I’m glad you all have experimented and found what works for you all!

Your evening-morning setup sounds great! I do something similar, brewing all the coffee I’ll drink throughout the day in a single batch. That way I control my caffeine intake and I have tasty coffee no matter where I go!

I figured that’s the joke, isn’t it?

Also, I’m in the same boat. My current one does it whenever someone uses water elsewhere in the flat.

I haven’t read your blog post, but I agree with your comment.

Unfortunately, Scrum is often misused. Why? Often, I think people don’t understand the problems that Scrum is trying to solve. So people implement Scrum poorly. And, when evaluation time comes, they blame everything but their lack of knowledge and skill regarding Scrum.

But Scrum is actually a framework to help you solve very common problems.

If you understand that, then Scrum becomes useful.

There’s a set of problems that teams will always have to deal with: how to choose what to work on, how to coordinate, how to know when something is done, how to see if your work actually solves the problems you’re trying to solve, how to deal with task-switching costs, how to deal with cognitive load, how to deal with complexity…

And those problems can be solved with Scrum. Or Kanban. Or any other Agile way of working.

What’s important is that it works.

I agree with you that hobbies often enshittify. However, coffee has a special place in my heart because you can make really, really tasty coffee with simple tools.

My setup is a plastic cone, a set of filter papers, a plastic kettle, a thermometer, a dispersion screen, and a scale.

As to grinding coffee, you’re right that a grinder is expensive. There’s no way around that. However, you can do what my partner and I did for months: our local coffee shop ground our coffee each week.

Why am I saying all of this?

In part because I agree with you. I actually approach coffee deliberately with an 80/20 mindset: I’ll get 80% of the coffee goodness for 20% of the effort. I do this because I don’t want to get sucked into the deep end.

And I think you could get a lot of coffee goodness for very little effort. Coffee ratios are a great way to start. You take just a few steps so that you can play around with temperature, grind size, and pouring technique. In my mind, that’s the 20% that gets me 80% of coffee goodness.

Of course, it’s possible that you like your current setup and that’s great! I believe the best coffee is the coffee that you like.

Gotcha. So you’re saying that explaining my stance is compatible with sealioning.

Here’s the thing. I would love to have civil, honest, constructive conversations. Seeing that this can be perceived as malicious is very frustrating to me. I could be accused of sealioning right now. It seems like a trap: damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

What am I supposed to do if I want to have a civil, honest, and constructive conversations?

I don’t doubt there are people who sealion. I just don’t see myself as having a malicious intent. I’m being open about my stances and I want to see what people’s stances are. But, again, damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

I suppose there’s nothing left for me to do other than tell you that, if you believe I’m acting in good faith, I’d love to talk to you. However, if you don’t think I’m acting in good faith, then there’s nothing we can do to move forward.

Regardless of what you think and what you choose, I genuinely hope you have a good one. In the grand scheme of things, I hope we can all live good lives.

I would love to have an effective and open conversation with you. You mentioned I should try to be more concise and that I seem to be trying to pass classes. Sure, my responses aren’t one-liners at all, but I’m not trying to pass any class. I’m trying to see what we all believe.

Just so we’re on the same page, this conversation started with a comment of yours. It said that “it’s about having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions”. I assumed you meant that .ml users are “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”, given the context of this thread. I could’ve misinterpreted you, but that’s how I took it. I decided to respond to your post, because I don’t see myself as “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”. In response, the only thing you told me was that my response seemed AI-generated. I replied asking you if you could look past your perception of AI-generated content and tell me if I seemed close-minded. You replied saying I should be more concise.

All of this I interpret as if you are not engaging with me in good faith. I could be wrong; communication mishaps happen all the time. In the past, I have misinterpreted people and people have misinterpreted me. It’s also possible you’re having a bad day or something like that. It might even be possible that you think I’m acting in bad faith or something like that. What do you think?

TL;DR: I am happy to do TL;DRs, but I would also like assurance that you will engage with me effectively and openly.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

Well, if I look at my posts and ask myself whether I’m sealioning, I do see that I ask many questions to others. However, I also see that I talk about my stances and my beliefs. That is, as far as I can tell, not sealioning. Sealioning seems to require work from others while not doing the work of communicating.

Here’s a post in which I lay out some of my beliefs and stances regarding .ml: https://lemmy.ml/comment/23293518

Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s how it seems to me.

The goal of posting what I posted was to let others see where I stand in relation to .ml and understand where others stand.

You said my post reads like an AI-generated response. But I can assure you I did not use AI at any point. Regardless, I think this is a moot point.

The more important point is what you think of my post’s ideas. Am I an example of the close-mindedness and zeal that you perceive? Or do you find me as someone with whom you can talk?

I would love to think that I’m someone with whom you can talk, but that is something you and others decide. Others decide if they stop the flow of meaning into the conversation or whether they flood and impose meaning into the conversation.

The best I can do is be present and open.

To be fair, I did sign up a long time ago. However, I do have reasons to stay in .ml. Here’s a response I posted elsewhere: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

I’m out of the loop. What’s the context of this?

I’m curious what your response would be to me: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

Thanks for the straightforward response.

It sounds as if it’s clear that .ml admins are pro-Russia and pro-China. I understand you’re also asking if I’m making content-flow choices.

I think it’s worthwhile to interrogate where I stand in relation to .ml and my identity.

The way I see it, .ml does have posts that mourn aspects of countries like the USA and posts that recognize achievements of China. I’m not sure I’ve seen posts praising Russia, like at all, ever (if anything, I’ve seen posts critical of how Russia is a hyper-militaristic society).

I take this to mean that .ml is not indoctrinated in the way that many of my friends are. Some of my friends think that capitalism is perfectly ethical, and they sweep under the rug awful things about capitalism. They sweep under the rug how capitalism creates systemic inequality, how capitalism optimizes for accumulation instead of human flourishing, how capitalism is short-sighted in its investment strategies, how capitalism cannot create infinite growth in a contained system like planet Earth. I see these kinds of analyses in .ml. And I do not see them as much in other places.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying those analyses don’t exist elsewhere. However, I see .ml engaging with them much more. I could be wrong, and I’d be very interested if you can link to other communities that engage with things like, for example, classical economics instead of neoclassical or post-Keynesian economics. Anyway…

This might lead you to believe that I have a specific political project in mind that I’m supporting. And yeah, I believe in humanism, in human development, and in empathy-based ethics. However, I do not believe in static visions of the future. I do not think that there’s a Single Best Way Of Solving World Problems. I believe the world is a complex system and we need multiple simultaneous experiments at all levels to get more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

And what is it that I want? I want more acceptance of diversity and less hatred. I want more people working in good working conditions and less shitty workplaces. I want more equality of opportunities and less hoarding of privilege by the wealthy. I want more people out of poverty and less people stuck in the cycle of poverty. I want more investments that care about the long-term benefit of everyone and less investments that care about the short-term benefit of elites. I want more people who can choose what to do with their lives and less people stuck with what they’ve got in front of them.

So am I anti-USA and pro-China?

• If you tell me the story that the USA is lagging in healthcare compared to its rich-country counterparts, then I want less of that. Am I anti-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that the USA managed to be an innovation power-house for a century because of its entrepreneurial state, then I want more of that. Am I pro-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China has a demographic problem because of its gender imbalance, then I want less of that. Am I anti-China because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China is investing immensely in the development of green energy, then I want more of that. Am I pro-China because of that?

What I’m trying to say is that we have to look at reality with openness. I believe we should not stick to a simplistic story. I believe simplistic stories blind us to complexity and nuance. I believe we should not stick to easy stories such as “pro-USA” or “pro-China”. I believe we need to be able to break complex systems down and find what we want more of and what we want less of. I believe we then need to be able to accept that in complex systems we cannot know the end-state. I believe, instead, we need to try things out at multiple levels and see if we’re getting more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

So yeah, I see myself as someone who sees in .ml the kinds of analyses that I don’t see elsewhere. Of course, I’m open to alternatives and am curious about where you stand and what you believe.

To understand what you mean, is that seal winking? If so, are you saying that maybe I’m not being forthcoming or honest? I hope that you and I and everyone here can agree that we’re trying to understand what we’re all saying and where we all stand. I’m not being sarcastic or trying to hide anything.

There is a group that does studies on different apps. They look at how much time people spend using a language-learning app and how much each minute of studying adds to a standardized language test. Turns out, Rosetta Stone and LingQ are the most efficient per minute spent in those apps. If I remember correctly, both are privately held companies, which I see as a better sign than Duolingo’s public listing. I don’t know about their privacy policies, though.

Huh. I’m trying to understand what you mean. Your interpretation is that .ml is pro-China and pro-Russia. And, as you can see, my account is .ml. I’m not sure I would identify as pro-China or pro-Russia. What does it mean to you to be pro-China and pro-Russia?

As the other comment says, Anki already changes dynamically so that you study the hard stuff more. Just make sure to mark whether you got the answer and how hard it was to get it.

Now, here’s something that could help you, perhaps more than any multiple choice exam could ever help you with: when studying, make sure to not only blurt the answer but also use elaborative recall. In other words, make an effort to think and do so mindfully (rather than mindlessly).

Why? You learn through effort and through mindfully (and not mindlessly) connecting the new knowledge with what you already know.

You could even structure your elaborative recall through Visible Thinking Routines.

How does that look like?

• You start your study session.
• You get an Anki card.
• You remember this card clearly, and so you say it out loud and then check.
• You get it right. No need for elaborative recall. Better to focus your energy elsewhere.
• You get another Anki card.
• This one’s tough. You’re unsure.
• You say out loud why it could be any of the two answers you think could be right.
• You get the answer and sure enough it was one of the two you thought.
• You decide to do elaborative recall so that you learn this well. To guide your elaborative recall, you decide to use the thinking routine “Connect-Extend-Challenge”.
• So you do elaborative recall through a thinking routine. You do it by talking out loud or writing it out.
• This step may sound silly but make sure to celebrate so that you feel pride and satisfaction for doing something that takes effort (especially if you’re struggling with the habit of studying).
• Then you move on to the next Anki card.

https://wmich.edu/writing/punctuation/hyphen

This would’ve helped

As foretold 🙏