Looking at orange juice, it looks like out of a 248g serving (1 cup), all but 29g is water; of the 29g that remains, ~26g is carbs, and ~21 of that is sugar.
So what’s left when the water is removed is mostly sugar, but I don’t know how it would compare to cane juice.
Evaporated fruit juice… I’ve never seen that on an ingredients label, but the residue would be fructose. I can’t see a lot of companies bothering with that because sugar cane has so much more sugar than other plants.
I think cats have a proper understanding of the value of durian…
It depends on the fruit. Some would have substantially more fructose than glucose, and some would have sorbitol too, unless it evaporates…
We’ve been hearing that people have wanted to live in the suburbs for as long as there have been suburbs. Really, the only people who actively want to live there are the recently married newly upper middle class. Everybody else is just kinda there.
That claim is likely to fuel arguments that America’s love affair with cities is over, that Americans (and especially Millennials) really want to live in the suburbs, and general harrumphing that urbanism is somehow past its peak
Wanting to live in the suburbs, and not being able to afford to leave their parents’ basements, are two very different things.
I know someone who just traded their stacked townhouse with its 10km work commute for a fully detached house in the exurbs with a 60km commute.
They keep saying it’s for the sake of their son, now 6 months old. I keep thinking about what that kid is going to want to be doing in their free time in 12 or 16 years. No, I don’t mean hanging out with friends doing dubious things – that’ll happen anywhere. Things like going to museums.
I grew up rural and then suburban, and I was always envious in university of the people I knew who had grown up in an urban centre. They just had access to more cultural experiences.
Rural can have those too, if you’re in a good community. Suburban might, but it’s far more rare IMHO.
Growing up in the backwoods where the nearest City (Population 15,000) was 90 miles away and the Big City of Spokane was 240 miles the other direction - I know rural.
But that was what we did. It took me many years to realize my father had no interest in civilization as a whole and metropolitan areas just may be okay.
But by the time I realized that I probably really would like living in a big city, I had too many burdens, to make moving to one an easy or affordable proposition.
A close friend is in the process of selling her big suburban home with lots of land – and a 1.5 to 2 hour commute each way to work, with not much retail or independently owned restaurants along the way – for a much smaller townhouse within 5 to 10 minutes of most of what they’d want on a regular basis and a drive to work of only 30 minutes. She’s doing this BECAUSE of her 15-year-old son. He needs to be able to get to friends’ homes and cafes and movies and parks under his own steam, and not have to leave home over an hour before school starts because the school bus route takes that long.
I know people who have done similar as well.
And then there’s people like the woman I know who had bought a big suburban home because she’d been brought up to think of it as a sign of success, and then sold it when she realised all she ever did was work, commute, and take care of the house. She lives in the same neighbourhood as her business now and walks to work from her condo.
That’s something everyone I know who’s gone from suburban to urban as an adult talks about – how much more they get out and walk.
Yep. I currently don’t need a car for anything. My commute to work is currently about a half hour, and that’s if I walk slowly 
You may have heard about a racoon that scaled a 23 story building, making it to the roof alive. Well the story has a moral:
Freaking hell. You just made me empathise with a damn racoon.
I’ll second that, as a US citizen who has lived in Scotland and absolutely can taste the difference between a rye and a whisky.
Edited to add: back when this song was written, I’ll bet the “whiskey” he was talking about was Canadian Club, so it absolutely would be distinguished as different from bourbon/rye.
I wouldn’t follow Twitter yesterday as I was worried the little racoon wouldn’t make it.
Glad he came out OK.
Or at least that’s what we are being told.
Come to think of it, “One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer” has a better ring to it than “Two Whiskeys, One Beer”.
The current logic on spelling of Whisky \ Whiskey is based on the country it originated from: If the country name has an “E” in it then the liquor is spelled with an E.
Scotland, Japan - Whisky
America, Ireland - Wiskey
Canada doesn’t follow the rules anyway so I don’t know about them.
(The rule Canada doesn’t follow is naming on Rye Whiskey. US states a minimum of 51% rye (but I might be wrong on the percent) to be called a Rye. Canada just says you need to show it some Rye and you are good)
In order to fully understand what you’re getting, you have to have the bartender spell it out.
And, to avoid the risk of mishearing them, make sure you get them to use the International Phonetic Alphabet.
That first letter would be either “Whisky” or “Whiskey”, depending 
Maybe it’s because I tend to stick to the Scots and Irish stuff, but this Canadian didn’t even realise “rye” was a type of whiskey before this thread.
“Whiskey & ginger” just sounds wrong, whereas “rye & ginger” is right up in the Canadian pantheon of drinks with Bloody Caesars.
Just fyi, Rye!=Bourbon. Bourbon is corn mash (i.e. maize). Rye whiskey is rye mash (or sometimes just a generic term for Canadian whiskey sourced from any grain.)
You got me on the spelling, I was using it arbitrarily in my ignorance and have no idea how McLean spelled it. But they’re pronounced the same and would have no bearing on the song I don’t think. Scotch is obviously a type of whiskey/whisky, and popular here, but I’ve never heard any American say “whiskey” to mean Scotch. We say “Scotch.” Scotch is more fancy to us (even if only slightly), it’s a bit more of an acquired, refined taste over here and the import price makes it a bit more posh; not really what one would expect “good ol boys” to sit around drinking. American song, american songwriter; our defaults are different. The way you hear the lyric makes sense now that I think of it, but I don’t think it works for American ears that way.
“Drinkin’ whiskey and rye” has a melodic quality to the phonemes that “bourbon and rye” or “Scotch and rye” don’t have, and a good rhythm. But as I said, what he’s literally saying is “drinkin whiskey and whiskey.” It succeeds musically but fails on syntax. To some, the musical qualities of the lyric may carry the day and make it a success. But to the literal-minded, phrasing it like that is redundant and super awkward, especially considering it’s in a song that is otherwise very carefully-worded. And it’s in the chorus that’s repeated 5 or 6 times, so it tends to grate on me because of that.
