This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Coffee

1356710

Comments

  • edited December 2009
    Yeah, what do the French and Italians know...other than how to make tasty, tasty foods.
    If you're eating your coffee, you're doing it wrong.
    Yes I'm completely aware of chocolate coated coffee beans. They don't count, the joke is about coffee the beverage, not the general term.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • If you're eating your coffee, you're doing it wrong.
    Nom nom nom. Or rather, ????????. :3
  • I bought a french press coffee maker today and got my favorite roast ground for using a press. We'll see how it goes tomorrow.
  • I've starting drinking a lot of coffee recently with a newly purchased french press. I find that the brew is much tastier using this method as opposed to other drip based methods.
  • French press coffee is the best thing ever.
  • I gave up general coffee drinking, I haven't had press pot coffee in months. I only have coffee when my room mate a pot of drip coffee.
  • Put coffee inside of me.
  • I'm in the minority that can't stand coffee of any sort. It just tastes nasty to me.
  • Regular coffee, I can't deal with, milk/sugar/whatever. It just tastes like bitter water to me. Espresso, on the other hand, I'm okay with. I guess the concentrated-ness of it makes it fine, whereas coffee on its own feels/tastes to me literally like hot water with some bitter stuff in it.

    Granted, I usually take my espresso in some sort of froofy mocha form, but blame my sweet tooth for that one.
  • edited April 2011
    I generally find most coffee tastes like terrible. I drink large amounts of tea for my caffine fix.
    Post edited by open_sketchbook on
  • I wonder what the overlap is between people who like coffee and people who like beer. We need a Venn diagram.
  • I would not be in the overlap. Coffee, yes. Beer, not so much yes.
  • I drink WAY too much Coffee and tea. My teacup is a repurposed Liter thermos, and I have a 20 ounce starbucks mug that I use alongside it, because it takes about a half hour for the thermos to cool down to a drinkable temperature.
  • I wonder what the overlap is between people who like coffee and people who like beer. We need a Venn diagram.
    I didn't actually like coffee until I started enjoying Guinness.
    Beer, not so much yes.
    Have you tried a good coffee stout? Something dark and roasty, on the dry side?
  • I'm in the minority that can't stand coffee of any sort. It just tastes nasty to me.
  • I've really limited my coffee consumption. I have a morning cup every two or three days, and sometimes an afternoon cup (though I've been starting to switch that with tea). When I'm going out with friends at night, I'll have an espresso at the cafe.

    Of course, this will all change when I finish getting in the habit of waking up early and eating breakfast at home. We have a total of six different coffee-making apparati in our apartment (french presses, percolators, drips, espresso machine).
  • edited July 2012
    Which U.S. states have the most number of Starbucks. It's pretty obvious, however D.C. shouldn't fucking count.

    image

    Edit: it's per capita. Nevermind. Seems a bit misleading.
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • I think that map is calculating per capita based on square footage of the state. They should do it per population of the state.
  • edited July 2012
    I think that map is calculating per capita based on square footage of the state. They should do it per population of the state.
    Per Capita is always per person, Scott.

    Wikipedia:

    Per capita is a Latin prepositional phrase: per (preposition, taking the accusative case, meaning "by, by means of") and capita (accusative plural of the noun caput, "head"). The phrase thus means "by heads" or "for each head", i.e. per individual or per person. The term is used in a wide variety of social sciences and statistical research contexts, including government statistics, economic indicators, and built environment studies.
    It is commonly and usually used in the field of statistics in place of saying "for each person" or "per person".[1] It is also used in wills to indicate that each of the named beneficiaries should receive, by devise or bequest, equal shares of the estate. This is in contrast to a per stirpes division, in which each branch (Latin stirps, plural stirpes) of the inheriting family inherits an equal share of the estate.
    Post edited by Neito on
  • If it's actually per person, then how come Pennsylvania doesn't have more? Their huge swaths of empty forest with no people wouldn't be counting against them.
  • If it's actually per person, then how come Pennsylvania doesn't have more? Their huge swaths of empty forest with no people wouldn't be counting against them.
    Just going to be a guess, but I'm going to say that it's probably because there's fewer Starbucks in Pennsylvania than in other places.
  • So I guess Alaska has what, 1 or 2 Starbucks to make the list, good for them.
  • If it's actually per person, then how come Pennsylvania doesn't have more? Their huge swaths of empty forest with no people wouldn't be counting against them.
    Just going to be a guess, but I'm going to say that it's probably because there's fewer Starbucks in Pennsylvania than in other places.
    Let's check Google Maps.

    http://goo.gl/maps/rzH7
  • If it's actually per person, then how come Pennsylvania doesn't have more? Their huge swaths of empty forest with no people wouldn't be counting against them.
    Just going to be a guess, but I'm going to say that it's probably because there's fewer Starbucks in Pennsylvania than in other places.
    Let's check Google Maps.

    http://goo.gl/maps/rzH7
    Starbucks hates West Virginia.
  • Compare the Philly map to the Boston map (this apparently is just mapping every Starbucks visible at that zoom level). Eastern Mass is basically one giant Starbuck at that zoom level, Philly clearly has only a few. Plus, it seems that the more "rural" areas of Philly have few to no Starbucks, whereas Massachusetts barely has rural areas.

    Also, that's just raw numbers of Starbucks, when what we need is Starbucks/person.

    Also, the point is moot because it literally says on that map that it's per capita, which is a specific term with a specific meaning.
  • edited July 2012
    I would not base your opinions on Philadelphia. Consider Pittsburgh. I know it's not so much blue collar steel man town anymore, but I'm going to assume for the moment that Starbucks is less popular there. They still have them, but it's not the "Starbucks on every corner" phenomenon that some cities experience, hence PA being #35 on the list.

    Edit: And here's a stretch for you. Amish represent 0.5% of the PA population. Don't see them sippin' Starbucks.

    PA is also ranked #24 in terms of income, and Starbucks is expensive. Throw in a couple factors affecting its popularity, and it's not unreasonable to fall from #24 in income to #35 in Starbucks consumption.
    Post edited by Matt on
  • edited July 2012
    My states are number 33 and 42. I won't say that's a point of pride, 'cause that just feels bitchy and pretentious, but I can't say I'm disappointed either.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • I think that map is calculating per capita based on square footage of the state. They should do it per population of the state.
    Nobody ever taught you to not go full retard? Get a fucking dictionary along side your history book for them middle ages before the classical era.
  • Anyone done cold pressed coffee?
  • edited July 2012
    If it's actually per person, then how come Pennsylvania doesn't have more? Their huge swaths of empty forest with no people wouldn't be counting against them.
    That isn't empty, that's Pennsytucky.
    Post edited by George Patches on
Sign In or Register to comment.