The variation from roasting is far greater than the variation from the beans, and all third-wave beans are lightly roasted. This results in a brew that is dominated by acids.
I was with you up until "all third-wave beans are lightly roasted". I suppose it's literally true relative to old espresso roasts, but there's still plenty of third-wave roasts that are decently dark. Maybe not Folgers/Lavazza dark, but you can definitely find more oily/heavy roasts that aren't overly acidic.
There's also a third axis in brew technique - most old-school espresso is only vaguely the same brew method as what you'd get at a third-wave shop where the newer machines have fairly precise temperature, flow, and pressure controls, as well as more consistent grinds with less fines.
Here the first sentence of Third-wave coffee's wikipedia page:
> Third-wave coffee is a term primarily in the United States coffee industry emphasizing higher quality, single-origin farms and light roast to bring out distinctive flavors.
I also strongly suspect your definition of "decently dark" is still below a medium roast. If not, I would be interested if you could cite a "decently dark" roast you have tried from a third-wave coffee shop.
Sure, I'm not denying what's in that quote - that the emphasis is usually on lighter roasts. Somewhat because there's already a number of older roasters who do nothing but dark roasts.
Many of the cups I've had at Dark Matter in Chicago are decidedly on the darker side, and they have Starry Eyes which is specifically sold as their dark roast. I don't think they post exact roast curves, so I'm not sure there's an objective way to denote what qualifies as a "real" dark roast, but I'm guessing most people who like a more classic dark roast would at least find it acceptably close. Roasters in Atlanta like Chrome Yellow, Dancing Goat, or Portrait also tend to be on the darker side, though I'm not sure if they have mainstay coffees.
It's not as if I've never had a cup of Lavazza or Folgers or Cafe du Monde to compare to. I grew up on basic coffeemaker grocery store French Roast all day every day.
Just to clarify, many third wave shops do serve medium and dark roasts. My point is that third wave coffee shops often call a roast dark when they are actually medium or light. Additionally, I think only light roasts really qualify as third wave.
Most of the coffees you listed look like actual dark roasts.
"Full City Roast" with "lemon zest" in the flavor notes raises some red flags for me. Indeed, from the reviews: "Yum! I don't like dark roasts, and this is not a dark roast which is why I liked it. Lots of chocolate. Very smooth, not bitterness, a hint of fruit as it cools. I really enjoyed drinking this."
"Imunika Black" might also be an exception: the "blackberry" tasting note makes me think it isn't very dark.
I see more with citrus or other fruity descriptions, and I doubt those are dark roasts either.
Do you think there's a specific (whether public or hidden) criterion being used to deny Asian students based on "leadership abilities"? Or do you think they're simply being held to higher standards or subject to an informal quota?
I don’t think most people are denied based on any specific thing. Asians attend these elite schools at much higher rates than their population. If there was a school that admitted based on grades and test scores only they’d probably be even more highly represented.
College is no more a reward for school academic achievement as a basketball scholarship is for HS basketball achievement. They’re correlated but a lot more go into both.
The thing is, acceptance at these elite universities is _highly_ correlated with academic performance. It’s just that different racial groups are admitted in different ranges. You won’t find a single Asian at Harvard at or below the median Black SAT score. The range to be accepted as an Asian is also higher than Whites, which is higher than Latinos, which is higher than Blacks. How can you possibly explain this if it’s not a quota system based on race?
I don't think this is true. First, I don't think the SAT data exists for Harvard broken down in this way (if you have it, please link it). Furthermore, there were Asian students accepted in the 2nd and 3rd decile -- this is below the average for African American students almost certainly. So, I find your claim very likely to be false.
Now if you said that admissions has favored African American students in the Affirmative Action era over Asian students then I'd agree. But Affirmative Action is also over per last year's Supreme Court decision.
It's not just Black students over Asians, it is the entire gradient I outlined, and they continue to use race in admissions, they just obfuscate the reasons now.
Again, the statement you made earlier seems almost surely false.
And how do you know they continue to use race? You have access to data that the rest of us don't? Again, if you have data to support your claims then post a link.
How do you know MIT isn’t now discriminating against Black students? How do you know what MIT metrics? Maybe it only cares about test scores and not other aspects? Also MIT is a D3 school, or a D1 school.
I’ve only seen one person expelled for support of Hamas with evidence - the doctor who went to a funeral in Lebanon of the Hamas leader assassinated in past year. The administration was super proud of that one. Show me evidence of anyone else that has any association with Israel/Palestine conflict protests that actually support Hamas. It does not have to be an either or proposition - one can be against Israel killing civilians and against Hamas.
And for other arbitrary decisions there’s several examples of people expelled for gang activity who simply had tattoos.
Proof that health insurance premiums for men have been consistently subsidizing women's health insurance premiums for the last 200 or so years? Perhaps the practical non-existence of health insurance until the latter half of the 20th's century? Pretty tough to subsidize something that doesn't exist.
You also offered no evidence for your assertion in the first place.
The ACA bans health insurance companies from charging men and women different rates for the same coverage. Before this, Women would have higher premiums because, on average, they use their coverage more. This is very easy to look up.
I can cite the ACA, but you can not cite anything that says AI training sets are biased against women.
A few questions for you to think of then -- or rather a few things I think you should consider with your statements:
1. How does ACA affect the corpus of knowledge and medical practice gathered prior to the ACA being in effect? How does it affect late 19th, and early and mid 20th century medical knowledge and practice, which occurred prior to health insurance of any kind, nevermind ACA-compliant, being widespread? This corpus of knowledge and practice continues to propagate even now. I've read a handful of recently published medical textbooks and there are definitely parts that are pretty much the same as the textbooks of the early 20th century, just with slightly updated language.
2. What are the possible confounding factors in the use of health insurance by men vs women? For example, could men just be more hesitant to see a doctor, and thus less likely to make use of health insurance? Does the average life expectancy of women result in more use of health insurance later in life than for men? Are medical procedures that are specific to women that add to the cost of their care, such as mammograms, pap smears, etc? Seeings as how in the US health insurance is a practical requirement to getting medical care, and lack of it is punished financially in various ways from taxes to just having medical care be more expensive when you truly need it, means most people will try to have _some_ kind of health insurance, even if they don't think they need it for actual health reasons. So despite a perception of not needing health insurance, men are incentivized to have health insurance they don't use?
3. Does the ACA guarantee in any way that medical professionals no longer hold any bias due their previous training, especially if such training occurred prior to the introduction of the ACA? Does the ACA similarly guarantee that women and men are not only able, but choose to pursue medical care and participate in medical studies at percentages matching the general population?
Your point about men subsidizing women with regard to health insurance premiums may be perfectly valid, I am not disputing you on that point. I am disputing that it is salient to the tradition and practice of medicine in the western world in the modern era, until very recently historically, and that these traditions and biases will affect data sets gathered from people who are directly affected by these biases and traditions to this day. We haven't eliminated them, because as I said in another comment, every generation just dilutes the old issues, it doesn't solve them. And while I could spend my evening finding studies from various countries that attest to my view on this, I have spent about as much time as I desire to on this, so I will grant you that my evidence is on the level of 'trust me bro' -- with the slight caveat that many people within just my family and close circle of friends are involved in the medical field and all largely agree to this, and they are not all based in the US (which by the way, your point is very specific to. ACA is a US thing, western medicine spans a bit more than that.) It is entirely fair for you to call out that I have offered no real peer-reviewed evidence for my statements. I intend to offer a viewpoint of someone who has had extensive peripheral experience with medical professionals and has discussed this topic with them, and to offer some avenues of thought on how and why the data sets might be biased.
Women using more health care didn't start with the ACA. The ACA just banned the practice of charging women more because they use more health care.
Ask a doctor what gender goes to them more for gender neutral health care like "flu-like symptoms".
Now you provide evidence that AI models discriminate against Women instead of DDoSing me with "how can you know its not true" written in 10 ways.
Funny how you never read a headline about how Latinos or Asians are discriminated against in medical science. That's a pretty clear give away that this is politically motivated.
Are you going to hold the same standard to them? Were Asians and Latinos represented in 200 year old medical texts?
> Funny how you never read a headline about how Latinos or Asians are discriminated against in medical science. That's a pretty clear give away that this is politically motivated.
I read multiple of those, in mainstream media. Also about blacks having issues. Arguably, I did not seen them in conservative journals.
> Are you going to hold the same standard to them? Were Asians and Latinos represented in 200 year old medical texts?
Yes, if their diseases gets badly diagnosed, it is an issue.
> Ask a doctor what gender goes to them more for gender neutral health care like "flu-like symptoms".
That has about zero to do with who is in the studies. Plus, women in fact do have more problem to have their issues taken seriously.
> Now you provide evidence that AI models discriminate against Women instead of DDoSing
I specifically mentioned both minorities and women in my original post, you're the one who specified men vs women. At this point, it seems you're the one who has some political if not potentially misogynist agenda.
- Beans
- Roast level
The variation from roasting is far greater than the variation from the beans, and all third-wave beans are lightly roasted. This results in a brew that is dominated by acids.