Some comments including what some have already pointed out :
- Naans are not usually made in Indian homes. They are much more common in restaurants. They are also not considered to be as healthy as rotis or phulkas.
- Indians (mostly North Indians) eat rotis, chapatis , phulkas (basically an inflated chapati) or parathas.
- A well made phulka or paratha can be absolutely delicious.
- There are many kinds of parathas and the food has long ago spread south where they have their own kinds.
- I don't think dosas or appams can be considered breads. I think they're closer to crepes.
- There seems to be much missing from this list including some Goan breads (can't recall the names) and some other South Indian types.
Sanna or sanas is one - someone else mentioned it in this thread, the comment that has akki roti, IIRC. Sanna is a bit like Kerala appams, I think. Had it only a few times. I think they put some palm juice in it too. Tastes and feels like a light extra-fluffy idli, except a bit sweet.
Also that reminds me of bajra roti. Tasty but also heavy - just one can make an average person feel full. Mainly had it in Maharashtra but may be there in some other states too. And there is makke ki roti - a standard Punjabi favorite. Only had it a few times (it was good); a lot of people swear by it - with sarson ka saag (mustard greens).
Naan being less healthy is a bit confusing to me as it is a fermented wheat bread, unlike the rotis/chapatis. The fermentation breaks down the gluten and other carbohydrates, making the wheat more digestible...
I think those saying so must mean it because it has less fiber (naan is from maida, refined wheat flour, while rotis/chapatis are from atta, which is whole-wheat flour).
Ahhh I was unaware of this distinction. I make something very "naan-like" with unbleached bread flour and sourdough yeasts that is apparently less "traditional" than I had thought?
Yes, that would make it more like an Indian roti, except for the yeast, which is not used in roti.
But atta - the whole-wheat flour used to make roti and chapati and also puri - is not just unbleached - in fact I don't know if it bleached or not - hope not - it is also unrefined wheat flour - meaning they do not remove the bran, or they remove the bran (or outer layers of the wheat grain) but remove less of it than for maida, which I've read is similar to US all-purpose flour. So atta has more dietary fiber and a more noticeable taste.
In fact for Indian grain / flour products made from wheat, there is a sort of gradation - we have:
- daliya - a very coarsely broken wheat grain product - cannot call it a flour, it is too coarse for that - pretty tasty when used to make upma / uppit, even without much spices added. I think couscous may be somewhere between daliya and rava or the same as daliya in granularity - never had it, so not sure. Daliya is so coarsely broken (not finely, I mean) that you can see individual pieces of it, and it looks medium brown and you can tell that it is from wheat, which you cannot for atta just by looking at it - atta just looks like a light brown (near white) flour which could be from any of a number of grains.
- rava - I think this is like or the same as semolina - less coarse than daliya but still coarse, you can see the small individual pieces - used to make upma, also to make rava dosa (mentioned in the OP)
- atta - the whole-wheat flour used to make chapati, roti, puri - finer [1] than rava, this one is a flour
- maida - the refined wheat flour, finer than atta - this is used to make naan.
[1] finer - meaning in diameter, not in taste or quality.
The reasoning, is that it's fresh in the media and minds of media consumers. In a year or two most of the public that happened to hear about Theranos - almost exclusively due to the scandal - will entirely have forgotten that it ever existed in the first place. Consumer memory for this sort of thing is extremely short, unless you're talking Enron scale events (which Theranos is not, financially it's a disaster the scale of Webvan).
How is it crass? Are we supposed to have a period of mourning for the fraud that Holmes unleashed on the world with potentially life threatening implications?
Money. Hollywood is running out of ideas and they've rebooted/re-imagined/re-released/sequelized/etc everything.
So while we are debating whether to watch ghostbusters or independence day ( and whether our choices make us sexist or not), they'll be busy with this silly movie/non-story.
It's amazing how the media took a non-story and made it into a story and now they are going to make a movie out of a non-story they turned into a story.
This is akin to a firefighter arsonist setting fires all over town so that he can have more work or a greedy doctor intentionally giving his patients poison so that he'll be able to drum up more business.
It's circular and incestuous and wrong on so many levels. Like a snake swallowing its own tail.
When Hollywood trots out an endless procession of superhero sequels dumbed down for a global audience you can complain about greed and lament that they've run out of ideas.
When Hollywood mythologizes a real story that has captured the public imagination and is emblematic of our era, it's Hollywood at it's finest. It's Hollywood doing exactly what it ought to be doing but rarely does.
> When Hollywood mythologizes a real story that has captured the public imagination and is emblematic of our era, it's Hollywood at it's finest. It's Hollywood doing exactly what it ought to be doing but rarely does.
The problem is that Hollywood sometimes "mythologizes" a real story in the vernacular, non-academic sense of the quoted term: It adopts a false narrative, often in the form of a conspiracy theory, which then gets embedded in our collective cultural memory for a long time. (Examples: Amadeus; Zero Dark Thirty; Oliver Stone's JFK [0].)
Another version is when Hollywood creates a false narrative, or sub-narratives, in the name of "making a catchier story line" and with the excuse of "artistic license," which unjustly damage the reputations of real people. (Examples: Spotlight and All the President's Men. [1] [2].)
Hollywood didn't do that to Amadeus; Peter Shaffer did. It was a very successful play (and even further from a historical document) before it became a period movie.
JFK is another odd example; the movie was notorious as a departure from the historical record, and cemented Stone's reputation as a conspiracy enthusiast. Very shortly after the film was released, that reputation became part of the marketing for the movie!
I don't have a problem with that. A generation from now we'll have the Theranos movie, and no one will be too uptight about the specifics of what happened- that's a job for journalists and historians, they're a different breed of storyteller than what you conventionally find in Hollywood, with different goals. It's more important to get the tone right than the details.
I mean, the biggest movie made about the vietnam war was 'Apocalypse Now'. It was made up. None of that actually happened, but it set the tone for how the war is remembered for millions who were never actually there. As factual accounts get passed through the generations they become myths, and myths are what they are because they're worth remembering.
And with regards to Holmes reputation, well, from where she's at now, there's nowhere to go but up. As for all her investors: they deserve what they've got coming.
> with regards to Holmes reputation, well, from where she's at now, there's nowhere to go but up
It's not impossible to imagine a telling of this story that's actually sympathetic to Holmes: a very smart young woman has an idea, the idea leads to a ton of money and hype being dropped on her head, and by the time she realizes the idea won't work she's been strapped into a rocket that's going to launch regardless. A story of being trapped inside a prison of one's own creation.
(I'm not saying this angle necessarily fits the facts, but movies are stories first, and this would be one way to turn Theranos into an audience-engaging story.)
> A generation from now we'll have the Theranos movie, and no one will be too uptight about the specifics of what happened .... It's more important to get the tone right than the details.
That strikes me as a very Stalinist take on things. I would paraphrase it as the movie director's saying: It doesn't matter how many actual, real, flesh-and-blood people I hurt; what matters is that I advance what I imagine to be the greater long-term good. (Or, classically: The ends justify the means.)
Brown man here, 40 years old. I've used AirBnB extensively in the last year or two and have never faced a problem like this (or at least i'm pretty sure I've not).
Nah. I think there are more than a few of us around. I mostly avoid using my smart phone and I don't have a data plan. I had to buy it because I was travelling abroad and it was a light device I could use to communicate and take photos with. Most of my work is done on my laptop.
