Victor Villas

My main example is rooibos because at least it can make espresso-like strong brews, and is sold at some coffee shops here and there. But I personally prefer Mate too, though for cold drinks :-) And if I’m just in for some caffeine, black tea is the easiest to source (around here). Matcha latte is also growing in popularity! As well as London Fog.

I love all of these, but I’m one of those tea-adventurous coffee drinkers who care about the taste more than the caffeine.

Tldr climate apocalypse for the coffee plant might shift the market towards alternative plants. While technically true that coffee plantations will struggle in the coming years, this just means higher prices and worse average quality off the shelf.

A bit of nothing news, imho.

Coffee alternatives like rooibos are already here and the market is very resistant. Cheap coffee drinkers are irrationally attached to the bad taste they feel nostalgic for. Fancy coffee drinkers will absorb the higher costs without looking for alternatives. It’s only the tea-adventurous coffee drinkers that care about these innovations, usually due to caffeine consumption restrictions which is also a disputed market because decaf coffee quality is improving.

Dark roast does have more caffeine per gram, because there are more beans per gram, because beans become lighter as roasting continues and more CO2 is released.

Counting caffeine per bean indeed darker roasts have less caffeine, but it’s a tiny tiny difference, so the effect of the whole bean getting lighter wins out when measuring caffeine per weight.

As for decaf, all methods affect taste. Swiss Water isn’t inherently better. Water is a chemical solvent. Is this an ad?

Agreed. I’m all in for a Starbucks once in a while, but even though they have great drinks, the roast level is the darkest I’ve ever seen. Saying it’s not “burned” may be technically correct but people don’t say that literally anyway, it means that the coffee characteristics are gone and only roast notes comes through, which is totally true.

Sometimes in the effort of making a topic palatable, it’s stripped of its sprit completely.

If this was published by The Sun or something I’d understand as a positive - at least it’s an article not bent on demonization and at least advances a nuanced and humanized view -, but from the Walrus… this level of two-sidedness is probably in the lower end of what the readership expects already?

Still, I thought it was insightful. I still don’t read as many feature-length trans testimonial/articles like this as I probably should.

Show up and vote non-Poilievre, people. Please.

I implore you. Turnout is the lowest effort good thing you can do to help prevent a cycle of conservatism from wrecking the littlest good things there are to celebrate. It’s too tragic to observe this with ABC-driven municipalities right now, having that on federal level too will be too much.

Any unhinged literate person can, you just have to get a few technical questions right; then you can go on to exercise the opposite of what you answered to get that grade

Unfortunately a lot of office towers are unsuitable to be converted into housing.

How much is “a lot”? I’ve seen several retrofit projects that seemed incredibly challenging take off and be successful, so I don’t really know if there are really that many buildings downtown that would be terminally unsuitable. Specially given the somewhat uninspired and homogenous trend of glass towers, and the wild income potential of rentals in downtown.

It’s called a slope chart and it has several benefits compared to bar charts:

• https://datavizproject.com/data-type/slope-chart/
• https://seeingdata.org/taketime/inside-the-chart-slope-graph/
• https://www.storytellingwithdata.com/blog/2020/7/27/what-is-a-slopegraph

I for one think this is much better than using a bar chart for this use case, as the angled arrows make it immediately obvious the information that matters the most here (the rate of change) while still keeping it contextualized (by relative positions). The bar chart version of this would inevitably look more cluttered and would not be more effective in conveying the incredible progress in solar costs.