There was once a term used for this, first world (US and allies) second world (USSR and allies) and third world (neutral-ish nations)

If someone from the UK is saying this, my god it must be bad.

The original company was never Italian. The founder was Italian, but the company was incorporated in German Alsace, which then became French Alsace after the Great War. There was a brief attempt at a revival in Italy in the late 80s, early 90s, but it didn’t really go anywhere. Today’s company is French and is mostly controlled by the Croat Rimac (and partially by Porsche, which owns VW, which owns Porsche)

In the US coffee = filter coffee, espresso = espresso

In Italy coffee = espresso, dirty water = filter coffee

even though every restaurant has an espresso machine it doesn’t mean they clean it, and doesn’t mean their staff knows how to use it properly. Water temps too high, too much coffee grounds, over compressed, lowest quality beans. Fucking everywhere. It’s awful.

And this is why, as an Italian, I can’t drink espresso anywhere in the world. 9/10 is just awful

Coffee made with a Moka pot

What you call mocha should actually be called Mocaccino, although it’s more similar to what we call Marocchino in Italy. They’re both derived from the “Bicerin”, a drink typical of Turin.

Marocchino is like a Cappuccino with powdered cocoa (mix the espresso and cocoa before pouring the milk).

Mocaccino is instead made up of three layers, a layer of melted chocolate, then a layer of espresso, then a layer of frothy milk.

Afaik they’re not massively popular in Italy, but here in the north I see Marocchino more often than Mocaccino.

PS: if you want to pronounce them correctly, “chi” and “che” are pronounced “ki” and “ke”, while “ci” and “ce” are pronounced “chi” and “che”.

Those terms are an American invention. As for Italy

• Latte = plain old milk. Can be cold or hot, it’s milk
• Caffelatte = probably the origin of the American “latte”, literally means coffee and milk, usually made and home with cold or hot milk and moka coffee
• Latte macchiato = big cup of milk, frothy on top, with a shot of espresso in it
• Caffè macchiato = espresso with a shot of milk, can be frothy

welp to buy some real estate real quick before this interstellar tourism boom shoots up the prices

It’s not about the distro. Most distros out right now are pretty good. What you need is hardware that lots of people want to buy with Linux installed on it as the default choice. Normal people don’t want to install any OS, be it Linux, Windows, MacOS or BSD. Whatever comes by default, it’s good.

I’m pretty sure that right now the most popular Linux distros are ChromeOS and SteamOS. I wonder why

Like the time Elon Musk called the diver who saved the kids trapped in a flooded cave a pedo just because he managed to do so before he could build his"robot" idea?

You could extract their flavor, fill it with added sugars, saturated fats, preservatives and food coloring

He did find Jesus and then realized it to be a bit problematic that he couldn’t fully control it, so he put his KGB friend at the head of the Russian Orthodoxy so now Jesus says what Putin wants him to say

If you want you can go first class you know. It’s more or less as much as it was in the 50s and you get possibly even more luxury. Just be ready to pay 5k instead of a hundred bucks

Ok, let’s try again. Those who like the left usually don’t vote for the GOP, agree?

Then, for them, the options are three, either vote Dems, vote third party or don’t vote. Now, if, like in the example of before, these people are that 5%, do you agree that not voting or voting a third party will result in the GOP winning, while voting for the Dems will result in the Dems winning?

If you think that the Dems and the GOP are one and the same, then fine. If instead you’d rather the Dems win, then do you agree that these people should vote Dems rather than do nothing or vote for a third party, which would lead to a GOP win?

Btw, this is why there’s no third party in a fptp system and there can never be one. Your votes are better spent on the candidate you dislike less rather than on the one you actually like, because voting for the one you like will inevitably result in the one you really dislike going to power.

Edit:btw watch that cgp grey video, it’s really good. He’s really good in general tbh, great guy, very good at explaining.

You don’t understand the basics of a First Past The Post system.

Let’s say, for example’s sake, that 52% of the people voting tend left, while 48% tend right, and let’s also remove all the state, gerrymandering and grand elector bullshit for a moment (I know, so much bullshit)

If everyone were to only vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, come November, the Democratic Party would win with 52% of the votes and secure the presidency. Now let’s assume that there’s a third party, let’s call it “The True Left Party” and let’s say they can have a very successful campaign and secure 5% of the votes, which would come from the left leaning side of the voting pool, aka from those who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic Party. Now come November the results would look like this: Republicans still at 48%, Democrats now at 47% and True Left at 5%, so now the Republican Party wins and Trump becomes president.

This is how voting for a third party only helps your enemy. If I were the Republicans, I’d be turbo donating to any left party right now. Divide et Impera as the Romans said.

my point is that disaffected leftists voting for third parties […] does not mean support for Trump

With the current American Electoral law, it kind of does. Let’s say that 5% of the votes instead of going to the Democrats go to some other third party. In an election this close, where both parties are likely to get between 48 and 52% of the votes, this would mean ensuring the victory of the Republicans.

This is a huge problem with the FPTP system, but that’s the law for this election. It would be great to change it, but that’s talk for the next one. Voting for a third party ensures that the party you like the least will win in a FPTP system. CGP explains it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Not quite accurate. Voting third party signals that third party platforms are more popular, and can shift the larger parties.

Maybe, but you are still conceding these elections.

Organizing and mass protesting can get meaningful change, same as striking. Forcing concessions is the way true change has occured historically, not simply at the ballot box.

You can definitely do this as well as voting for the party that best represents you. If you don’t vote, it means you leave the choice of who will rule the country to the others. At least vote for the candidate that you think is more likely to listen to your protests, rather than forfeiting the elections in favor of the candidate that you know for sure will never listen to you.

If you don’t vote, it means you are ok with either one and don’t care enough either way to go to the ballot.

Not voting it’s not a third option, it’s a statement that you don’t care about either of the two options. Voting a third candidate is instead simply useless and in practice amounts to the same thing as not voting or voting with a blank ballot.

So in practice the options are: voting for the Democrats, voting for the Republicans, doing nothing and being ok with either one winning or leaving the fucking country.

And that was when, pray tell?

Quora ahahahah

Also a whole block of text all to say he fought against ISIS and al-Qaeda. I wonder who else fought against them… Oh yeah, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Syria and pretty much every other country they came in contact with.

Now that they are mostly gone, the Levant is more stable. I wonder if he helped stabilize or destabilize the region…

Still no sauce