Yeah no idea why you're getting down voted. Lo is gender neutral, and can be used with nouns of either gender. However it is primarily used in conjunction with adjectives, not so much nouns.
>The Mezli founders teamed up with Eric Minnich, a classically trained chef with experience at Michelin-starred restaurants, to develop a menu that a robot can confidently execute 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Because there are no humans involved or expensive rent to pay, that means you can get a cauliflower and turmeric rice bowl for $4.99.
> Our human-powered ghost kitchen is dishing out our Mediterranean menu from our San Mateo location (Stop by! https://order.mezli.com). At the same time, we’re building our full-scale food-safe v2 prototype and are shooting to have it up and serving customers later this month. Once our auto-kitchen is working reliably and is robust enough to handle a few knocks, we’re going to start forward-deploying it to parking lots and garages in the Bay Area to test out our operational model. Then, it’ll be time to build multiple auto-kitchens and eventually develop multiple concepts so each auto-kitchen rotates to a new menu on a regular cadence.
I think people underestimate that Americans have a hunger for homogeneity when they go out for fast food. Everywhere in the continental United States, a hamburger from McDonald's tastes the same. If I find a few things I like from a restaurant, that's what I am going there for. If I want to be surprised, I will go somewhere new.
Just want to say thanks for responding to this message. It's really nice to see how you replied and explained your roadmap. It shows you're really interested in making this work
Comments like these make my day, I'm always happy to respond :)
And it's a very reasonable concern. Admittedly, I get ~2mbps/down at home so it takes a bit to load and I'd been surprised that nobody else had commented on this until today. I've pushed it to the top of our v2.2 roadmap so it's our highest immediate focus now (will have a fix within a week).
Just trying to build this one step at a time wherever the community takes it!
Another bit of feedback: You have external links, such as the deep linking one [1] and it'd be great (and expected behavior) to have those open in a new tab rather than open in the current tab and lost my in-progress work.
Followup: I created a test and clicked the preview link and it shows "page not found". Not sure if it's because it takes a while or what, but if so then there should be a note somewhere about that. Also I have no idea how to publish this thing. I'd expect the publish option to be somewhere near the preview link. I then checked settings to see if it'd be in there for some reason but nope. However I did see the detail information. Honestly I think this should be the first screen and given a different name (possibly just "Details") since I wouldn't really classify these things as Settings. If I wasn't poking around I would have just assumed you weren't able to change these details because of that.
I see there's a "tour" option, but just wanted to let you know my reactions based on intuition since that's what most people will be going off of.
So by default, pages come unpublished (so it says page not found), but recently the suggestion has been made to publicize pages by default and we're think that would be a big help here, but we'll also reconsider moving the publish select to a button near your profile link. In the meantime you can update the "Visibility" under "Settings" (I also agree this would be better as details), but admittedly it's a bit mislabeled and without any tour or onboarding it's easy to see why it's hard to find. I'll take a good look at how it can be improved this over the next week.
Let me know if you have any more feedback, this was super helpful!
Oh okay I see what happened. When I was looking at the "preview mode" text on the side with the link above it I jumped to conclusions and thought that was a preview link. Without really reading the link I just thought it made sense due to their proximity and that I hadn't published yet.
As for the visibility link, I see it now. The issue there is my intuition wouldn't have thought that'd be in the middle of a form. Was honestly expecting it to be something "broken out" and a colored but since it's actionable (with I suppose the dropdown arrow to the side with the other options). My personal opinion for the best place would be in the preview area. Up above the preview like the singlelink is now I'd have a dropdown with the publish options, a separate "Publish" button under that (colored to draw attention), and then a hyperlink of your singlelink with a clipboard symbol next to it to copy the link.
Also under the settings it'd be nice to have a checkbox for a round photo or a square photo.
Edit: After playing with it more I see that it auto-updates/publishes the changes you're making. Due to that I agree that it should publish by default. A staging feature might be a good option for your paid plans.
Totally understand. It really needs to be made more clear. I'll definitely have a revision done ASAP, I really like your idea of having a dropdown with publish options by the clipboard.
As for the photo, you can set your image border radius to 0 in appearance to change this! But it's nowhere near as easy to use as I'd like (added days ago), so it's easy to see why this can be overlooked. We're adding presets soon too (small bits of css that can be layered on top of themes, ex: square or circle avatar photo), so maybe we can make these easily selectable from the settings panel? I'll have to reconsider this.
Thanks again for the awesome feedback, it really helps.
No problem, glad to help. One last thing is that you can break links by linking to the analytics tracking link [1]. This isn't really an issue for users since this would only ever happen intentionally, but figured I'd mention it because idk how it'll affect your backend.
At further inspection it looks like with each click of the recursive link it generated 20 tracked links.
It also looks like the analytics doesn't treat each link independently. If I change a link it just relabels it in the analytics rather than creating a new tracking item. Sorry to be raining on your parade and tearing this apart so hard lol.
Woah, great catch! We'll put in a quickfix in the AM, easy enough.
In regards to analytics, we're currently treating links like "blocks" in preparation for our new link types feature (then a link could be an image, video, form, checkout, plugin, etc.), so if you were to want a new tracking item created it would be recommended to create a new item and delete the old one rather than edit it. In the future, we'll have easy link visibility and duplication settings to make this an easy process. If you have any thoughts on how you'd expect/prefer this to be, let me know!
To be fair, alcohol has not always been "fine". There have been various times in history where alcohol was prohibited and in fact still is in some countries. As much as what happened is a travesty, alcohol may be a good comparison for what is happening with Cannabis. After the prohibition in the US, Alcohol became legal and frankly widespread. Perhaps the same thing will soon happen for weed
Consumption of alcohol seems to be trending down in the West -- the figures for adult males' consumption in the 19th and early 20th century is shocking compared to today. So, lifting prohibition doesn't necessarily lead to higher consumption forever, there are cultural factors (and legal ones like drunk driving being taken more seriously than it once was) that reduce usage.
In 1770, colonial Americans drank about 3.5 gallons of alcohol per year - today it’s roughly 2.3.
One thing I learned when visiting an old settlement in Iowa: the settlers of the time made sure to have a constant supply of beer. The rate they consumed beer seemed to mean they’d have a slight buzz throughout many days.
The beer that was being consumed was often table beer, 3%abv at the absolute most. Made with a small amount of malt, left to ferment only a couple days. 3.5 gallons a year means about an ounce and a quarter a day. Drinking a gallon of 1%abv beer every day is probably not great for your liver but you might never feel an alcohol buzz from it.
Heavy drinking and all its bad effects were more common back then, but I don't think table beer is the culprit.
That number of 3.5 gallons per year is in terms of pure ethanol. 3.5 gallons of ethanol weighs 10,500 grams, which at 14 grams per standard drink is 750 drinks per year, or 2 drinks per day on average. That's quite a lot.
Right, I think we agree on the math here. When we read about people in the 18th century drinking beer with breakfast, they weren't having a standard drink. It was more likely a very low ABV drink.
If you drank a gallon of 1%ABV beer every day, you'd have 3.65 gallons of ethanol per year. That's not exactly what was happening - binges on whiskey and rum were common, but they weren't constantly buzzed, either.
That much alcohol is going to be bad for a liver no matter how you drink it. I don't think this was healthy. My point is just that there was less inebriation than we suppose when we think about drinking beer with breakfast
In those time "beer" was drunk like water because it was safer than drinking the parasite and disease-infested water. Today we (mostly) all have water that is safe to drink.
This is apparently a bit of a myth. There was some knowledge of safe versus unsafe water. “Clean” water supplies weren’t uncommon and alcohol wasn’t a common substitute for clean drinking water.
That said, the beer was often weak and watered down so any mention of chronic use should be tempered by the strength of the drink.
Jose Ortega y Gasset was a relative of mine, and I asked this as a kid. What I was told (by my grandmother, his niece) is that it is sometimes done when there's a weirdness in the combination of the two last names that would make it ambiguous, such as someone who has a compound first name like Jose-Maria that makes it harder to tell where a first name/last name breaks, or in this case, where it results in a repeated sound (ga-ga) that feels weird to say. But I have not found any corroboration of this online.
I used to live on the street in Madrid named after your great-great uncle, and I always wondered why he was named like that. The explanation make sense!
Thanks for answering. As a Spanish speaker this makes sense. My dad is from Mexico and no one in my entire family has this so maybe it's limited more to Spain?
It was until the 19th century, when it was somewhat normalized (census, etc.). Since the 20th century naming in Spain is pretty the same as Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries. All my known relatives names/surnames are without "y".
Yep, we are talking about someone who was born in the 1880s. Though as a counterexample in the modern age, there is a well-known Spanish economist at Columbia named Xavier Sala i Martin.
It was a common practice in Spain until the XIX th century. E.g. Miguel de Cervantes y Saavedra (1547-1616), the author of the book "Don Quixote" used the same pattern (in modern texts is often referenced without the "y", as Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra). Literally, it means Miguel "from" (as "son of") Cervantes (father first surname) "and" Saavedra (mother first surname).
Currently that form is in disuse, so if being born nowdays it would be just José Ortega Gasset, although people could formally/informally use "José Ortega y Gasset", "José de Ortega y Gasset", or even "José Ortega i Gasset" (in case of being written in texts in Catalan, instead of Spanish, a form that is still in use in some Spanish regions having the Catalan/Valencian in addition to the Spanish).
