Yeah, unfortunately I don’t know anything about the source individual. I just read this quote in a book recently (The 4-Hour Work Week). There seemed to be 1-2 great quotes in each chapter and I wrote a few of them down.

“Plans are for those who choose to limit their options.” -Bogdan Vaida

“I dare you”

How could you think this possibly warrants a dare? Do you really think people are this confrontational in real life? When traveling in other countries, I have only had positive interactions when attempting to find any common ground with locals. In this case, the worst thing that could happen is you share a laugh and they offer for you to try real local cuisine.

Kind of related, the duck tongue and chicken’s foot I had earlier this year in Malaysia wasn’t that bad.

If by common knowledge, you mean that a significant portion of the population believes it, I’m not sure how reliable that evidence that is. People will believe a whole lot of strange stuff.

On topic, even the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page states that it was “popularized by cooks from India living in Great Britain”. Regardless of where it was first created, this is clearly the product of Indian immigrants. I don’t believe their heritage should be ignored just because they moved. Although, I don’t want it to sound like I believe in a 100% black and white distinction here. It’s clearly a fusion dish with British influences. The original chicken tikka was a lot dryer and the “masala” sauce was added to make the dish creamier to appeal to British tastes.

However, I don’t go around claiming General Tso’s chicken isn’t Chinese food, just because it was first made in New York; or that the chimichanga isn’t Mexican food, just because it was originally made in Arizona; or that a Cuban sandwich isn’t Cuban, just because it was first made in Florida. These dishes wouldn’t exist without the immigrants who modified their cultural recipes to adapt to a new environment.

To me, chicken tikka malala is an Indian dish with British influences.

E: Tao to Tso.

This is the funniest thing I’ve read today. It makes so much sense now. 🤣

It was popularised by cooks from India living in Great Britain, but I don’t believe that makes it any less Indian. Just as the chimichanga wasn’t invented in Mexico, but is still considered Mexican food.

Indian food?

No funny allowed.

Dude, it was a joke.

“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.” - Malcolm X

It’s playing natively in the post on the Voyager mobile app.

It’s unfortunate that you are correct. However, when it comes to memorization, trig seems pretty tame. That one mnemonic just about covers it all. Even multiplication tables seem like a larger memorization effort to me.

Complex? It’s just Sohcahtoa my friend

I thought this was early high-school level stuff.

My guess is Costa Rica. If correct, I guess you are technically correct too.

It drives me crazy that people still microwave their food in plastic containers.

Paging FlyingSquid.

Illinois’s 4th congressional district joins the fight!

That’s ok, they bought their own! 😄

For the anti-capitalists, I have a genuine question (sorry, I couldn’t find an “ask a commie” community):

In the capitalist system there is a movement called Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) where people commit to living frugally in an effort to maximize savings and investments. The goal is to achieve a balance that allows you live off a safe withdrawal rate (around 3.5-4%) and then leave the workforce at an earlier than normal age. Some people commit to a life of minimalism and lean-FIRE with under $20k in investment income per year. I believe there is significant overlap with the van-life crowd and other nomadic lifestyles.

Is this lifestyle compatible with, or is there a similar lifestyle within a communist system? To expand, can those with a different set of priorities trade away their later working days in exchange for less material things?

What’s bonkers is that you still haven’t offered up your position so it’s difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn’t a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.