Meats don't really seal unless you're literally tarring them with char, and besides, juices leak from the side just fine. You really want to steam off the water content of a steak to get a better texture and fewer grease-runs. The entire meme about searing is literally just a decently crunchy texture. Flip steaks as much as you want.
The high "sear" temperature mostly implies a faster (and easy-to-follow) cook-time, but it still requires salting the steak to drain as much moisture as possible. It's certainly the smarter texhniwue, but not because it seals juices in.
(Also, "searing" a steak does in fact slow the rate of water loss, so it is easier to control cook-quality and easier to cook whilst distracted. But this undermines my main point that water content actually ruins the steak, and that you can get the same texture and taste with a different technique.)
First of all, I'm talking about searing on a flat top. Which doesn't char. And it does keep in the moisture. Especially if you've got fat on the side of the meat. But the best reason to do this is not to hold in the water, but to get a consistently even temperature in the final steak.
It is not a fast process. The steak needs to be rested at room temperature for an hour. Then seared 2 minutes each side, maximum heat, seasoning before you turn it down. Taken off the flat top or cast iron pan, which you deglaze, and pour over the steak. Rested another 30 minutes. Return to a cast iron pan and put in the oven at 450F for 8 minutes for a 1" steak rare, plus 2-3 minutes to medium rare. (11 minutes for a 1" ribeye to MR).
What happens is that the outside is seasoned brown, well cooked and most of the juice stays in, but the interior fat melts down and you end up cutting through a piece of meat that is exactly the same color and temperature from the inside to the very edge of the outside.
If you do want to cook on a grill, obviously don't grease-stain it by flipping it a lot or trying to sear it there. Put your cast iron pan on the grill, sear it in that, and then finish it on the grates for flavor and char.
I'm just pointing out you can get the same food with a quarter (at most) of the prep time and twice the flipping if you approach it experimentally at the same heat. Very much including basting. If you think steakhouses let steaks sit out before cooking them you're nuts—they might get nuked for five seconds for approximately the same effect. Letting them sit is just a convenience while prepping the rest of dinner.
Also, tenderizing the meat is about 10x as effective as letting it rest at room temperature. Not only does it warm the meat much faster, it reduces cook time, draws moisture out, and improves the crust. A minute of beating the shit out of the steak can trivially improve on an hour of sitting out (as if we have the time most days!). The grid-slice pattern is also very effective, even if it looks trashy. It's trashy because it's cheap and it works so well any cheap steakhouse will do it to obscure the shitty produce. Just make sure to do the tenderizing before you apply the salt.
Of course if you enjoy cooking, don't let my advice ruin it. Food is a lot more enjoyable if you feel satisfied eating it. Not everyone needs to optimize for cook-time.
Steaks being cooked naturally drain juice. The entire concept of searing a steak "sealing" the juices in implies a cooking paradigm that simply doesn't hold up to experimentation. You want to cook off water mass from a good steak—it's better flavor, better texture, and you're left with far less grease in your soup-catcher.
If you cook enough steaks, it's quite hard to get a dry one, and you can get excellent texture and taste despite draining the "juice" (which is like 80% of why you salt the steak to begin with—moisture = less even and harder to control cooking which results in a chewier crust).
I think the issue is that the weight of the lid and top grill pressing down on the steak squeezes a lot more juice out than if you grilled the steak on regular grill that heats from below.
You usually press down on it or use a weight with a regular grill. You want a crust from a Maillard reaction on the outer surfaces, with a less-cooked interior.
I do not do that. I use the reverse sear technique popularized by Kenji Lopez-Alt. This involves heating the steak to near-doneness over indirect heat, followed by an intense sear over direct heat. A brief rest period in between allows an even better sear, as the surface has a bit of time to dry out and the internal temperature to drop a bit, enabling more time over high heat.
We had one on a yacht I crewed that did ecotour sorta sails. When we'd catch a small tuna, after the trips I'd butterfly it and George Foreman it. No added oil just right on the Teflon cooking surface and texture and taste would come out sorta like fried chicken. It was great
Hulk Hogan also destroyed gawker because he was too cowardish to admit he's a sex freak. Obviously Peter Thiel was involved because he's too cowardish to admit he's gay, but the takeaway is that our society is run by toddlers who never learned to regulate their emotions (let alone manage the wealth a capitalist society allegedly demands. Eg people outside of Buffet demanding to be taxed more and Chuck Feeney making the gates foundation look like money-grubbing assholes).
Gawker destroyed itself because they let a reckless drug addict make editorial decisions while high and drunk which ended in the demise of the company. Fortunately that editor has recovered and has a neat blog/newsletter that focuses on substance abuse.
Gawker still acted more mature in terms of the defamatory content than any given social network. This is as clear a case of revenge-murder as you can find. I just want to know who convinced Hulk Hogan anyone cares about him who doesn't already love him. As far as I know he's still the mustache guy of unknown import who was in that funny nanny movie in the nineties I saw at age four. who cares if he swings?
This was obviously about a man's insecurity leveraging the courts to destroy a publicly-valuable business beyond any reasonable conception of justice. Somehow the new york times was never held to the same standard when they published blatant lies and enabled the invasion of iraq and a million murdered.
Here is a very brief excerpt from a lot of shocking testimony from Gawker's editor; it was Gawker's own self-destructive behavior that destroyed them. Without testimony like this they would still be operating:
> “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.
It was more than just Gawker, it was a whole collection of blogs that I’d say were indeed ‘valuable’. The whole story is too much to convey in a post here, but Wikipedia has good (or, at least, comprehensive) articles about it.*
I’m what TwoPhonesOneKid calls a ‘centrist idiot’ in their peer comment (hey, look, I’m treating them with decorum!), and I don’t think it was more valuable than the NYT, but Gawker Media was a blog staple with a wide reach, and those blogs did real journalism in a wide range of fields in addition to click bait. Some of them arguably recovered under new ownership, but many did not.
Gawker was a far more valuable institution than both of the above. I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise: both papers just regurgitate ap headlines with misanthropic assholes managing the editing. Gawker at least managed to break news and contribute to discourse beyond the ivy-league toadies that contribute nothing substantial beyond dogmatic reverwnce for broken institutions that were wildly out of date a hundred years ago.
Centrist idiots blathering about institutional integrity and decorum destroyed this country. I refuse to let them gain power again. I far prefer gossip rags to imperial stooges: at least they're honest about their dishonesty. They also never stooped to the level of the new york times endorsing an obviously illegal invasion.
Granted, both are equally willing to cater towards the american demand for blood rather than justice. But at least I can blame the poeple actually at the capitol for january sixth. Who the hell can I blame for the mass-complacency and dogmatism of college-educated liberals aside from the very same ignorant mass? Until a better scapegoat arrives, the editorial boards of ivy-league-catering newspapers will have to do.
Why do people not read manufacturing consent? It's the only text american adults should be reading. Everything else doesn't matter.
Weird attribution of morality when buffet gave $40B to the gates foundation. Also, aren't we all toddlers who never learned to regulate their emotions? You and me just cause less hubris because we don't have as much power and the time to convince ourselves we deserve it.
It's interesting that we ended up with Hogan, Ventura, and Trump as figures in our politics. I feel like the last time a republic got to that point, there was a lot of lead in the water. I guess now it's mostly plastic in the brain.
Yea it turns out when you divorce politics from anything that matters it just becomes reality tv. Americans are too moronic to wield the power they claim today so it's hard to feel anything negative about this.
I'm not sure it's fair to mock the public figures, because it's not like the guys in between them were anything particularly remarkable either. Democracy doesn't select skilled leaders, it selects charismatic ones with 'flexible moral values' of the sort that are useful for gaining sufficient backers. It's fairly predictable that democracies with relatively wide suffrage would trend towards electing pop figures.
This also is exactly democracy was mostly felt to be an unsustainable system by the ancient philosophers. And in reading Plato's assessment of democracy, and its cycles, in "The Republic", he sounds like much more like a prophet than a philosopher.
Are we forgetting the original one, Ronald Reagan? Guy was a literal middling actor, whose only claim to fame was snitching on Communist sympathizers in Hollywood when it was cool.
This theory has held up poorly to other theories, such as the federal legalization of abortion. Positing a single cause, even a single dominating cause, is an incredibly, incredibly hard claim to demonstrate. I do believe that unleading gasoline had widespread social impacts, but this narrative is just lazy reduction with no benefit.
Personally, I think the easiest theory is simply economic prosperity. Most American problems these days can be described in terms of relationship to wealth. changes in education take decades to reflect in aggregate effectiveness. If nothing changes, I think we'll be facing a similarly-violent time period for likely the rest of our lives, even if we aren't there yet.
Not sure, I’m a bit too young but the standards seem to have been much higher back in those days. Reagan’s [public] behavior would still be pretty tame nowadays.
Of course broadcasting your deranged random thoughts to the whole world in the middle of the night wasn’t really and option and listening to Nixon’s tapes the way they behaved in private was well.. quite something. I don’t even believe that Nixon was especially egregious either he just decided to record everything anyone said in his office due to whatever reasons.
And then you had career politicians like Johnson who might have been even more vulgar than Trump..
> but the standards seem to have been much higher back in those days.
He was a service-cutting, union-busting, lunatic military hawk guided by Nancy's astrologer. Sure, he's not as overtly and in-your-face as bad as Trump (who could be?) but that doesn't preclude him being a horror show in and of himself.
You could also cross in a raft. Or on a log. You can swim across (riskily, quite riskily) at the straight of gibraltar itself. We've known humans have been seafaring tens of thousands of years before our earliest archaeological evidence (although dugout canoes are likely just as old, it's very bad conditions for preservation outside of stuff like northern european bogs/the dead sea, and they often just look like logs underwater, not boats)—at no point has Australia been fully connected to continental asia. Hell, this is true for H Erectus, let alone h s sapiens—it's not difficult to believe H Erectus might have pieced together how to lash logs together.
On articles like this, I strongly recommend just ignoring the title. It's enough to make anyone with a mild background in the subject frustrated. The research itself remains incredibly interesting.
Typically the SQL engine will allow flexibility on this. Not all transactions need to prioritize write-to-disk confirmation over throughput. If you're collecting observability metrics, for instance, these don't have the same data coherency constraints your app model (account etc) demand. In this case you can accept the logical commit and the tiny chance it might not actually hit the disk. Postgres at least allows customizing this per transaction, I believe, although I'm not quite sure how it works if you compose transactions with distinct syncrhonization constraints.
Sure, but the comment I responded to was lamenting that the commits are not asynchronous by default. The documentation I linked to was all about the considerations and behavior for asynchronous commits.
I see this understanding that sql databases should do xyz by default as corporate dogmatism, kind of. A database is only as useful as it's used! I realize you haven't argued for this, but if we're collectively claiming postgres can handle 100% of the persistent database needs of an arbitrary app (a very common claim these days), we also need to accept that people will "abuse" sql databases to prioritize accessibility over coherency, which was always a major draw of NoSQL engines. I suspect most consumer apps can scale with some form of inconsistency just fine, even if this creates a PR rats-nest, but consumers are far more forgiving of incompetency than greediness. This is a very much an "understand your market" sort of decision to make.
So I see what you're saying, but I'd also like more async bindings that lean into customizing the behavior at query- or execution-time. You can build them today but you have to work around whatever sql-binding framework you use and it will still likely result in leaky abstractions.
I see what you mean, but ACID is a fairly foundational expectation for SQL transactions (D being the relevant feature here)
That being said, my background is primarily Microsoft SQL more than Postgres. As such I'm occasionally bemused at the sort-of monoculture here around Postgres, where if Postgres doesn't have it, it may as well not exist*.
And so it is in this case (the DELAYED_DURABILITY documentation I linked above). Alas, this doesn't seem to be something I see in standard SQL, so indeed, as you say, it's too bad that the standard doesn't provide for relaxing the rules.
Relatedly, the other interesting thing is the chatter about fsync. I know on Windows that's not the mechanism that's used, and out of curiosity I looked deeper into what MS-SQL does on Linux, and indeed they were able to get significant improvement by leveraging similar mechanisms to ensure the data is hardened to disk without a separate flush (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43443703). They contributed to kernel 4.18 to make it happen.
> The repeated use of a write request followed by a flush request may be detrimental to performance and will increase traffic on the I/O bus.
> Prior to the Linux Kernel 4.18 updates, Linux could use Fua but only for the file system journaling writes and not data writes.
> If your system supports Fua and you have the Linux Kernel 4.18 or newer updates, you can enable SQL Server trace flag -T3979 and use /opt/mssql/bin/mssql-conf set control.alternatewritethrough 0. SQL Server will use Fua write behavior patterns instead of Forced Flush. File systems supporting optimized Fua align SQL Server on Linux with SQL Server on Windows behavior and performance.
*I think performance of CTEs/Views is another topic where I noticed it, where it was just taken as given that they can hurt performance, whereas in T-SQL they are simply equivalent to subqueries
> As such I'm occasionally bemused at the sort-of monoculture here around Postgres, where if Postgres doesn't have it, it may as well not exist.
FWIW, I, as a medium-long term PG developer, are also regularly ... bemused by that attitude. We do some stuff well, but we also do a lot of shit not so well, and PG is succeeding despite that, not because of.
> Relatedly, the other interesting thing is the chatter about fsync. I know on Windows that's not the mechanism that's used, and out of curiosity I looked deeper into what MS-SQL does on Linux, and indeed they were able to get significant improvement by leveraging similar mechanisms to ensure the data is hardened to disk without a separate flush (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43443703). They contributed to kernel 4.18 to make it happen.
Case in point about "we also do a lot of shit not so well" - you can actually get WAL writes utilizing FUA out of postgres, but it's advisable only under somewhat limited circumstances:
Most filesystems are only going to use FUA writes with O_DIRECT. The problem is that for streaming replication PG currently reads back the WAL from the filesystem. So from a performance POV it's not great to use FUA writes, because that then triggers read IO. And some filesystems have, uhm, somewhat odd behaviour if you mix buffered and unbuffered IO.
Another fun angle around this is that some SSDs have *absurdly* slow FUA writes. Many Samsung SSDs, in particular, have FUA write performance 2-3x slower than their already bad whole-cache-flush performance - and it's not even just client and prosumer drives, it's some of the more lightweight enterprise-y drives too.
That seems like the kind of behavior that would drastically vary from place to place and culture to culture. Just compare Rwanda with the DRC, for instance—neighboring countries with nearly polar-opposite reputation of how corruption is expressed. The DRC's corruption (aka Tshisekedi) means very low centralized control and an incredibly brutal multi-front civil war. Kagame's style has led to one of the most authoritarian countries on earth, albeit one with very low crime rates. That these are bordering countries with overlapping cultures and peoples and these places produce such wildly different expression of societies (as of today, that is) is quite illustrative.
There are certainly some ways that the behavior of countries can be painted with a wide brush, but each country still has unique dysfunctions and strengths. It's very difficult to say anything broadly applicable that doesn't have glaring exceptions undercutting the premise.
This is especially, especially true in places with great restrictions on freedom of the press—Rwanda's image is almost certainly partially fabricated, but it's very difficult to interpret the state of affairs from outside the country.
Corruption is certainly a constant across all countries, but the form the corruption takes is very dynamic.
That actually makes sense from the perspective of a state managing its labor force, though. That's just smart. "Diversity" for its own sake is just meaningless centrist bullshit.
You can always turn a claim into a logically equivalent claim of the non-existence of any counterexamples.
“For every instance, e equals mc²”
is logically equivalent to
“There is no instance where e does not equal mc².”
That combined with your belief that claims of non-existence can't be held with any degree of certainty means you believe that no claim can ever be held with any degree of certainty. Which is not a very interesting insight.
This is an equally unsupportable claim, though. This requires enumeration of the entire state of the universe, an impossibility. This is just the standard swan problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). What you have is a model you're very confident in without the deductively-rational basis your diction implies.
People should really read more hume if they're going to weigh in on philosophy of science.
> You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?
I love condescension that is so petty it's laughable. As the commenters said below there are very well-understood precedents/principles that allow me to conclude "no" here eg
So no it's not "impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something", we actually have a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to exactly that (it's called probability and statistics).
Probablility and statistics are models that produce something we call certainty. This has no relation to actual certainty, aka knowledge. If you're making an abductive claim, you should state it as an abductive claim. Otherwise you're simply claiming true knowledge that is literally impossible to have.
Too late to edit, but probability and statistics do emphatically rely on past-certainty. The entire concept of using the past to predict the future, however, is just a convenience with no reasonable basis. Please appropriately hedge your comments as to not imply otherwise or be appropriately mocked in response.
This is precisely why I don't trust people who aver without receipts to show. Open the schools, goddammit!
Until I see some reasonable evidence that smaller process size cannot exist, i just see lazy people getting angry that someone disagrees with them. All of this "burden of proof" bullshit, aping like you're in some kind of formal debate rather than a conversation with a stranger, just screams "emotional asshole who can't deal with someone disagreeing with them and never learned how to engage in basic conflict resolution when they had the ability to engage in good faith and chose not to".
Y'all deserve all the mockery society can afford. I'm at least honest in that I see conflict is what we need more than ever if only to put people like you in your place.
It's important to note that in the marxist/sociological tradition (doesn't really matter how actually marxist they are these days), "nation" refers to basically ethnicity. China itself claims to host 56 nations. In this context "nationalism" is considered a threat to the state and to the people. Don't confuse thus with pro-state patriotism, of course, which is alive and thriving.
The soviet union was the same way. Even member states mostly represented multiple nations, which often crossed member state borders.
I'm pretty skeptical myself that nationalism was the thing that tore the soviet union apart. The most ethnically diverse areas (notably, georgia and central asia) generally benefitted the most from attachment to the soviet union. Surely here in the US we are less bound together by shared culture than the soviets ever were. If the soviets were an empire of nations, we are a prison-ship of them.
The high "sear" temperature mostly implies a faster (and easy-to-follow) cook-time, but it still requires salting the steak to drain as much moisture as possible. It's certainly the smarter texhniwue, but not because it seals juices in.
(Also, "searing" a steak does in fact slow the rate of water loss, so it is easier to control cook-quality and easier to cook whilst distracted. But this undermines my main point that water content actually ruins the steak, and that you can get the same texture and taste with a different technique.)