Enekk

It wouldn't be the first time: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-s-government-poisoned-some-alcohol-during-prohibition/3283701001/

Sure, and I agree with that. None the less, my point is that these things are very easy to see in a black or white lens, but they are usually a lot more complicated. Ted isn't innocent here, but neither is she. They are both victims of the patriarchal society and of each other.

It is easy to dislike Ted for this, but I think this sort of thing happens a lot to partners who have sick partners. It is a huge strain on the relationship and the care-taking partner can often feel like a victim. After all, nobody really checks on how the illness affects them and it can feel like they are trapped.

Consider also that it sounds very noble that she sacrificed everything for him, but was that what he wanted? A sacrifice can be selfish if not done with consent of both parties. This was especially hard for women at the time because a divorce didn't just mean the end of a relationship, it also often meant the end of their life (figuratively, but sometimes literally). Patriarchy bound women to men in a way both parties were trapped by.

Monogamy is hard, even without illness. Communication is the thing that keeps relationships going and even today people are bad at it. In the time they were alive, I don't think they even had real models for what good communication should look like. This isn't to say Ted was blameless, but I also won't say that he was a monster for this.

Put in my vote for _Flash Gordon _. Now, look, I love the movie, but the Queen album that goes with it is incredible.

To add just a little bit of extra "fuck you" to the situation, this was the first advertisement from Callaway featuring women. Practically progressive!

I really suggest everyone listen to Jon Stewart's interview with John Fetterman. Fetterman demonstrates what is the rough draft on how establishment Dems will talk about these policies and the people supporting them. It's not pretty.

That's pretty cool. Your pot should be sufficiently able to retain heat for pasta, but for something that needs long term heat, this would work.

If you're constantly struggling with this, there is a better way. Bring a pot of water to a boil, salt it, add pasta, set a timer as normal, bring back to a boil and stir the pasta well after a minute of boiling. Put a tight lid on, turn off heat. Yes. Off. Rarely, a shape might need a minute extra, so try one when your timer goes off.

Unless the pasta is a really really weird shapes, the residual heat in the pot is more than enough to cook pasta in the normal time. No boiling over chance. The stir after one minute prevents sticking. Less energy used.

Pans are actually less likely to boil over and make a great way to cook pasta. The increased surface area makes it harder for the starch to build up and foam up. You also need less water and it comes to temperature easier.

Too bad Wrath of Math is probably not on here

Apparently a brick in the mouth is what's needed to prevent vampires from rising again. Or maybe a blade over the neck. Honestly, let's compile a complete list and try them all just to be sure.

I disagree actually. If you think this is what wealthy people decorate like in either era, you haven't been around rich people.

For the movie set, you can't forget that set and the photography of it is designed to help push the message of the movie and a sense of realism is rarely a priority. With the realty photos, they are marketing first, they want to emphasize a clean, neutral setting that is full of potential.

It is also important to remember that this grey aesthetic arose from the concrete homes that were in vogue with the rich in the 2010s. Those homes were grey, yes, but they also emphasized textures, unusual materials, and lighting. The home photographed here is clearly middle class because it has none of what made concrete homes interesting.

I could write an entire essay on this, but I think I have made my point. The only comparison that matters here is that both sets of photos are fantasy. One is literally a movie set, the other is an advertisement. Neither capture any sort of reality about rich people or even people. It is silly to say that the movie set looks lived in as an example. They are both, however, what middle class people imagine rich people are like.

Edit: And before anyone says it, yes, I'm sure some rich person somewhere decorated like that. The McAllister home is a real place after all, but it doesn't negate that we are seeing what the director wants us to experience first.