And more importantly, you reduce local pollution where people actually live.
The filtering on coal plants can be made much more effective than any sort of filtering on a car, because it doesn't have to be lightweight and mobile.
The Aeropress is the only coffee maker on which I've been able to make coffee with no bitterness at all, but it's a very fine line to tread. I do agree that it's a bit fiddly, I prefer my trusty Moka pot most days.
And then you're supporting Nestlé, who famously persuaded the World Water Council to change its statement so as to reduce access to drinking water from a "right" to a "need." Nestlé chairman and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe stated that "access to water should not be a public right."
If you use it right, the coffee tastes great. It is different and much stronger than the coffee from an Aeropress though, which has almost no bitterness at all if you use it right. But that's much harder than producing a good cup of coffee in a Moka pot.
+1 for the Moka pot, it's an amazing invention that's stood the test of time. I've found the 2-cup model to produce the perfect strength and amount for me. I waffle a bit between whether the original Express is best, or if I prefer the faux-espresso produced by the Brikka. Either way, I like to switch out between those, my Aeropress and my French press. Different methods for different days.
For proper espresso, I go to my local coffee bar, because I can never make an espresso as well as those guys.
Don't even bother with the espresso machine, all of the affordable home units are mediocre at best. Get a French press, an Aeropress or a Moka pot and learn to use it/them.
You'll thank me later. The Moka Brikka in particular makes better faux-espresso than the espresso produced by most home units.
Try a French Press, an Aeropress, or a Moka pot. So much easier and much less likely to go wrong or break. And no DRM;-)
If you go for the Moka pot, see if you can try out both the classic Express model and the newer Brikka model. The Brikka uses a special valve that allows for higher pressure, and when used correctly, it produces something akin to the crema you get on a proper espresso.
So why not just use a French press, an Aeropress, or a Moka pot instead of a hopeless piece of overpriced electronic "koffee" maker that will inevitably break?
And with all the effort you've taken to produce acceptable "koffee", you could have made a much superior cup of coffee in a French press, an Aeropress or a Moka pot.
Yeah, kinda. The coffee itself may be of decent quality, but it's still pre-ground, and the brewing process itself has some fundamental problems, such as limited volume, time, and pressure. It just isn't making full use of the quality of coffee you're using.
I've been told by several American expats that the instant coffee we get here in Scandinavia is vastly superior to the instant coffee you get in the US. I've never been in the US and tasted your instant coffee myself, but I imagine that's why instant coffee has such a bad rap over there, even through it's clearly preferred over mediocre drip coffee here. Even the baseline standard Nescafé tastes fine, as long as you ignore the enormous ethical issues associated with buying Nestlé products.
Then again, this was some years ago. I assume your instant coffee is actually drinkable now?
Anyone who thinks Keurig (or any other system using pre-packaged pods) is acceptable coffee clearly hasn't tried a moka pot, French press or Aeropress. The difference is absolutely ridiculous, it's hardly even fair to call it the same type of beverage.
That's why you get a small Moka pot, a 1 or 2 cup* model. Makes a perfect amount for one coffee lover (or just enough for two to share).
I have never had a cup of coffee from a single-serving coffee maker that was anywhere near the quality of even a mediocre Moka pot or Aeropress cup of coffee. The fancy all-singing, all-dancing bean-grinding coffee dispenser at work produces a decent cup of coffee, certainly better than the drip coffee many of my colleagues prefer, but it's a great big hulking beast. And it's still inferior to a properly brewed cup o' joe.
Should I hazard a guess, I think freshly-ground beans make the biggest difference.
Keurig makes fancy machines that produce a hot brown vaguely coffee-like liquid. Its main selling point is ease of use.
I cannot understand why people insist on using these worthless capsule machines (including "Nespresso" and "Senseo" and whatever the hell they're called), when there are so many other far superior options for making proper coffee. If you're too lazy to use a Moka pot, a French press or an Aeropress, you really shouldn't be walking upright.
And you are only a single data point. I can tell you that overall, the system has worked great for decades here in Denmark. It has only started showing cracks as a succession of right-wing governments have systematically tried to hollow out the unions' rights and tip the scales even more in favor of the big companies. A number of companies have managed to weasel out of paying any raises at all, apart from in the top management. Forget 3%, how about 0% with absolutely no possibility of a personal raise?
Don't like it? Go ahead and find another job, if you can. There's still a significant job shortage thanks to the financial crisis that started in 2008. You got lucky and found another job, maybe you're in a very specialized field. For the vast majority of people, it's a matter of either sucking it up, or going without a job.
All of the things you complain about are the fault of the company you worked at. If they valued good employees, they would have given you a raise and kept you employed. Instead, they're just going to find someone willing to work for even less, now.
You're completely missing the fact that the company is not obliged in any way to keep the slackers and clock-punchers employed. If you're not doing your job (or actively doing it badly), you'll be the first to go in the next round of layoffs. Sure, they'll spin something about how they're "not laying off people, they're reducing unneeded positions", but we all know what they really mean.
Either way, the best way to get a proper raise, collective bargaining or not, is to change jobs. An extraordinary pay rise for exceptional employees is always an option. Your old workplace obviously didn't value you enough to give you a big raise, so you found a better employer. Unfortunately, loyalty is very rarely rewarded these days.
Eh, that came out kinda wrong. What I'm saying is that collective bargaining works great at my workplace.
And the way to deal with slackers is the same way it's always been. You first give them a warning or two, and if that doesn't help, you fire them. Why do you think collective bargaining would stop that?
They dream of worker collectives, such that you don't individually negotiate your pay, the collective does that. To ensure that happens, of course individual negotiation has to be illegal - the company MUST negotiate with the union, and therefore the worker MUST join and financially support the union. Meaning that a percentage of your is under the control of the union bosses (and the politicians they finance). Since wages aren't tied to individual performance, how do you deal with slackers? In practice, you can either MAKE them work, or you can ignore them, meaning that productively (and everyone's pay) suffers. Either authoritarian control or economic failure, those are two options when each worker's well-being isn't tied to their own efforts.
What you're describing is exactly how it works at my workplace. I'm a member of the union that has a collective agreement with my employer. Every year, they handle the collective pay raise negotiations with the company, usually ending up with some fixed percentage raise for every worker covered by the agreement. You get this raise even if you're not actually a member of the union, because the collective agreement covers all applicable positions at the company, not the employees themselves.
But we're still 100% allowed to sit down with our managers and negotiate a further pay raise, based on individual performance. The collective pay raise is just a base level, not an upper limit or an all or nothing deal. Of course, the company can simply deny my request for a bigger raise, but that's how it's always been, collective bargaining or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but when compared to the nasty drip filter coffee most people drink, it's about even in quality.
And more importantly, you reduce local pollution where people actually live.
The filtering on coal plants can be made much more effective than any sort of filtering on a car, because it doesn't have to be lightweight and mobile.
2 hours?!
My Moka pot takes 5-6 minutes, the French press is even faster.
For a French press you pour in the coffee, add hot water, wait a minute or two, and press the large button on top :-)
I'd say that's about as easy as good coffee gets.
The Aeropress is the only coffee maker on which I've been able to make coffee with no bitterness at all, but it's a very fine line to tread. I do agree that it's a bit fiddly, I prefer my trusty Moka pot most days.
Why are you in such a hurry?
And then you're supporting Nestlé, who famously persuaded the World Water Council to change its statement so as to reduce access to drinking water from a "right" to a "need." Nestlé chairman and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe stated that "access to water should not be a public right."
Fuck Nestlé forever.
If you use it right, the coffee tastes great. It is different and much stronger than the coffee from an Aeropress though, which has almost no bitterness at all if you use it right. But that's much harder than producing a good cup of coffee in a Moka pot.
+1 for the Moka pot, it's an amazing invention that's stood the test of time. I've found the 2-cup model to produce the perfect strength and amount for me. I waffle a bit between whether the original Express is best, or if I prefer the faux-espresso produced by the Brikka. Either way, I like to switch out between those, my Aeropress and my French press. Different methods for different days.
For proper espresso, I go to my local coffee bar, because I can never make an espresso as well as those guys.
Don't even bother with the espresso machine, all of the affordable home units are mediocre at best. Get a French press, an Aeropress or a Moka pot and learn to use it/them.
You'll thank me later. The Moka Brikka in particular makes better faux-espresso than the espresso produced by most home units.
Try a French Press, an Aeropress, or a Moka pot. So much easier and much less likely to go wrong or break. And no DRM ;-)
If you go for the Moka pot, see if you can try out both the classic Express model and the newer Brikka model. The Brikka uses a special valve that allows for higher pressure, and when used correctly, it produces something akin to the crema you get on a proper espresso.
So why not just use a French press, an Aeropress, or a Moka pot instead of a hopeless piece of overpriced electronic "koffee" maker that will inevitably break?
10-12 oz. is like twice a normal serving size, do all Americans drink their watered down coffee from buckets?
Legitimate question, I'm not just being an elitist shithead :-)
But you could be using a French press, an Aeropress, or a Moka pot instead, and have much better coffee with less waste.
And with all the effort you've taken to produce acceptable "koffee", you could have made a much superior cup of coffee in a French press, an Aeropress or a Moka pot.
Yeah, kinda. The coffee itself may be of decent quality, but it's still pre-ground, and the brewing process itself has some fundamental problems, such as limited volume, time, and pressure. It just isn't making full use of the quality of coffee you're using.
I've been told by several American expats that the instant coffee we get here in Scandinavia is vastly superior to the instant coffee you get in the US. I've never been in the US and tasted your instant coffee myself, but I imagine that's why instant coffee has such a bad rap over there, even through it's clearly preferred over mediocre drip coffee here. Even the baseline standard Nescafé tastes fine, as long as you ignore the enormous ethical issues associated with buying Nestlé products.
Then again, this was some years ago. I assume your instant coffee is actually drinkable now?
Anyone who thinks Keurig (or any other system using pre-packaged pods) is acceptable coffee clearly hasn't tried a moka pot, French press or Aeropress. The difference is absolutely ridiculous, it's hardly even fair to call it the same type of beverage.
That's why you get a small Moka pot, a 1 or 2 cup* model. Makes a perfect amount for one coffee lover (or just enough for two to share).
I have never had a cup of coffee from a single-serving coffee maker that was anywhere near the quality of even a mediocre Moka pot or Aeropress cup of coffee. The fancy all-singing, all-dancing bean-grinding coffee dispenser at work produces a decent cup of coffee, certainly better than the drip coffee many of my colleagues prefer, but it's a great big hulking beast. And it's still inferior to a properly brewed cup o' joe.
Should I hazard a guess, I think freshly-ground beans make the biggest difference.
* Italian cups, so around 1.7 fl. oz. each.
Keurig makes fancy machines that produce a hot brown vaguely coffee-like liquid. Its main selling point is ease of use.
I cannot understand why people insist on using these worthless capsule machines (including "Nespresso" and "Senseo" and whatever the hell they're called), when there are so many other far superior options for making proper coffee. If you're too lazy to use a Moka pot, a French press or an Aeropress, you really shouldn't be walking upright.
And you are only a single data point. I can tell you that overall, the system has worked great for decades here in Denmark. It has only started showing cracks as a succession of right-wing governments have systematically tried to hollow out the unions' rights and tip the scales even more in favor of the big companies. A number of companies have managed to weasel out of paying any raises at all, apart from in the top management. Forget 3%, how about 0% with absolutely no possibility of a personal raise?
Don't like it? Go ahead and find another job, if you can. There's still a significant job shortage thanks to the financial crisis that started in 2008. You got lucky and found another job, maybe you're in a very specialized field. For the vast majority of people, it's a matter of either sucking it up, or going without a job.
All of the things you complain about are the fault of the company you worked at. If they valued good employees, they would have given you a raise and kept you employed. Instead, they're just going to find someone willing to work for even less, now.
You're completely missing the fact that the company is not obliged in any way to keep the slackers and clock-punchers employed. If you're not doing your job (or actively doing it badly), you'll be the first to go in the next round of layoffs. Sure, they'll spin something about how they're "not laying off people, they're reducing unneeded positions", but we all know what they really mean.
Either way, the best way to get a proper raise, collective bargaining or not, is to change jobs. An extraordinary pay rise for exceptional employees is always an option. Your old workplace obviously didn't value you enough to give you a big raise, so you found a better employer. Unfortunately, loyalty is very rarely rewarded these days.
Eh, that came out kinda wrong. What I'm saying is that collective bargaining works great at my workplace.
And the way to deal with slackers is the same way it's always been. You first give them a warning or two, and if that doesn't help, you fire them. Why do you think collective bargaining would stop that?
They dream of worker collectives, such that you don't individually negotiate your pay, the collective does that. To ensure that happens, of course individual negotiation has to be illegal - the company MUST negotiate with the union, and therefore the worker MUST join and financially support the union. Meaning that a percentage of your is under the control of the union bosses (and the politicians they finance). Since wages aren't tied to individual performance, how do you deal with slackers? In practice, you can either MAKE them work, or you can ignore them, meaning that productively (and everyone's pay) suffers. Either authoritarian control or economic failure, those are two options when each worker's well-being isn't tied to their own efforts.
What you're describing is exactly how it works at my workplace. I'm a member of the union that has a collective agreement with my employer. Every year, they handle the collective pay raise negotiations with the company, usually ending up with some fixed percentage raise for every worker covered by the agreement. You get this raise even if you're not actually a member of the union, because the collective agreement covers all applicable positions at the company, not the employees themselves.
But we're still 100% allowed to sit down with our managers and negotiate a further pay raise, based on individual performance. The collective pay raise is just a base level, not an upper limit or an all or nothing deal. Of course, the company can simply deny my request for a bigger raise, but that's how it's always been, collective bargaining or not.
With a cracked screen and bad reception?