Every time I've asked them about an app for Samsung or LG tvs - the two most popular brands they've pushed back "we're volunteers, we don't use those TVs, it's not on our to-do list but feel free to code it yourself". They aren't open to being paid to develop it either.
Interesting, I have a Samsung TV but I'v never even considered running Jellyfin as a native app. I keep the TV off the internet so it can't be a spy box. The Chromecast with Google TV is so affordable and so great, I just use that everywhere. To be clear I'm not telling you you're wrong for wanting to do it on the TV, that's a personal preference, I'm just sharing how I do it in case it helps.
I ultimately ended up getting an nvidia shield, but at that point it solved my biggest gripe with plex so I just switched back to plex and have been happy with it.
Literally just cook with it. The main thing with everything except for teflon pans is you need to bring them up to temp before cooking, and you need to use some fat of some kind (olive oil, butter, whatever). The oil itself will provide the "non stick" until it's seasoned, and it'll also do the seasoning. You can waste a bunch of time doing seasoning as a separate step (light coating of oil, bring up to smoke point, let cool, repeat) but this is mostly just a giant waste of time. Just cook on the dang thing, and don't be afraid to toss in a chunk of butter or some oil. It won't kill ya :-)
Lmao. Hapless beginner follows your advice, decides to scramble some eggs on day 1 with his badly-factory-seasoned Lodge pan. Egg glue now encrusts his shiny new pan. What do? Wash with soap? BAD NOOB - that's bad for the seasoning. Scrape it off with steel wool? BAD NOOB - that's even worse for the seasoning.
(If you do this, fellow noob, I think oil + a scrubber sponge got me out of the predicament)
Sigh... I don't know how the internet has convinced people this shit requires some magic incantation to cook eggs. I promise you I can cook eggs in any brand new lodge pan you hand me without issue. In fact if you sand blast the factory seasoning off it first and give it to me shiny I can still do it. And so can you. It requires the exact same skills as cooking with stainless steel which won't take a season no matter how hard you try. Step 1: Bring it up to temp (confirm by tossing some flecks of water in it, if they bead, it's up to temp). Step 2, throw a knob of butter in it and coat the damn pan. Fat is your friend, don't be shy with it. Step 3: Cook the eggs. If a little bit sticks that's fine. You probably should have used more butter - but no worries - just go wash it off in the sink the same way you'd wash anything else. It's a giant piece of iron - you aren't going to hurt it with a little soap, water and elbow grease. When you are done dry it off on the stove and hit it with a little grease/oil/fat to keep it from rusting. If you forget and it rusts... still no big deal - scrub off the rust, give it a little grease and bobs your uncle. This shit is only hard if you decide it is.
Source: Been cooking exclusively on carbon steel, cast iron and stainless for years.
Yes, scrambled eggs works wonderfully in a cast iron skillet but it needs to be well worn in. On a new pan you'll end up with an awful mess. But feel free to go to town on that with washing up liquid, steel wool and a sandblaster if you want. There isn't some magical pixie dust on it you need to worry about rubbing off. Just dry it properly after and oil it before you put it away. Keep frying in it regularly and it'll be fine. A brief hiccup in your skillet's breaking-in process.
Edit: In fact we had scrambled eggs as part of dinner this evening (with rice, chilli crisp, garlic mushrooms and bak choi) and the pan is currently in the sink full of water, where it will remain until tomorrow morning because it's Friday night, dammit, and it will be fine.
I made the mistake of moving for a role back in 2018. Money was super good but it was to a location I wouldn't want to be if the role wasn't there. Literally 45 days after we completed the move they decided to eliminate the role entirely. Between the move out and the move back the cost was something like $25K and they didn't provide anything to offset it. Never again.
I've lived all over the country (35ish moves in 41 years). There are a lot of things you can do to make other areas more appealing vs California (or the west coast in genera), but one thing you can't really fix is the weather. A lot of people really hate super cold winters or super hot humid summers, and for them there is no replacement for the rather unique climate conditions that exist along the west coast.
Here is a map of the world which shows where that relatively mild west coast climate exists - it exceedingly rare:
Work from office is better for people who LIKE work from office if everyone does it. The people who don't want to go specifically don't want to, to avoid those folks that want access to interrupt everyone around them. Honestly, I feel like work from office would suck less if the people who wanted it so badly weren't there. The commute would still suck but at least you wouldn't have the extroverts constantly wrecking the productivity of everyone in the blast area around them.
You can blame detergent regulations for this. About a decade or so back phosphates were banned from detergents. The problem is that was the thing that made them work really well. In order to compensate for less effective detergents, cycle times have gotten longer.
Phosphate detergents are still available in commercial soaps, but I don't recommend skirting the regs here as they had some solid reasoning (algae blooms). Instead you can get away with shorter cycles by doing 2 things.
First - run your tap until the water is hot before starting the cycle, and second, use a booster powder instead of only using a pod or the main detergent door. These 2 things will get significantly more gunk off your food during that first rinse phase. As a result you may be able to get away with the "quick" cycle.
Funnily, if you ask around outside America, you'll get the opposite advice: a cold water connection gives better cleaning, because starch and protein do not coagulate in the initial rinse[0]. I suppose conventional wisdom only serves the status quo. Which effect is actually greater? Have yet to find a scientific test.
[0] Compare what you find with
dishwasher hot water site:reddit.com
dishwasher hot water site:forums.whirlpool.net.au
spülmaschine warmwasser forum
PS: dishwashers with condensation drying cool the tub with water for the next run stored in a tank beside it. This is probably why European brands have a reputation of not drying in the US.
I think the long cycles are more related to energy efficiency regulations, most dishwashers default to a 3h 'eco' cycle with 50 degC, but also have a 1h 65 degC cycle.
The hot water tip does not apply in most parts of the world I think as the heating is done in the dishwasher (hence the temperature settings).
I wish HN had a forum signature like function so I could just put a "all of my comments written through the lens of living in the United States".
Most US dishwashers require you to hook up to hot water supply line. Problem is since they only use a gallon or two of water, if you don't run the tap first you are very likely feeding it lukewarm water. There are indeed heating elements but they don't get the water up to temp immediately - so starting things off already hot tends to help.
Dishwashers contain a heating element no? Not sure if booster powder is a specific product but yeah detergent on the little lip of the main detergent door is a significant help.
For those interested, here is a wonderful 30min deep dive by none other than Technology Connections about dishwashers and detergent usage: https://youtu.be/_rBO8neWw04
Removing phosphates from dishwasher detergent was stupid because phosphates are measured in the discharge water from the waste treatment plants where it is regulated, and they can be dealt with chemically. All removing phosphates did was save a tiny amount of money on water treatment. Zero effect on the environment. Total greenwashing like plastic wish-cycling.
If you want zero effort spotless dishes, just mix STPP in a 1:4 ratio with cheap powdered detergent.
You only throw fertilizer down on the lawn a couple times a year if at all and of course most of it is taken up by the plants you are feeding it to, whereas most people wash their dishes at least once a day and all of that water ends up down the drain.
That's a whole other animal. I mean why is California always dealing with water shortages but still growing almonds? My comments here are talking about residential stuff. I think I mentioned above that commercial detergents also still have phosphates. The whole 2 sets of rules thing is pretty common in the US shrug
Well but this is my point. I don’t know the ratios resident/industrial for phosphates, it was an honest question. But for water, I do know the numbers. Indoor residential use isn’t even a rounding error. So why are Californians taking crappy showers with low flow showers when it doesn’t even make any difference?
If we really want to solve these problems and not just feel good about ourselves we should have a different set of policies.
I love how you just gloss over 'solid reasoning' and 'still available in commercial soaps'. If it's bad enough to be taken out of residential use it should be taken out of commercial use. There should not be separate classes of what people are allowed to do in America. Things like this previously drove me to be an a*hole libertarian out of frustration.
I think all the people who have washers and dryers in their own homes would disagree that having a laundromat on their street would be a value add. It would just bring traffic from outside of their neighborhood into it.
I'm not making a case for or against, but instead saying this is a matter of perspective based on who's making the judgement call.
You could say the same about restaurants, stores, or streets themselves.
Those people can choose to live in the woods away from society if that’s a problem. The vast majority of people like having things they need within a few minutes of their home—particularly people who aren’t in HOA-governed cookie cutter suburbs.
This is factually incorrect and easily verifiable so. The vast majority - 80% of the US population prefers single family homes. There are 138 Million households in the US and fully half - 68 million - reside in owner occupied single family homes, another ~15% (about 44 million people) live in rented single family homes. This is just the people who have achieved the desired outcome. There are another 15% of people who would prefer to be in one, but just haven't gotten there yet.
Very few people actually want to be stacked on top of each other and packed in like sardines around a bunch of loud shops and offices. Very few people want to walk through dirty city streets stepping over feces and around homeless people or forced to be smushed in with strangers on public transportation to grab their groceries. They want to be 5-10 minutes away from that stuff in a car which they can afford to own. The reason a lot of people are putting up with this anyway is an affordability issue only. They are forced to work in a handful of cities to be paid well and the cost of parking and the congestion in these cities make it impractical to own a car or commute.
I obviously know there is a slice of people who actually do just love the hell out of city life and wouldn't trade NYC or SF for the world, but to claim that this is the vast majority is demonstrably false.
Edit: Adding a source. There are many, but this one is nice in that it breaks it out by age in addition to overall and breaks out actual vs preferred.
That's all very nice but the calculations would change quite quickly if people had to pay for the upkeep of the roads they use for their cars. Cities for the most part use their productive core to subsidise the unproductive suburbs until they inevitably go bankrupt when the roads build 40 years ago need to be replaced.
This. The preferences are obviously driven by the widespread subsidies provided to suburban living. Take that away and those preferences will shift rapidly.
Looking at your average suburb, there are about 110 houses on quarter acre lots per mile of paved 2 lane road within said suburb, plus an additional bit to connect to an arterial street (which also connects other suburbs) and back out to main drags that have businesses and such.
Starting with the street the houses are actually on, it costs approx $300-$500K to repave 1 mile of residential 2 lane undivided road. Using the upper end we've got $500,000 / 110 houses / 20 year lifespan = $18/mo per household. A rounding error against property taxes.
Now lets assume that per mile of suburb, you also have 3 miles of connecting minor arterial roads those houses also need to account for. These run $400-$800K per mile, and again we'll take the upper limit here. So $800K * 3 / 110 / 20 = $90/mo
So our grand total is $108/mo or $1,306/year. The average American pays $2500/year in property taxes already. I don't think the extra $108/mo is going to change peoples preferences for not being packed in on top of each other. I also don't think that these folks are contributing zero to this now. The gas at the pump is taxed and earmarked for road improvement, some of their property tax goes to it as well.
We can do the same thing for power, water, et cetera. Yes over the lifetime of suburban living a single person probably needs to account for something like $250K of extra infrastructure their sprawl requires, but that's not a lot to pay over a lifetime and a lot of it is already baked into the initial cost of their house (Builders had to pave those suburbs, wire & plumb the neighborhood and that cost is baked into those initial home sales).
I very probably can't make a similar argument for truly rural homes - but a lot of those are farms and I'm sure that complicates things quite a bit - as subsidizing rural farms benefits anyone who eats food from those farms.
It's not just the direct subsidies, it's also the massive amounts of free parking in both suburbs and cities that have distorted the built environment, and things like the mortgage interest deduction + the capital gains tax exemption that have made single-family homeownership cheaper than it would otherwise be.
You’ve made a few massive leaps by assuming a single family home can’t possibly have a shop nearby, and that if it did it’d mean people are dodging feces.
Because you can literally go just about anywhere outside of America and see that people live in homes right next to businesses and… it’s fine. We’re not dodging feces and homeless people. Frankly, most places I’ve been to and lived have been much cleaner than my old US homes despite the fact I’m literally a 2 minute walk from a two separate stores and several restaurants in an area where everyone lives in detached homes.
That rant reads like fearmongering from a person with little outside exposure.
The feces and homeless comments were specifically geared towards the sort of people packing taking place in SF. I think there is some sort of rule about making assumptions about commentors, but as far as exposure, I have it in spades. First I was actually homeless in my teens, second through a combination of some time in the military, and a general wanderlust I've moved about 35 times in the 41 years I've been kicking around for including:
Seattle area (Seattle itself and most of the Puget sound - Olympia, Tacoma, Burien, Keyport, Bremerton, Poulsbo, bla bla too many to count here)
Several stents in California from San Diego to long beach and everything in between
Oregon,
Michigan,
Texas,
Georgia,
New Hampshire,
Mexico (specifically 6 months in playa del carmen),
North Carolina,
Indiana
And of course the military bits like Kuwait, Iraq and a few other gnarlies
I'm sure I'm missing some here, but the point is I've lived in many more and varied places than the average joe. The only real assumption I made here is that we were talking about the US. I will grant you if you are talking about places outside of the US it changes the math quite a bit.
