We've now done ordered weekly grocery online twice now. I still instinctively dislike it, but probably not for very good reasons. (Reverse snobbery or a sense that it's less virtuous? I like picking out my own fruits and vegetables, but I'm not precious about it. The ones that they've grabbed seem fine.)(I apologize for implying that you're being precious.)

Anyway, there's no going back from the time savings, at least until I have a lot more disposable time. The web interface on ours is well done. I like being able to easily compare items that are located in very different sections: wait a minute, frozen X is more expensive than fresh X? That never occurred to me to check. Etc.

I'm not clear on how reusable bags figure into all this. I mean, I'm clear how they figure in, in Texas: they don't. But how does this work elsewhere?

Help me flesh out this theory.

The impetus: a friend describes a panel in which two panelists squabbled a bit. Both want to appear smart in front of the audience. The older panelist is asking the younger one if she knows certain vocabulary words, and is explaining concepts. Possibly accidentally condescending, possibly on purpose. The younger panelist is asking questions which make the older panelist appear dumb/shallow/rigid, sometimes just to the audience and sometimes evident to the older panelist herself.

My theory goes that these are two different methods of signaling intelligence, and they correspond to different life stages, but there maybe is something generational layered on top of it. Method 1 is the older panelist: use big vocabulary words, possibly talk a bit too vaguely or fast for the other person to completely understand you. It's the bluster method. Method 2 is the younger panelist: ask questions, maybe faux-innocently but maybe transmitting prosecutor vibes, that reveal the other person's shortcomings. It's the "my kid is going to be a lawyer, I just know it" parent gripe.

(There are many other ways to signal intelligence! These are just quick moves that these two yahoos pulled.)

It's connected to life stages as so:

Method 2, the baby lawyer, lends itself well for younger people because you can be overly literal if you don't have much context, and you can use it if something smells funny but you don't have all the facts on hand.

People get out of the habit of being a baby lawyer when they start having to relate and connect with people younger than themselves. Being prosecutorial and asking "gotcha" questions to someone who has less life experience to draw on is just being a royal ass. That's when most of us switch to gently explaining the world, instead of aggressively questioning people who have holes in their knowledge. But then, if your ego is on the line and you want to place yourself as the authority figure, it's a small step from a habit of gentle explaining to fullblown bullshit bluster.

The more conjectural part of the theory:
In the course of conversation, sweeping generalizations were made that boomers are subject to the Bullshit Bluster Method of signaling smarts, and millenials are inclined to the Baby Lawyer Method of signaling. Is there anything specific to these generations besides their relative ages that would attract them to these methods? Or will millenials age out of Baby Lawyer and into Bullshit Bluster right on schedule, as their parents before them, and their parents' parents before that?