The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[prabe]

IMO, anything over $50 a bottle is a waste of money, and anything over $100 a bottle is an IQ test.

I'd quibble, at least a little bit, since barrel-strength expressions tend to be more expensive, and you can cut them to your own taste. For that matter, older stuff in general tends to at least flirt with your "waste of money" line, at least around here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

IMO, anything over $50 a bottle is a waste of money, and anything over $100 a bottle is an IQ test.

I disagree, in part. Depending on the spirit, you can normally find quite good bottles in the $30-$50 range.

But for some particular spirits that improve with aging in casks ... aging costs money (not to mention the loss due to the angel's share).

So there are some sippin' spirits that really are worth more than $50.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh yeah, it's definitely not tenable, but it's hard to argue that it also wouldn't be the most effective government to ever exist while you did have a good philosopher king in there.

Yeah, I can't get into details without violating the politics rules here, but there is a country everyone here knows that has an amazing quality of life. Really wonderful. Like, Anthony Bourdain wouldn't shut up about the place and neither does Daily NAS (although he gives a lot of anti-democratic countries a pass).

But if you scratched the surface and looked at their institutional underpinnings, who decides how the place is run and whose voices you mysteriously don't get to hear (a lot of people, it turns out), it's horrible on paper.

But it's working right now (even for many of the silent people), so everyone just pretends it's a well-run country. It absolutely is not, which will become abundantly clear once the wrong kids take control over the levers of power.

It makes me nuts, but I often feel like the lone voice in the wilderness when I bring it up elsewhere. There are people who get extremely angry at me when I do.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Yeah, I can't get into details without violating the politics rules here, but there is a country everyone here knows that has an amazing quality of life. Really wonderful. Like, Anthony Bourdain wouldn't shut up about the place and neither does Daily NAS (although he gives a lot of anti-democratic countries a pass).

But if you scratched the surface and looked at their institutional underpinnings, who decides how the place is run and whose voices you mysteriously don't get to hear (a lot of people, it turns out), it's horrible on paper.

But it's working right now (even for many of the silent people), so everyone just pretends it's a well-run country. It absolutely is not, which will become abundantly clear once the wrong kids take control over the levers of power.

It makes me nuts, but I often feel like the lone voice in the wilderness when I bring it up elsewhere. There are people who get extremely angry at me when I do.

I think I know what you're talking about.

Say what you will about the military industrial complex, but I would like to live in Outer Heaven and Big Boss makes a great leader.

 

[payn]

To my taste? No, it's not worth it. I hit the point of diminishing returns pretty quickly when spending money on alcohol.

One time, I was at the Scottish Festival in Estes Park, CO. They were auctioning off a whole untapped cask of 100-year old, single-malt scotch for some kind of fundraise event...and right next to it, they had tapped its sister cask for people to sample. (I can't remember the name of the distillery, but apparently it was famous because it was destroyed in a fire? Probably just a legend, to justify the high price tag.) It ended up selling for several thousand dollars.

So anyway. I paid $25 for a half-ounce pour of 100-year old single-malt scotch. And it was good, but it wasn't OmG aMaZiNg...certainly not "$600 a bottle" good. It was better than the 12-year stuff that I had at home, but it didn't taste any different from the 18-year stuff I sometimes get when I'm out on the town. Maybe there are refined palettes out there that can taste a difference in a double-blind test, but personally I think it's a myth. Past a certain point, I think people stop tasting the liquor and start "tasting the price tag," so to speak.

IMO, anything over $50 a bottle is a waste of money, and anything over $100 a bottle is an IQ test.

I love me some Middleton Irish Whisky. It runs 150+ a bottle these days Used to get it for around 100. I was in Vegas and went to a whisky tasting. The guy had the 300 dollar bottle of Middleton and I twisted his arm to let me try a shot. The 150 bottle is much better. I could have two for the price of the 300.

 

[Cadence]

So, off topic. Assuming you've already had some relatives (cousin on one side, cousin once removed on another, maybe one or two more) do some sort of genealogical DNA testing and you had a limited medical one done by a Dr., are there any non-obvious risks for having a genealogical one done with one of the big companies (say Ancestry)?

Is there actually a non-neglibilbe chance that the big insurance companies will get them and legally start scraping them for conditions and coverage? Will some evil scientists hack one and use it to make targeted bio-terror weapons that wouldn't get me otherwise?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, off topic. Assuming you've already had some relatives (cousin on one side, cousin once removed on another, maybe one or two more) do some sort of genealogical DNA testing and you had a limited medical one done by a Dr., are there any non-obvious risks for having a genealogical one done with one of the big companies (say Ancestry)?

Is there actually a non-neglibilbe chance that the big insurance companies will get them and legally start scraping them for conditions and coverage? Will some evil scientists hack one and use it to make targeted bio-terror weapons that wouldn't get me otherwise?

The legal safeguards for your genetic information are ... not great.

As you probably know, the Idaho Killer was caught by police scouring genealogy databases (GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA allow LEO searches).

But even if you think you are protected by the agreement with the company, if the company goes bankrupt (for instance) the ... terms of the contract ... might change. Or, you know, circumstances. Hacking.

In short, we don't have a robust system to protect that information right now, so ... yeah. That said, the specific issue with insurance companies is covered by a lot of state laws as well as GINA under federal law for health insurance (but with caveats).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, off topic. Assuming you've already had some relatives (cousin on one side, cousin once removed on another, maybe one or two more) do some sort of genealogical DNA testing and you had a limited medical one done by a Dr., are there any non-obvious risks for having a genealogical one done with one of the big companies (say Ancestry)?

Is there actually a non-neglibilbe chance that the big insurance companies will get them and legally start scraping them for conditions and coverage? Will some evil scientists hack one and use it to make targeted bio-terror weapons that wouldn't get me otherwise?

So, the good news is you probably can't make things worse at this point. The bad news is that's because there's already enough data out there for them to do the bad stuff in the future anyway.

 

[Cadence]

The legal safeguards for your genetic information are ... not great.

As you probably know, the Idaho Killer was caught by police scouring genealogy databases (GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA allow LEO searches).

But even if you think you are protected by the agreement with the company, if the company goes bankrupt (for instance) the ... terms of the contract ... might change. Or, you know, circumstances. Hacking.

In short, we don't have a robust system to protect that information right now, so ... yeah. That said, the specific issue with insurance companies is covered by a lot of state laws as well as GINA under federal law for health insurance (but with caveats).

If a few cousins (mom's nephew, dad's cousin) hadn't already done it, then it feels like the LEO database search would be a bigger thing. But since they have, is that all already outthere? (Like @Whizbang Dustyboots notes)

And sure, as we've seen recently about what companies say... Erk.

 

[eyeheartawk]

If a few cousins (mom's nephew, dad's cousin) hadn't already done it, then it feels like the LEO database search would be a bigger thing. But since they have, is that all already outthere? (Like @Whizbang Dustyboots notes)

And sure, as we've seen recently about what companies say... Erk.

Yeah, I don't use those things for that reason.

I never volunteer any information to the police and giving easy access to genetic information would certainly be that.