tehsuk

"React as the stack"? If you're talking about the very top of the stack, sure. Not sure how React replaces .NET otherwise to be honest. Saying that the React (I assume Node on the backend) and overall JS ecosystem is stable compared to modern .NET is an interesting take to be sure :)

Also I feel that the author might have given up on .NET just at it became really good. It's been very consistent for many many years now. The last few years major upgrades (from .NET 5 I feel) have been very simple. I also had an adjustment period from older WF / EF / MVC etc somewehere around when .NET Core 3 hit, but I feel that the fundamental patterns have carried over well.

Big disclaimer: I don't use .NET on the frontend. Blazor is interesting but would probably not consider it for anything more than simple internal tools.

This scrolls alright in Chrome but lags horribly when scrolling on Firefox. Especially when the larger animations come into view.

I'm thinking about what this post explains more clearly than I can:

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta

Seems to me that these kind of systems, by design, tick all three boxes. I've had many discussions with people that let agent systems read and act on their incoming email for instance, and I think it's utter insanity from a security perspective.

Anything that gives any sort of system access to sensitive data and lets agents carry out actions on basically unchecked input sounds like a complete security and privacy nightmare by design.

School lunches in Sweden are free.

The paper goes on with "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water". It wasn't in my quote, but the paper completely disregards whisky bottled at higher ABV%. Something I think is important when talking about dilution.

"rare" is hugely overstating things, even for the "enthusiast" market.

I said "becoming increasingly rare", which I stand by.

I have heard of people who add a drop of water to a 70% whisky but I can't say I understand why. Perhaps it's individual but I just find I get a numb feeling in my mouth with anything 60% or above, which simply feels like it lessens the flavors.

I've had one whisky that was bottled at close to 70%, and it's certainly an "evaporating" feeling. For me it's situational, sometimes a 55% whisky goes down smoothly, sometimes a 46% one is harsh. The longer the tastings become, the harder it becomes for a (relatively) low ABV% whisky to compete with bold, 55%+ ones. Tasting order and length, mood, food, so many variables.

There are lot of small, annoying details.

"Many whiskies, especially those that are made on the Scottish island of Isley, have a typical smoky taste that develops when malted barley is smoked on peat fire."

The smoke comes from the drying step in the malting process, which was/is traditionally done by burning peat. "Malted barley is smoked" sounds weird and incorrect. Nitpicking, sure, but can be spotted by anyone familiar with the process.

The bulk of Scotch whisky production, both single malt and blended, is aimed at filling supermarket shelves because that's where the highest volumes of sales and profit come from. These products are not aimed at enthusiasts.

Yes. The paper, however, implies that even enthusiasts dilute their whisky further below 40% ABV. For a nerdy article, that's missing most of the "enthusiast" market segment.

That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both

The paper states "Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water", which is clearly not always true, certainly not in nerdy circles.

Whiskey is distilled and casked at a high % abv (e.g. 60-70) and then diluted before drinking to something less than that, e.g. 45%, 40% or lower. That dilution might take place before bottling, after bottling, or a combination of both. But (hopefully) very few people make the mistake of drinking 70% alcohol without diluting it first. That the dilution was left to the consumer rather than happens in the factory is just a detail. It doesn't really change how whisky is distilled (70%) and later consumed (~40% or something higher but still hopefully not 70...).

I'd say that most enthusiast do not dilute most of their cask strength whisky down to anywhere near 40% ABV if they can help it. My argument is that the paper 's generalization is _very_ broad.

40% is still a thing in my group, but it’s rare that water gets added, that’s only done with higher strengths.

That's kind of my point too, I failed to express it well enough. The paper author asserts that 40% whiskies are diluted by enthusiast, and that statement can be challenged in multiple ways! Either by not going for 40% whiskies, or by going for them and not diluting them.

I'd say it highly depends on what you're starting with. There's a huge difference between a basic 40% entry level malt/blend and a 60% cask strength bottling. I usually try without water first, and then fine tune if I find that particular whisky too harsh.

Whisky is distilled to around 70% alcohol by volume (vol-%) then diluted to about 40 vol-%

Might be true for the vast majority of whisky, but once you start to hit enthusiast territory, there's whisky from 40% to above 60% ABV. Some of those (including but not limited to "cask strength" bottlings) are certainly made for diluting further. Or rather, to give the customer the option to dilute to taste.

Before bottling, the whisky is diluted to around 40 vol-% by the addition of water, which changes the taste significantly. Whisky enthusiasts often also add a few drops of water to the spirit before drinking in order to further enhance the taste.

I'd say that's simply not true, at least for my "enthusiast" circles. 40% whiskies are becoming increasingly rare in those groups.

Put your money in low risk investments. Google "best low-risk investments" - there are many sites with lists. Invest in near-zero risk investments and park your money there. Do not touch it.

"Near-zero risk" means near zero profits. For a ten year horizon, stock index funds are fine but generally considered "high risk". As the ten year point approaches, slowly re-balance towards low-risk assets. Totally agree on staying away from options, anything leveraged or other gambles.

Look at the general trend of stock market. Invest only when it is going up. Never bet against market. If you invest, buy only stocks or indices you plan to hold for ten years. Never sell. Make sure to have stop losses added to do that for you. When those stop losses get executed frequently, get out of the market. Do not try to do value plays. You may not live enough to see the market reversal.

This would be trying to time the market, which is a bad idea. Don't. You don't know which way the stock market is going until after the fact. The advice above is a quick path to buying high and selling low. Instead, invest the same amount every month and just don't touch it! Time in the market is what matters.