I'll look into carbon steel if I ever need a new one, thanks. But honestly, cast iron is just build to last.

And I don't trust the soap around here, my first seasoning-tries went horribly flakey after I used soap on them. I'd rather just hot water and scrub, stuff usually just wipes off.

Meh, one of my pots came pre-seasoned and I just started using it as if I'd seasoned it myself, after the first couple of weeks of simply using it, it now has the exact same surface as everything I seasoned myself, because every time you fry something in it, it just improves the seasoning.

shrug

I mean I'm happy I know how to season my stuff, but if it lowers the entry-barrier to cast iron I think it's worth it.

I can only tell you about my experience, I've made the switch half a year ago.

Cast iron is heavy, REALLY HEAVY and comparably more expensive than cheap non-stick pans. It's a hassle to work with because it's so heavy, no easy flipping stuff by throwing the pan around (inertia is a bitch), you shouldn't clean it with soap, just hot water and some elbow-grease and you should always keep is slightly oiled. Oh and there is no "the handle doesn't get hot", it always does and you should wrap a cloth around it.

But Oh My Goodness!

I've needed some tries to get the seasoning right, needed some time to adjust my cooking as to not leave acidic food in the pan or pot over night, but now that my pan and pot are very well seasoned and I know how to handle them... nothing sticks, at least not for long. I can make a fried egg or some bacon and after sticking for the first few seconds it just... lift's off the surface and moves freely in the pan. No non-stick pan has ever given me a non-stick experience like this and making steak has become one of my most fun experiences, because the pan keeps its heat when I throw the cold slap of meat into it and evenly browns the beef without any sticking.

Absolute game changer. just don't heat an empty pan too much, because you can burn the seasoning off again.

Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment

Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.

In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just... not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.

The term is greek in origin and referred to burn offering "holókaustos" - "completely/wholely burned", it was used in this way throughout the middle ages for fire-progroms against Jews (*) and later (1515) to decry the witch-burnings as "the new fire sacrifices" ("nova holocausta").

* "Eodem coronationis die, circa illam sollemnitatis horam qua Filius immolabatur Patri, incceptum est in civitate Londoniae immolare Judaeos patri suo diabolo ; tantaque fuit hujus Celebris mora mysterii, ut vix altera die compleri potuerit holocaustum" - "On the same day of the coronation, about that solemn hour when the Son was sacrificed to the Father, it was begun in the city of London to sacrifice the Jews to their father the devil; and so great was the delay of this famous mystery, that the next day the holocaust could scarcely have been completed" source

Edit: This is btw. describing the events of the coronation of Richard the Lionheart 1189 CE.

While I do agree with you on a general level, I think this is largely a discussion about how different cultures and languages use the word holocaust.

In Germany, the word Holocaust has a connotation that particularly emphasizes the exceptional nature of the event in comparison to everything that has happened before and since.

This connotation is not necessarily present in other societies, where the meaning is closer to the Greek root ‘holókaustos’ - ‘completely burnt, destroyed’ and this results in the difference between the Holocaust and a holocaust in English.

It is therefore understandable that the term holocaust is used in other languages for what is happening.

Is it helpful though? Here's my - slightly different - take of why using the word is not necessarily wrong... but unhelpful.

I myself prefer the term "genocide" in the Israeli-Palestinian context, especially because the term holocaust in close proximity to Judaism is extremely loaded and in this context has connotations that are less about Israel's terrible crimes and more about the somewhat conspiratorial accusation of ‘victims becoming perpetrators’ against Jews as a whole, which resonates with antisemitism and understandably gives rise to accusations of antisemitism to the point of completely losing focus of the important part of the discussion:

The state of Israel is committing extended, organized and deliberate genocide against Palestinians, out of hatred of and revenge against Hamas. This hatred and revenge against Hamas is justified. Targeting innocent Palestinians is not.

One can call this a holocaust, but this choice of word is more likely to derail the discussion and serve an entirely different agenda than the one that tries to achieve some end of the murders in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

I think he's saying that democracy (equalizing political power) has been the political consensus in the US since WW2.

And he's obviously against it.

https://cartoons.guido-kuehn.de/die-brandmauer-ist-tot-es-lebe-die-brandmauer/

~~.:|:;~~

It's EUA in french (États-Unis d'Amérique)

You know these ventriloquism-routines where the puppet makes the puppeteer talk with it's voice?