Jump to content

alphahydro

Full Members
  • Posts

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alphahydro

  1. if you are a fan of el greco, i think it's worth a trip to toledo. even just to see Orgaz at Santo Tomé is worth the trip, imo. you can hit toledo on a day trip from madrid, but you should, imo, spend the night, because it's crowded in summer during the day when all the daytrippers are in town. (if you spend the evening, you can visit places in teh morning and evening when the crowds are gone.)
  2. ha. yeah, as far as I can tell, the grind (both the grind size setting and the way your grinder grinds) changes 2 things - total surface area and water flow. Here's something else to consider - matching the grind to the recipe/equipment. as I think I mentioned above, I figured out after using the pulsar and switch a few times that I prefer the switch for medium roast and pulsar for light roast. but I never really took notes or did any side by side "tests" to confirm. I kinda noticed that the pulsar flows a lot faster, but didn't really think about it too much. your comment made curious, so the past couple days I brewed my coffee diff ways and noted the finish time same medium roast beans same grinder same grind setting same recipe (tetsu's hybrid recipe in the video) All I did was change the brewer and coffee:water ratio Tried it at 20:280 with hario switch. 2 min 40 seconds to finish. - came out perfect. 20:280 with next level pulsar. 2 min 15 seconds to finish. drinkable but too acidic/bright. slightly harsh. 20:280 with next level pulsar. but I manipulated the spigot so the brew finished in ~2 min 50 seconds. this was close to the first one; about 95% as good. out of curiosity, I extended the ratio to try to change the brew time. 20:340 with hario switch. - didn't track time, but probably around 3:00 - drinkable and nice but a little chocolatey for me. 20:340 with next level pulsar with spigot all the way open. 2 min 30 seconds to finish. better than 20:280 with pulsar, but still not as good as the 2:40/2:50 brews. Then, just now, I brewed some light roasted beans. Same exact grinder and grind setting as above. Just different beans. 20:280 with next level pulsar. 2 min 36 seconds to finish. Perfect. Not going to bother brewing these beans with the switch as I already know it's going to be fine but muddier/more carmel flavor. I assume it will take closer to 3 mins to finish, which, imo, works out a little better with cheaper, medium roasted beans. TLDR - you can run some tests, but grinding finer is probably slowing down your brew a bit, putting you closer to that perfect brew time (for you). (the pulsar comes with a spigot that allows you to change the flow without changing grind size). Also, imo, using tetsu's recipe, which cools the water during the second part of the brew + adds some soak/immersion time somehow makes the cup more rounded, brings out the sugars, and gives you more "margin for error" in your brews. anyway, thanks for the question. like I said, using that tetsu recipe has been like bowling with bumpers on for me, but if the coffee smells good but isn't brewing right, I'm gonna start looking at the brew time to figure out how to adjust. cheers.
  3. i should mention, both my grinders grind coffee in a way that water flows really quickly over the grinds, even when i grind really fine. so, following that hybrid recipe, my brews finish in like 2:15 instead of 3:00, even at really fine grind settings. extending the coffee:water ratio might not be a good idea if your brews are taking a lot longer to finish.
  4. seconded. it's a no brainer purchase for anyone doing pour overs, imo. i don't mess with my v60s anymore. and the pulsar is super easy for anyone doing french press who wants to try something new. if you use that pulsar with that hybrid method in the video above and tweak the ratio of coffee to water as necessary, it's insanely easy to dial in with the pulsar. frankly, i prefer that hybrid recipe to any of the recipes that came with the pulsar. if you've found another good recipe for the pulsar, let me know. i have a hario switch that i got before the pulsar, and it brews a little differently. with the spigot wide open, the pulsar flows faster than the switch, and i think the pulsar does better with lighter roasts. but with medium roasts/cheaper beans, i tend to prefer the switch. i could probably get the pulsar to replicate the switch by messing with the spigot/flow rate, but i use both - in part to use up the hario filters.
  5. I assume so (?) I use this recipe every day and I never change my grind setting. I do have two grinders and i swap between grinders and between the hario switch and the nextlevel pulsar depending on the roast level and what i am in the mood for, but i haven't bothered with my grind setting since i started using this recipe. basically i have two grinders set at different grind settings and they're both fine, just different. as long as your grind setting is reasonable, you can get great cups. one thing i have started changing is the ratio. i think he recommends 20:280 (and then he waters the coffee down if it's too strong.) for me, depending on the roast/bean/grind setting, 280 can be really fruit forward and 340 is more chocolatey. i had the same beans yesterday and today, yesterday at 340 and today at 280 and both cups were great. that's the awesome thing about this recipe - i think it's mostly because you cool down the water in the second half of the pour - it's really hard to screw up the brew. instead of making adjustments on a knife edge, you have a lot of latitude in brewing. (i started experimenting with ratio because on a really light roasted coffee that flows fast, 20:280 was pretty gnarly/overly bright.)
  6. this is how I would think about it. 1) I would spend most of my time in Malibu and Santa Barbara. locals might fight with me, but I think there is a big drop off between these two cities and anywhere else along the route, with the exception of ... 2) If you are into wine, I would definitely spend some time in Santa Ynez/ los olivos. (cool boutique hotel or airbnb) and... 3) re music and other events - west LA/hollywood might have something you're interested in. just depends on timing and what kind of music you like. other thoughts: A) I would go on alltrails and find a hike that looks good to you. I would do my hikes around malibu B) lower your expectations re food, imo. no world class food along that route (again, locals may disagree, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think the food is exceptional. I would keep low expectations re food and just pick some spots that had good ratings on yelp or google maps. this isn't a region where I would build any part of my trip around food). C) the Getty is worth a short detour if you want to add a museum. D) downtown LA is imo world class when it comes to contemporary art. E) west LA has nightlife and shopping, but you didn't mention that. great trip though. have fun.
  7. I think it's $800 per person in Uganda and $1500 pp in Rwanda. I think you almost have to buy 2 days of permits- it would suck to fly all the way down there and not see any gorillas on your trek, then fly all the way back. So, depending on how many people are in your group, the price difference could add up. One good thing about Rwanda is you can just order the permit off a website from the gov't. In Uganda, it seems a little sketchier. I think you basically have to go through a third party (or if there's a way to book directly, i didn't see it). In Uganda, they also have habituation permits ($1500, iirc - but more time with the gorillas), where you trek to gorillas who aren't fully habituated yet. Sounds great on paper, but based on the reviews, it sounds like the unhabituated gorillas most often just go deeper into the forest when they see you, so most ppl just end up hiking through the forest a lot chasing the unhabituated gorillas. as a result, you get to spend less time actually near the unhabituated gorillas. Unhabituated gorillas could be spectacular and you get test charged and live to tell about it. Or you could spend 10 hours slogging through rainforest to get 8 glimpses at a gorilla from afar. When I was looking through the reviews, people who did the experience in Uganda consistently raved about it. Comparatively, the people who saw the gorillas in Rwanda were a lot less effusive in their reviews (on average--could be wrong, but that was my definite impression). I think area near the rainforest is a little more spectacular/exotic in Uganda, and they do a better job of getting people to the gorillas. Like the overall experience that day seems more authentic. Idk. In Rwanda, each morning they pool every park tourist for the day in one spot, and from the reviews, it seems like the morning gathering is disorganized/feels like waiting around at disneyland/kills the vibe. I got the impression that Rwanda is less of an experience (the difficulty of getting to the forest in Uganda is part of what makes the entire experience). It kinda felt from the reviews like Uganda was more remote/wild/authentic and Rwanda feels more like a conveyor belt out to the gorillas. Idk. Just my impression. idk, after all my research, i thought uganda sounded better, but it wouldn't fit into our trip, because of the extra time needed to get from the int'l airport to bwindi. so i was gonna go to rwanda, then decided to do this trip another year (had nothing to do with gorillas - we were gonna spend time in egypt to kill the jetlag and egypt just shut down the country's best tomb plus their national museum is basically temporarily closed).
  8. oh and if you go to olare motorogi, no need to work with a travel agent, imo. you book your days at the camp directly with the camp. you book a flight to/from nairobi. then you book a small flight to and from the reserve. (camp can help you with this) then you book hotel for the nights you stay in nairobi. (don't stay at the giraffe manor, just visit the giraffe center right next door for like $10 and get a better experience. visit Fatso's Authentic Swahili Dishes on the way back from the giraffe center. thank me later). that's it.
  9. i was gonna do gorillas this summer. when i was looking into it, it seemed to me that tourists prefer (by quite a bit) the trekking experience in Uganda over Rwanda. (based on talking to people and reading the reviews). But Bwindi (in Uganda) is a pain to get to - either a long ass car ride (like 8 hours each way, iirc) from the main airport, or you have to take a second flight, which is fine, but I would want to budget an extra day or two in case your main flight gets delayed or there are issues with that second flight. My trip was kinda tight, and adding an extra day on each end was annoying. Rwanda seemed easier to get in and get out. Re safaris in general, I strongly recommend safari at a private conservancy in Kenya or at a private game reserve in Sabi Sands. I can def recommend mahali mzuri and mara plains in olare motorogi. I could go on forever, but at the private reserves/conservancies, your guide can drive offroad right up next to the wildlife, your guide can drive any time, including at night, there are way fewer people/vehicles, and reportedly more big cats per square mile (at least in olare motorogi - https://www.porini.com/blog/olare-motorogi-ol-kinyei-have-highest-lion-density-in-africa/). these are all pics I took from my last trip in olare motorogi. we got to see (separately) a leopard and cheeting hunting/killing and we were the only car around. you'd go hours without seeing another human, and the amount of wildlife (monkeys, lions, cheetahs, rhinos, ostriches, etc) was insane. I can't 100% vouch for it, but I almost stayed at Angama Mara and it definitely looked rad.
  10. Mexico City is rad, but imo, if you have a couple extra days, take a quick flight to Oaxaca - colonial town; known for its cuisine: my personal favorite restaurants are Tineperla (order off special menu) and Destilado (get tasting w/ alcohol); Monte Alban is also very cool & chill; the town itself can be slightly touristy depending on season and where you stay/go, but I think pretty much everyone thinks the food is better here than Mexico City. or Bacalar - a giant freshwater lagoon formed by an underground river; they call it the lagoon of 7 colors. town next to the lake is super chill and not overly touristy (yet). Sail the lagoon at sunset and checkout Nixtamal for dinner. Get a room or airbnb on the lagoon. you'll want to rent a car. there are some decent mayan ruins nearby. we stayed at an airbnb called Casa Flores de Mayo bc the reviews were so good. it's more rustic than fancy, but it's nicer than it appears in photos, you get a private dock, kayaks, and an outdoor kitchen overlooking the lagoon. I'm sure there's other good places to stay, but this one had separate little houses - one for kids, one for adults. and that worked well for us. https://travelrebels.com/mexico/bacalar/ Oaxaca and Bacalar are both 1 hour direct flights from cdmx, so it's easy to get in and out. in Mexico City, I liked Zefiro, a restaurant built inside a university, where all the employees are students “working” at the restaurant as part of a class they need to pass to get their degrees. You even grade them at the end. Food isn't amazing, but I personally haven't had luck finding amazing food in Mexico City.
  11. Might be heresy in this thread, but for me only 2 reasons to go to barcelona: 1) clasico when barca is good 2) the food one standout for me is LAB: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g187497-d14962029-Reviews-LAB_Restaurant-Barcelona_Catalonia.html it's like ikea chairs on the inside, but really innovative cuisine. when we were last there, the opening dish was tacos, but the shell was lettuce and the meat was ground up chicken bones. that kind of food. but unlike a lot of avante garde places, a) the food was really tasty and b) the meal had a great narrative arc - like the dishes built on each other in a way that made a lot of sense. if you are into this sort of meal, LAB is can't miss, imho. way better than, for example disfrutar. again imo.
  12. really enjoyed: Tikal tour with Gem Trips: https://www.gemtrips.com Rosanta restaurant in Antigua Gringo perdido Hotel in el remate https://www.hotelgringoperdido.com. (las lagunas is a nicer version of same experience, but was booked during my trip). Acatenango/Fuego. Wilcho & Charlies seemed to have a great location. Bring something for altitude sickness though.
  13. fwiw, i think the move from "we're looking for kids who take 18 APs" to "we are looking for kids with a passion" can be just as dangerous for parents. imo, you gotta let your kids find their interests on their own time. trying to make little johnny find a passion at 12-15 (with an eye toward his college app) can be unhealthy, imo. and i think a lot of parents are gonna fall into that trap. i had no idea what i wanted to be when i started undergrad. my brother started in philosophy at community college, then art at a crappy college, then ended up finding an interest in physics. he ended up with a super full ride+ in the phd program in physics at stanford. a good chunk of the people i know who are insanely successful didn't go to top colleges at all. my son randomly developed a deep interest in chemistry (apparently there are people who are drawn to chemistry - shrug). my daughter, who is a year older than her brother, hasn't found her thing yet. nbd, imo.
  14. my kids have been told the same thing. apparently, the top schools no longer want applicants who take 17 APs. They think it means you are probably a maniac. they'd rather see you develop a passion. i'm no admissions counselor, but i think the goal for a personal statement should be that the person reading it would wanna grab a beer with you and hear more about the story you just told.
  15. I was interested enough to google and skim this, but not interested enough to look at it in depth. but it looks like the SAT scores were re-centered twice (?) once in 1995 and again in 2016, so the historical scores might need to be adjusted. https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/sat-now-2018-vs-then-1995-2004-and-pre-january-1994/2022500/54 A 500/500 pre-1995 translates to 1170 (+170) today. A 420/380 would be a 1010 (+210). And a 1600 is still a 1600 (+0). +90 and +70 would be an average mid-range jump If that's true, 1994's 1135 = ~1295 today, which isn't as far off from today's 1355 SAT score average. And is 1355 the average for matriculating students or just accepted students? idk. apologies if this was discussed somewhere earlier in the thread - or if this is widely known. i've wondered about admissions rates going down over time. how much of it is increased college applicants vs available college seats, and how much of it is people firing off more applications (perhaps due in part to techmology and in part due to grade inflation making everyone think they have a chance)? undergrad application is obviously a more competitive deal than it was in 1994. i refuse to believe that the top 10% of 18 year olds are any smarter now than they were in 1994 (get off my lawn - tho i wasn't 18 yet in 94). but perhaps that 10% includes more people now. shrug. one of those things that was always interesting enough to wonder about, but never interesting enough for me to really investigate. if there's a good, comprehensive, well-accepted answer to why acceptance rates have dropped, i'm curious what it is. for example = looking at yale (came up first in my search) https://oir.yale.edu/sites/default/files/w033_fresh_admissions.pdf applications tripled between 1995 and 2018. how much of that was people just firing off more applications? is yale 3x more selective? or are they now just churning through a bunch more apps from people who would have been denied admission in 1995? gen x is a small generation. and the demographics of ppl applying to college have expanded. so it was probably "easier" for the same caliber applicant to get into a good school in 1995 compared to now. but how much easier? and how different was it at Yale vs Texas? Perhaps at Harvard or Yale not so much, as there are always only so many super-achievers, but maybe at less selective schools, theres a big difference? Maybe it's just that a 60th percentile admit at Texas in 1995 had a 65% chance of admission - whereas now it's 30% - though that same applicant will have a 65% chance of getting accepted to a "peer" school. you just have to apply to more places now, because kids are firing off so many more applications. I think it's all of the above, but i wonder how much of each bit. people see the inflated grades, inflated SAT scores, change in ethos toward building a resume during high school and think "I wouldn't get into my alma mater if i had to apply today" but idk how true that necessarily is. you woulda worked prolly just as hard relative to your classmates as you did back then, and your GPA and SAT woulda been inflated. shrug.
  16. prolly doesn't change your mind but for a couple extra bucks you can stay in a "cabin" rather than a tent (that's what we're doing). https://wichocharlies31.rezdy.com/581728/acatenango-private-cabin-all-included-2023-2024-price-for-2-hikers (I wouldn't do the hike if it doesn't look appealing.) mountain biking trip looks awesome. have fun!
  17. in ~2 weeks, i'll be in guatemala gonna hike acatenango/fuego with my son w/ https://wichoandcharlies.com/ (<- they have packages that include jackets, headlamps, you can rent poles, etc. just seemed really convenient and well reviewed). hiking acatenango/fuego is actually 3 separate hikes. a) up to basecamp on an inactive volcano with a view of the active volcano b) after reaching basecamp, that same afternoon/evening, you can cross a ridge and hike up the neighboring active volcano <- everyone says this is the best part, but it's challenging after the first hike up to basecamp. a couple places will take you up to basecamp (basically) in a 4x4 if you don't think you can do the full hike, fwiw. c) up to the top of the non-active volcano the next morning at sunrise timestamped video from the second hike before that, we are staying outside of flores and taking a tour of tikal. it's about a 1 hour flight from the airport near antigua to flores. (some of the other cool spots in guatemala didn't work for me on this trip, because i couldn't fit in a long drive, etc. something to keep in mind if you are short on time) booked this tour based on reviews: https://www.tripadvisor.com/AttractionProductReview-g1820460-d19253022-Tikal_Full_Day_with_Dedicated_Exploration_of_the_Archaeological_Monuments-Santa_E.html you can also do an early morning tour, which seems really cool. you hike through the ruins in the dark and climb one of the temples to watch the sunrise and the surrounding forest come alive. we're only gonna be in guatemala for a couple days. other things i considered: there's a large, older mayan site you can visit - they are still excavating it: https://www.elmiradorhelicoptertours.com/ and staying at atitlan. problem with atitlan for me - when you start looking at the travel time, and the times the boats run, it really seemed like a 4+ day trip, at least with our flight times.
  18. dead on, imo. i think it goes a long way if a personal statement reveals that a kid (a) is willing to follow a passion and (b) is capable of looking beyond the views he or she has been force fed by his or her local environment/family. It also sounds like your son's story showed significant, authentic leadership/team building potential. my son plays high level soccer. ever since he started, i said, imagine you are playing fifa and you can go up to each player at key points in the game, punch in a code and they play 10% better - you'd do that, right? Same thing in real life, but the code is words and you gotta figure out what to say to each player. like this: for some guys - and for otehr guys, you gotta yell at them. lol i also told him if you want to go to Harvard, take a year or two off and go play for an academy in spain/s.america/asia. Then write your personal statement about it.
  19. Good call. i forgot about the military academies. would definitely include those on my list. friend of mine is west point, went to law school, worked at a prestigious international law firm, and is now C suite at a big company. aside from all that, he is a total badass, and i think a lot of that comes from undergrad and his military service. we all call him tank commander. imo, it's not that undergrad isn't important - it's really important because it shapes you. but when i think about how a kid gets shaped by (a) the prestigious liberal arts college that coddles its students and (b) leaving home, getting a job, acing community college, then navigating a large public university --that's another reason why i don't stress about undergrad admissions like a lot of my friends do. Sandia Nat'l Labs? small world. my dad worked there.
  20. other observations, all admittedly anecdotal - 1) grade inflation, at least at my kids' high school, is insane. Even in AP classes. apparently, nowadays, selective schools pay a lot of attention to which classes the applicants take (looking for difficult courses). cuz grades don't mean as much anymore at so many high schools. from talking to my kids, it sounds like the admissions process has a lot of arbitrariness to it. smart kid will get into Harvard but not Northwestern. Shit like that. I think the schools just aren't that great at sorting through applicants. unreliability of grades might have something to do with it, but idk. 2) was having lunch last week with a friend. Yale undergrad, Stanford Business School. he interviews undergrad applicants for Yale and Stanford. He says he interviews all these amazing high school kids and none ever get in. He asked the guy who runs the local Yale club and that guy said every year Yale admits the top athlete from the rich kid public school then the top nerd from the super smart kid public school and then shuts it down. lol. 3) Same Yale Stanford guy, same lunch. He basically runs his own shark tank. He relates how his Stanford connections are 100x more valuable to him financially/professionally compared to his Yale connections. (from this convo I gathered he was not tapped for Skull & bones). That's anecdotal, but everyone I know who is similarly situated feels the same way. I pick him because Yale is prolly as good a school as any if you are looking to make connections. I just don't think undergrad is that valuable anymore for people who go on to grad school. 4) month or so ago, was in Palo Alto visiting friends. Friend said hey, do you and your kids wanna tour Google HQ? Sure, why not? (pretty cool, btw). anyway, lady who gave us a tour was a recruiter for Google. she started her career at google recruiting undergrads. we were chatting during the tour and she said google straight up does not give a fuck about your undergrad (at least for CS applicants) - except that there are a few schools they like bc they teach CS in a way that is compatible with what google does (I don't remember the list, but they weren't prestigious schools) Again, all this is why I don't sweat undergrad admissions for my kids.
  21. this is how I think about undergrad. might be a little contrarian. and I hope I don't offend. I live near a bunch of people who stress out way too much about where their kids go to undergrad. I'm a big community-college-over-Cornell guy. Caveat, I think what I am about to say mostly really only applies to parents who think their kid might end up in a professional school or phd program after undergrad. Second, it only applies to the competitive parents who want their kids to go to the "BEST" or HIGHEST RANKED type school. If you are one of those types of parents, IMO all you should care about is the ceiling associated with the undergrad that ends up on your kids' diploma. By ceiling, I mean, if you do really well in undergrad at that school, are all postgrad options realistically available to you? UT undergrad has the same grad school ceiling as Harvard.* So does UNC, Cal, UCLA, Michigan, UVa, and maybe Florida/Georgia. If you can get in-state tuition at these schools, IMO, most kids' "best" path is H, Y, P, Caltech, MIT, Stanford, if your kid is up for it one of the state schools listed above straight out of high school community college away from home/other system school (eg UTSA), kick ass, then transfer to one of the state schools above and finish there Guess my point is: if your kid didn't get into Cornell, I wouldn't sweat it. Personally I would rather my kid go option 2 or 3 than go to Columbia or Williams or Amherst. I would rather give them the extra $$ I saved and let them start a nonprofit or business with it. And if you can't kick ass at UTSA and then UT, why am I paying for Amherst anyway? And even if they didn't get into UT straight out of high school, I wouldn't sweat it either. I think option 3 is at least as good as option 2. Again, this only applies for parents who are trying to help their kids position themselves to get into a good grad school. for normal parents, other factors might be more important. * Yes, you can be a little lower in the class at Harvard and still touch the grad school ceiling, but frankly might be easier to be the top kid at UCLA than the 12th kid from the top at H
  22. that sucks. whistler got a ton of snow about a month ago, no? bad luck. we were there 2 years ago February and lucked out with great weather, but I remember it being a little touch and go right before or after our trip. kids loved the skeleton and bobsled at the sliding centre.
  23. sort of off topic, but thinking of taking my son to 1 or 2 games next year, haven't decided which. we live outside of texas. options - michigan OU (we were at 49-0, so he's been to a recent OU game) georgia possible playoff game at UT (knock on wood; i know that's not guaranteed) have friends i can visit/stay with in austin, dallas, ann arbor. i've been on the fence about michigan. this thread is making it seem more interesting. just curious which would you pick as your #1 game?
×
×
  • Create New...