I don’t want to call anyone out individually. But I have come across accounts with 7-8k comments in the span of a few months. I don’t really think it’s worth reporting them, and don’t have the time or energy to research and block them individually, I’d just rather have them automatically muted on my end via a tool or plugin.
I assumed this would be something I’d have to program myself, just wasn’t sure if it was clearly not possible or practical for one reason or another.
It’s not obscure, but, for me, Wikipedia is the ultimate example of the old internet that still persists today.
Free to use, no account required, ad free, non-corporate, multilingual, heavily biased toward text, simple and utilitarian design. Hyperlinks concatenate relevant pieces of information, which serve as the means to navigate the site. The code is very simple (seriously, view the page source of a wikipiedia article). It’s based on the human desire to learn and share knowledge with others, and has remained resilient to corruption by commercial interests that pervert that desire for monetary gain. It’s a beautiful thing.
I know Bruichladdich has said they do this for the Laddie Classic (a bottling I really love). Source: just trust me bro. I don’t recall when or where I heard that. Possibly they do it with other bottlings, and surely other distilleries are doing the same thing. Bruichladdich didn’t invent the process. But it’s not a well studied, documented, or promoted element of whisky ageing, because, I think, it’s not as sexy as infusion and evaporation. Among other reasons. If you’re curious, I could spin a yarn.
Any distillery that chooses to do this, certainly does it for a reason. Disgorging and re-casking a batch is a massive pain in the ass, and holds up warehouse space & production timelines - two things a bean counter with no sensitivities to flavour would be happy to cut out.
Could be! From my experience, high strength Bourbon is better a couple weeks after being opened. From a flavour standpoint, gin also benefits greatly from resting for a few weeks after distillation.
In fact, one of my favourite Scotch Whisky distilleries will blend a production batch, and then re-barrel the blended volume in casks and let it rest for 6 months to allow the flavours to harmonize.
There is definitely some magic that happens after spirits are blended/bottled, and it’s not very well understood, but the changes are detectable, and in general, they’re positive.
What we know as whisky maturation is a dance between 4 interrelated processes - infusion, evaporation, oxidation, and other chemical reactions. These all happen together, and very nicely, when whisky sits in oak barrels for an extended period of time.
Colour, and oak flavour are infused into the whisky simply by sitting in the barrel. The whisky will slowly evaporate while inside the barrel as well. Volatile compounds evaporate, making the whisky smoother, deeper, and more complex with age. Fascinating chemical reactions happen between compounds in the wood, and in the whisky. As ethanol degrades lignin, for example, it creates new compounds, which themselves interact with other molecules and compounds in solution.
The age statement on a bottle of whisky refers to the time it spent in a barrel, doing those lovely things.
Common wisdom is that the whisky is done changing when it goes into glass. Certainly, infusion and evaporation are finished. But! Oxidation, and reactions between compounds in the whisky itself will continue, even in a sealed glass bottle. Usually this happens too slowly to notice, or the bottle gets drank before a change can be observed, but change certainly happens.
Long story short - whisky won’t go bad. In fact, sometimes it even goes ‘good’! I had the chance to try a young single malt, that was bottled in the 1970s. It was wonderful, and had signature aroma and flavour characteristics of a very old whisky. This is due to slow oxidation, and the glacial interaction between esters and congeners over time, which will happen no matter what vessel the whisky is in.
Whisky that has been exposed to too much oxygen, like if the bottle sits nearly empty for a long time, or has a bad seal, will often end up tasting flat and bland. But ‘good’ or ‘bad’ at this point, is a subjective matter. Only one way to find out!
As a user, ‘privacy preserving attribution’ is unappealing for a few reasons.
It seems it would overwhelmingly benefit a type of website that I think is toxic for the internet as a whole - AI generated pages SEO’d to the gills that are designed exclusively as advertisement delivery instruments.
It’s a tool that quantitatively aids in the refinement of clickbait, which I believe is an unethical abuse of human psychology.
Those issues notwithstanding, it’s unrealistic to assume that PPA will make the kind of difference that Mozilla thinks it might. I believe it’s naive to imagine that any advertiser would prefer PPA to the more invasive industry standard methods of tracking. It would be nice if that wasn’t the case, but, I don’t see how PPA would be preferable for advertisers, who want more data, not less.
As a user, having more of my online activity available and distributed doesn’t help or benefit me in any way.
Thank you!