Stage 1: At first, I could chop essentially nothing, probably 60+ minutes per round as I mostly puzzled about how to make progress and got lucky from time to time with a round that split easily (fortunately, I had a nice splitting axe)

Stage 2: Then I bought some splitting wedges, and I used a handheld sledgehammer to drive them in to what I thought were the weak spots, and then ultimately pried open the log, to pieces that I could split more readily.

Stage 3: I bought a massive demolition sledge hammer (essentially a two-handed battle hammer) and used that to drive the wedges in after getting them started, and made a bit more progress on actually splitting the rounds.

Stage 4: After doing this countless times, you just a knack for reading the wood, and where it will / won't split. I reverted back to using just the splitting axe, since if you hit the wood in the right spots, it really just splits on its own.

Here's where I ended up, if it helps any of you:

- Start by establishing the fracture line that will be used to split the round in half. I would eyeball any existing line on the round towards the center, and use the axe head to mark a line, away from any knots , from the center to the edge. These two center-to-edge didn't necessarily need to be inline. They could be slightly offset, like hands on a clock.

- With moderate force, just repeatedly strike that line, working from the center outwards. You'd be shocked out how quickly repeated strikes widen the line, and eventually the wood's own weight almost causes it to fall apart.

- Recursively do this with the two halves: Draw the line from (what was the center), radially out to the edge. Repeatedly strike until these pieces have been halved.

- Continue this process until you have proper pizza wedges. At this point, it's pretty trivial to just chop the pizza wedge, from the wedge to the base, into 4 or 5 smaller firewood-sized logs.

I know y'all probably didn't care to read this, but this was quite honestly weeks of my life in learning this, and I couldn't find a great guide on YouTube or anything, especially for rounds this big.

I think you make some interesting points, and it's a very well thought-out post, but this is the definition of "poisoning the well". You're attempting to preemptively discredit the most obvious flaw in your argument.

There is a massive amount of evidence for the impact on both society, economy and neurology for each of the drugs listed in your last paragraph – and it's these impacts that often change personal and societal perception of risk and reward. Caffeine, at average doses, induces an effect that is comparable to a small cortisol spike – it is mildly addictive, but nowhere near that of an opioid, for example.

Drugs like meth and heroine (and one wonders why you left off fentanyl) are highly addictive and destructive, cause enormous loss of life an an inconceivable scale, and can permanently damage neurological pathways. From what I've read, the impact of hallucinogenics is less well understood... but probably not great.

If your argument is "we like to say caffeine and alcohol are fine, when they're really no different than opioids and meth", well there _is_ a staggeringly enormous difference in the potency and impact of caffeine vs the other drugs you've listed. I do agree with you that alcohol is far more harmful than society cares to admit, however, and that's both well-studied and often ignored.

It was shockingly accurate with its guesses of Essen, Germany and Sheffield, UK, but faltered a bit in Italy (it thought Genoa was Siena) and Russia (it guessed Samara but it was actually a small town about 400 miles to the west). It also guessed Orlando when it was Tampa.

Still this was only giving it a single image to work off of, where any player would be able to move around for a few minutes.

This is a guess, but the argument is probably that it took way more R&D effort for them to figure out how to produce it efficiently in the US, and they've chosen to increase the cost of the US phone variant to offset this particular R&D expenditure that the Chinese variant didn't have.

If you had a massive plot in an urban area, undeveloped, presumably the unimproved portion of your property tax would be quite high! But, the issue is that restrictive zoning means that typically the unimproved value of your tax assessment are pretty low.

For example, if you live on 2 acres, but zoning says that you can only put 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, then you can't really do much with the remaining acres. As a result, the remaining land has little value, and the tax on it is low. This is especially true in areas of little industry, where the same zoning regulations might also prohibit industrial or agriculture uses on that same plot of land!

This is all to say that the structure you're looking for may already exist, but the issue is still in zoning.

I agree that childcare and college is mad expensive. It's why people complain about these things as much as they do!

What I've always thought, as a parent: those without kids don't know what they're missing, and those with them know what they have.

I'm not saying this to try to brag about how I have some special thing in my life that you'll never understand. I'm saying it because it feels like a perfect system in a way - you simply don't miss what you don't have.

And lastly, those some sort of information bias at play. Non-parents hear all the time about how parents don't have time for this or that, or they hear them talk about how annoying their child is being. But most people have the self-awareness to not just sit and gush over how great their kid is to their non-parents friends, and even when they do, it's just obnoxious.

Fortunately for most bitcoiners who got in early, it's been variable in a positive direction... But not for everyone.

Plus, I want housing to be affordable despite my economic incentives.

When I say that I don't see it happening, I just don't quite see all of the indicators just yet. If we start seeing a sharper increase in new listings coming on market, or new construction prices significantly dropping, then I'd certainly change my outlook.

An interesting stat: We're almost back to our 2022 quantity of _new_ listings in October [1]. That's substantial because we've hovered around 20% below last year's number for just about every other month this year. One of the big stories of real estate is that sellers don't want to sell because they all locked in killer rates on their current homes, and buyers can't afford to buy with home prices AND mortgage rates what they are.

So, seeing even a slight increase in new listings (or the lack of a seasonal dropoff) is maybe an early indication of an easing of that stalemate. At the same time, time on market is still really low, which means that sellers are tapping into the high levels of demand that still exist. As a result, overall inventory isn't increasing.

All told though, even with those slight indicators, it's still a really tough time to be a buyer, and for the real estate market overall. The best hope that most have is that the dam leaks more, or even breaks on listings, and of course, if prices start to fall meaningfully, folks will want to cash out high, and you might get a proper "crash".

I personally don't really see it, but anything can happen, and we'll know soon enough!

[1]: https://www.redfin.com/news/data-center/

(Disclaimer, I work at Redfin)

> In a way that continues or has continued for a long time.

Merriam-Webster offers the following two:

> continuing or occurring again and again for a long time

> always present or encountered

For"chronically" to mean "extremely" wouldn't make sense as to the root of the word, either.

The program has defacto evolved to one in which the US can tap into a skilled global labor market to increase competition for roles, without paying too much attention to the actual legal requirements.

Sources:

(Like many here, I've written a few H1-B role requisition documents - which are often designed to be so ludicrously specific that it would be almost impossible to find anyone to fill that role, save for the one person applying for the visa)

[0] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/immigration/h1b

[1] https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/the-h-1b-vis...

In any event, 17 acres could theoretically supply food for an enormous range from 15 to 170 people, depending on how intensively it's farmed.

[1] 4000 sq ft bio-intensive farming (http://www.growbiointensive.org/) [2] 0.44 acres permaculturism (https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-fee...) [3] 1.2 from a 1994 study (and further discussion in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1aozn1/how_much...)

Furthermore, EVs have shown that advancements in tech can mitigate concerns around material availability and sustainability (while also increasing efficiency).

[1]: Rooftop Photovoltaic Technical Potential in the United States, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1575064

[2]: The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change, https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017140

An income tax calculator estimates about a 22% total tax bracket and a monthly adjusted income of just over 6k. To me, that means that this person is falling right around 33% of their income devoted towards housing, which seems typical. What am I missing?

If I find that I’m already convinced of the point that a particular subchapter / section is trying to make, I’ll speed through it. As a result, I speed read through about 80% of most non-fiction books.

My experience with speed reading is that it’s more akin to speed “skimming”. I see all the words, I understand the point each paragraph is making, but I’m not resting and respecting every word, or really paying too much attention to sentence structure. You can miss details, but this is predicated on the assumption that those details don’t matter.

If I’m reading something where every detail does matter, or fiction that’s heavy on prose, I slow down significantly, since my objective is often to enjoy the book for the maximum amount of time possible, and not to learn as many things in as short a time as possible.

Probably the only true weirdness is the 70s and 90s because they use the teen words like douze and treize, but that's honestly where the weirdness ends, and larger numbers follow very consistent rules.