I don't disagree that a moka pot and espresso are completely different processes, I'm saying that a 250 EUR espresso machine is not going to be capable of making actual espresso (barring stuff like Flair that takes away components to make it work).
Just head to technical data and feel free to explain which parameter is wrong. Take the cheapest one, 213 euros. Is is 15 (12) bar of pressure? Some other type of heater, as 1300 Watts of input power is not enough?
Seriously, I don't understand what the limiting factor is? Not expensive enough?
Lack of temperature control is a minus, as that means that there will be some blends that won't taste good, these days most fancy machines have a pid (and if yours doesn't you should install it, or you are missing out).
Kind of related, lack of boiler at 1.5 atm means non-great milk foaming capabilities.
Also, you buy a good 1500$ machine, your grandchildren will be able to inherit it if you take care of it. That delhongi won't last two days further than the minimum required by guarantee.
For 1000$ difference in price, I wont buy those blends, there are zillions of others to try. So simple. Anyway, I have checked and there is some temperature control + you can get more if you turn up the steam making and turn back to espresso making. A "hack".
So, if I buy 5x Dedica (edit, just checked: 167 euro in my country, so it is actually 8x) for the price, and package them NEW for my grandchildren, this doesnt count?
Blocking off the other side is also a negotiation strategy; one that one applies for example if one considers the demands of the other side to be nutjob
insane.
It also ignores socio-economic implications which totally derail the argument.
Underwater pizza delivery? Sounds great and fun, but is it actually profitable once everything is taken into account, including assets, depreciation, insurance, saving for retirement, job security etc.
Pretty much anybody can do something they are more apt at and like better if they are willing to risk their financial security.
You're yuck. There is no need provides your tastes thanks, especially ones that support destructive farming practices based on idealogical fluff.
It's much healthier and ultimately economical to have a bot tending crops locally, because small scale farming is also more productive per acre, and we have no way of transporting food or growing it industrially without burning the biosphere.
What OP is referring to is a world not yet created, where relocalization occurs, because we should't be doing things at scale that we don't benefit from doing at scale - and growing food is definitely one of those things.
Or maybe you have a sustainable way of doing industrial agriculture which doesn't use non renewable fossil fuels?
I am, it's not very much, and compared with the packaging for food in every market, it's just a rounding error.
The thing about growing food locally, is that you don't need individually package your apples in plastic. You just harvest it, then eat it, in it's healthiest possible form, while also not doing insane polluting.
I also think some of the confusion is coming from the use of the term 'weakening'. It is true that the primary jetstream wind pattern is weakening relative to it's stabler state.
That weakening means the jetstream meanders more, with more latitudinal movement in its form.
The strength overall of the jetstream wind is weaker when it's meandering, but can also be much more intense in places.
This says nothing about humidity or energy or pressure, just windspeed and direction.
Amazon is the third company in California to be hit with fines under this law, joining Sysco and Dollar General, which were fined $318,000 and $1.3 million in October and November, respectively, according to copies of the citations shared with The Post.
It seems like a fundamental error to believe that money itself has value, but many people make this error all the time, as you just have.
Just because cash exists somewhere as numbers in a system, it doesn't mean those numbers can jump out of the system and suddenly manifest as young, capable humans who can help retires. Plus, as others have pointed out, 250 billion it isn't even a drop in the bucket.
If there is 2 trillion dollars of profit held as cash by companies, that doesn't mean they are holding back 2 trillion dollars worth of production. It means they're holding a claim on the purchasing power of 2 trillion dollars VS the total of all worldwide cash value, say 2% as an example.
If the 2 trillion is taken out of the bank and spent, say on social services, it just dilutes the current purchasing power of the remaining cash value. It does not create 2 trillion dollars worth of value from nowhere. I return to my opening claim, that money itself doesn't have value.
If anything, money could be described as, "A claim on a certain percentage of the worlds output at any given moment, limited by locale." That percentage claim is wildly unstable and changes as money is created/destroyed.
They are fundamentally different processes which product a completely different output.
reply