a serving' deals are assuming you're prepping for two.

Imean, just for myself, i see no reason to extend the benefit of the doubt to corporations who are forced to put this information in but then are left to self-police how they divide the information, especially when portion sizes can be like "can of coke is 1.5 servings". Far more likely that they are not making reasonable assumptions on typical consumption and instead are just juking the numbers so their product looks better.

[Anonymouswizard]

Imean, just for myself, i see no reason to extend the benefit of the doubt to corporations who are forced to put this information in but then are left to self-police how they divide the information, especially when portion sizes can be like "can of coke is 1.5 servings". Far more likely that they are not making reasonable assumptions on typical consumption and instead are just juking the numbers so their product looks better.

My assumption with the logic is that you're not having the full can at once. Like a 500ml bottle of coke is two servings and I can see the logic of 'you have half at lunch and half a hour or two later' despite nobody doing that.

Also I'll note that with tinned food, which is where I mostly see 'one tin=two servings' (and what I was specifically chiming in on), it's much easier to keep half back. Canned drinks it's ridiculous on, but I think over here most just give the information for a full can.

[Peelee]

My assumption with the logic is that you're not having the full can at once. Like a 500ml bottle of coke is two servings and I can see the logic of 'you have half at lunch and half a hour or two later' despite nobody doing that.

Bolding mine for emphasis, because that part is kind of important. If nobody does it, then it's made up by the company to make the numbers look better. For example, Otis Spunkmyer muffins, which have a serving size of half a muffin. It's gaming the stats so their numbers look better and the actual portion that you consume (eg a single can of coke, or a single muffin), which can reasonably be assumed to be one serving, are instead divided into multiple servings. For some things, that is understandable - for example, a 2L coke. Most likely, this is going to be consumed in glasses bu multiple people, or even by one person multiple times, and it's not unreasonable to say 2 liters consists of multiple servings for nutritional label aspects. However, a single 12oz can (350mL, for you islanders who just seemingly randomly switch between two measuring systems and then mock people who use the one you yourselves invented and still use)? Calling that anything more than one serving is the company being disengenuous for marketing purposes.

And you know what? Even if you disagree, my proposed fix is still a good idea - have the nutritional information contain both serving size and total packaged content. Can of coke? Call the serving whatever the hell you want, still need to put the full numbers on it. Same for the muffin container, or the Tic Tac box, or the 2L bottle, or the 3-pack of salsa, or.....

It wouldn't be perfect, but ir would be a damned sight better, and would make it significantly more difficult for corporations to obscure or manipulate the numbers.

[Hyoi]

have the nutritional information contain both serving size and total packaged content. Can of coke? Call the serving whatever the hell you want, still need to put the full numbers on it. Same for the muffin container, or the Tic Tac box, or the 2L bottle, or the 3-pack of salsa, or.....

That is how the rules work where I used to live (as well as putting scary warning stamps on everything with sugar, trans fat, sodium, etc above recommended limits). I'm not sure if it has had any effect on people's habits - the obesity/diabetes rates are still really high and people still consume huge amounts of unhealthy things.

[Batcathat]

That is how the rules work where I used to live (as well as putting scary warning stamps on everything with sugar, trans fat, sodium, etc above recommended limits). I'm not sure if it has had any effect on people's habits - the obesity/diabetes rates are still really high and people still consume huge amounts of unhealthy things.

Yeah, as someone who was a smoker for like fifteen years despite the rather overwhelming amount of information about the health risks on both the packages and... well, pretty much everywhere, I agree that the distance between knowing something's unhealthy and actually avoiding it can be quite vast.

[halfeye]

my proposed fix is still a good idea - have the nutritional information contain both serving size and total packaged content. Can of coke? Call the serving whatever the hell you want, still need to put the full numbers on it. Same for the muffin container, or the Tic Tac box, or the 2L bottle, or the 3-pack of salsa, or.....

The EU's system of having everything related to 100gms of product is halfway to that, except when the manufacturer declines to put the weitht of the whole package on the package. The nutrirional information for the whole package would be better. Srill wouldn't be perfect for instant coffee powder of spices, but that is a minor detail.

[Ionathus]

And you know what? Even if you disagree, my proposed fix is still a good idea - have the nutritional information contain both serving size and total packaged content. Can of coke? Call the serving whatever the hell you want, still need to put the full numbers on it. Same for the muffin container, or the Tic Tac box, or the 2L bottle, or the 3-pack of salsa, or.....

It wouldn't be perfect, but ir would be a damned sight better, and would make it significantly more difficult for corporations to obscure or manipulate the numbers.

I don't know if there's any sort of system or reason for this, but in my neck of the U.S. woods, I have been noticing what you describe on some packaging. The things I can think of off the top of my head are certain frozen pizzas, some soft drinks, and a few others. It has two columns: one for "serving size" and one for total packaged content. I do think it's a far more honest way to approach it.

I have absolutely no idea which manufacturers are doing it or why, though -- we don't have a consistent enough grocery source for me to pinpoint it. Maybe it's a Trader Joe's thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was added pre-emptively to prepare for some sort of regulation that's either pending or already in place in some states (for non-Americans: the way our country is subdivided into state authorities, companies will sometimes account for the "least common denominator" to sell in all 50 states. So a change made 1500 miles away that you've never heard of can affect how a company packages their product in your area. And I'll leave it at that for obvious reasons)

---

In totally different news, my woodworking daydreams continue. I told my mom, who had been looking for an excuse to clean out the basement, and she offloaded a ton of old hand tools on me -- jackpot! Looking forward to sorting through them and inventing a justification to use them (and then go out and buy even more tools)

---

EDIT for ninja reply:

The EU's system of having everything related to 100gms of product is halfway to that, except when the manufacturer declines to put the weitht of the whole package on the package. The nutrirional information for the whole package would be better. Srill wouldn't be perfect for instant coffee powder of spices, but that is a minor detail.

This comment has reminded me of my deeply held wish that American recipes would switch to measuring baking components by weight (or "mass" or whatever) rather than volume. Flour especially can get really packed down, making it hard to measure consistently unless you do a bunch of fiddly intermediary steps like spooning loose flour into your measuring cup. Chopped ingredients are also inconsistent depending on how well you "pack" them into the measuring cups. Using a kitchen scale just makes things way easier every time I cook with those measurements.

Granted, imperial weight units (pounds and ounces) are tricky for this since they aren't as granular as measuring in grams. And I know that's going to spark conversation about "The U.S. should switch to metric across the board" and I agree, but let's stick to solvable problems, please :D

[Peelee]

That is how the rules work where I used to live (as well as putting scary warning stamps on everything with sugar, trans fat, sodium, etc above recommended limits). I'm not sure if it has had any effect on people's habits - the obesity/diabetes rates are still really high and people still consume huge amounts of unhealthy things.

Yeah, as someone who was a smoker for like fifteen years despite the rather overwhelming amount of information about the health risks on both the packages and... well, pretty much everywhere, I agree that the distance between knowing something's unhealthy and actually avoiding it can be quite vast.

I don't imagine that everyone would take advantage of it, but i would still prefer a more open and honest system that people can disregard at will over a gamed system that does its best to muddy the waters.

I don't know if there's any sort of system or reason for this, but in my neck of the U.S. woods, I have been noticing what you describe on some packaging. The things I can think of off the top of my head are certain frozen pizzas, some soft drinks, and a few others. It has two columns: one for "serving size" and one for total packaged content. I do think it's a far more honest way to approach it.

I have absolutely no idea which manufacturers are doing it or why, though -- we don't have a consistent enough grocery source for me to pinpoint it. Maybe it's a Trader Joe's thing?

That's pleasantly surprising.

Granted, imperial weight units (pounds and ounces)

If you're in US, not imperial. American Customary Units. Dumbest distinction ever.

[Batcathat]

I don't imagine that everyone would take advantage of it, but i would still prefer a more open and honest system that people can disregard at will over a gamed system that does its best to muddy the waters.

Oh, certainly. People should be able to make informed choices when possible, I was just agreeing that they are still quite likely to make poor ones.

[Ionathus]

Dumbest distinction ever.

Agreed I don't know if I've ever once consciously heard "American Customary Units". Every time it's come up, I only see people call them imperial units or "Freedom Units" (in either a pejorative or self-deprecating tone )

[DavidSh]

Agreed I don't know if I've ever once consciously heard "American Customary Units". Every time it's come up, I only see people call them imperial units or "Freedom Units" (in either a pejorative or self-deprecating tone )

It doesn't really make any difference for (avoirdupois) weights, but it does matter for liquid volumes, where the British fluid ounce is slightly smaller than the American fluid ounce, and the British gill has 5 fluid ounces versus the American gill of 4 fluid ounces. This propagates upwards through half-pint, pint, quart, half-gallon, gallon, etc., each having the British measure almost (but not quite) 5/4 of the American measure.

Mostly, this means that Canadian fuel prices are harder to relate to American fuel prices, and British pints of ale are bigger than expected.
Reading 1984, it took a little bit of thought to understand why the old-timer was complaining about only getting half-liters of beer rather than true pints.

[Peelee]

It doesn't really make any difference for (avoirdupois) weights

I will readily admit, I've always liked that name. But still....

Spoiler

Show

[Bohandas]

The EU's system of having everything related to 100gms of product is halfway to that, except when the manufacturer declines to put the weitht of the whole package on the package. The nutrirional information for the whole package would be better. Srill wouldn't be perfect for instant coffee powder of spices, but that is a minor detail.

Nonetheless it still sounds a hell of a lot better than the system we have here in the US

[BisectedBrioche]

It doesn't really make any difference for (avoirdupois) weights, but it does matter for liquid volumes, where the British fluid ounce is slightly smaller than the American fluid ounce, and the British gill has 5 fluid ounces versus the American gill of 4 fluid ounces. This propagates upwards through half-pint, pint, quart, half-gallon, gallon, etc., each having the British measure almost (but not quite) 5/4 of the American measure.

Mostly, this means that Canadian fuel prices are harder to relate to American fuel prices, and British pints of ale are bigger than expected.
Reading 1984, it took a little bit of thought to understand why the old-timer was complaining about only getting half-liters of beer rather than true pints.

Oddly enough, most beer brands here do sell their drinks in both 500ml and 568ml/Pt. containers (as in the two different sizes of 4-packs are next to each other on supermarket shelves) here. And 300ml bottles, but that's usually in really large boxes (10/12/etc packs).

[LaZodiac]

I barely actually pay attention to this kinda stuff since a lot of what I eat is based on vibes.

The only thing I can really add to this conversation is: eating "unhealthy" foods is not bad. That's not how health problems happen. You don't actually get diabetes based on what you're eating, despite everything ****ty doctors do tell you.