We were having a company dinner at a REALLY fancy place. They were advertisers in our paper. So, the chef had prepared a nice six course meal for the group.
Some colleagues are definitely more McD’s guests rather than fancy restaurants.
Three courses in, here comes a steak and gourmet fries to garnish. Colleague goes hog wild, dumps a bunch of fries on his plate and waves over the waitress. “Hey, do you have a bottle of ketchup? For on the steak?” The look she gave him was one of utter shock. “I, uh, wow, uhm… I’ll check”.
She eventually came back with a bottle, but I was sure the chef would have chased my colleague around with a kitchen knife if he’d heard of the request. That dude was intense.
Steak and fries is a restaurant staple, even if you go really expensive. This place serves 200 euro plus Wagyu cuts, for reference. And it was sublime.
The fries were ‘gourmet’ fries. Basically, you get like a ramekin of fries, which are mostly meant as garnish. It’s not like a full plate of fries.
My colleague liked them so much he did ask for extra fries, which got a mild frown from the waitress.
It’s different if you’re choosing to go somewhere fancy and pay for something expensive and then negate the fanciness, but for a free work meal I’m going to give your colleague the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they like. Don’t gatekeep food, who gives a shit what other people like?
Oh don’t get me wrong, it was wildly entertaining. I’m more of a cheap pizza guy anyway. Our other work dinners were at a local steak restaurant which was much more everyone’s vibe.
Still, it was hilarious to see someone order ketchup with a 200 euro wagyu cut, prior to having tasted the thing. (Pure perfection, best steak ever)
Well, that was the price on the menu, but not what we paid :D
As mentioned, the restaurant was one of our advertisers. We helped them plan their media campaign, did the printed menu’s, few other promotional things like that. So the owner/chef invited us to basically dine ‘at cost’ as a thank you. He also planned the six course meal for the entire group so he could cook stuff that he wanted to show off.
So basically… we got an expensive restaurant at a cheap restaurant price. Our company also had about 10 people, so it wasn’t too extravagant.
“Why doesn’t Uber specific hardware that the vendor DEMANDED be put on a switch that we don’t have credentials for not work seamlessly with the network?!?”
“Because it doesn’t confirm to the standards of TCP/IP, and requires a dual NIC solution because God forbid they design their system to allow basic routing.”
“You just don’t know what you’re doing!”
“No, I’m just not going to volunteer myself to learn FCoIP so that your one special system has the support it needs until we deprecate it in six months.”
Well, going back and forth is another problem. You should come up with one next step to get closer to solving the problem.
For example, I’m living paycheck to paycheck and don’t have enough to save for “big expense.” The next step is to cut something or find a side job to break the paycheck to paycheck cycle. Once you have a small savings, you can take more risks, like look for a better job, buy stuff in bulk to save money longer term, etc.
You don’t need to solve the entire problem, just figure out what the next baby step toward a solution is.
It’s ultimately easy to tell apart because the things in our control have vastly different qualities from those which are not. Quoth Epictetus:
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.
Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.
Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, “You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.” And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.
Now the list of things under our control might seem small – but it’s actually real control. You can’t control that an arrow you shoot will hit the target, a gust of wind may take it away and you’re not controlling the wind. Have the opinion (under your control) that you shall hit, and that gust of wind comes, and when you miss you’ll be wretched, so don’t have that opinion. But still do take that shot unless it’s impossible, in which case find a possible one.
That’s not chili, I see beans, so it appears to be a bean soup or bean stew, but I concur, a bit of cocoa and/or a touch of cinnamon can really elevate a chili or bean stew.
Huh, I didn’t know chili had such an incredibly strict definition. Does this strict definition mean that adding anything extra no longer makes it chili? If so is chocolate, cocoa, or cinnamon also included in this super strict definition? If not then isn’t adding these things make it some kind of “stew” not chili? Or is it just beans that make this dish magically transform into something else?
I’d love to see this definition. Specifically where it says “unless it has beans, then it becomes something else”
Today you learned! It’s always a wonderful feeling to learn new things!
Chocolate, cocoa, and cinnamon are flavorings and spices. Those are allowed in Chile. Chili is meat, tomato, onion, and spices. And yes, you can use chili as a base for a nice veggie stew with the addition of beans or q lot of other veggies!
Oooh sorry that’s incorrect. No I think you’ve confused “Chili” and “Chili con carne”. Chili doesn’t have meat, and if you add it then you have “Chill con carne” (con carne = with meat)
We have to be ridiculously gatekeepy and precise in our words, of course.
Chile con carne is the Mexican dish you are referencing. Chili is a beef dish that originated in Texas and does not contain beans or other starchy vegetables. Chili con carne isn’t a thing. You are confusing two similar things.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.