On the code updates, you're right, but it wouldn't replace 2x4 and 2x6 and 2x8 you use in walls and floors. Those are driven as much by other factors (spacing required to nail sheetrock too) and depth needed for insulation to function than they are structural requirements.

Where it would be powerful in residential is when you are replacing steel or Glue-lam beams. In those cases, a structural engineer is calculating the loads on each beam and spec-ing it in the permit with the calculations, so the city wouldn't care that it's the same dimensions as the other beam, just that it's calculated to carry the load.

Commercial and industrial is similar, it's all calculated not spec'd as in "use 2x6 for walls" like we see in residential code.

It would be interesting if it ends up as cheap as gluelam beams but much more compact so that you don't have beams dropping below the ceiling while still having the ability to carry the load. This would be very interesting, especially if you can use wood hangars and fasteners and not have to bring in a steel guy to a jobsite for a single beam. If your regular framers can handle it, it would reduce costs and time to build.

This guy has been at a corp job!

If you even get wind that you might have a PIP coming (even if performance is good, if you have a new manager that doesn't gel with you), you should be job hunting 100% of the time you're not doing everything possible to satisfy the current leadership.

If it gets to the point where they offer you PIP or VSA, the only reason to consider PIP would be if you have someone in another department that will hire you immediately. Since this is really hard to do (managers don't walk around with unfilled reqs), 99% of the time, take the VSA vs months of micromanagement, stress, and failure that result in you departing anyway.

What about 1973 and 1979? I remember those being pretty big shocks.

In fact, done right, you could also not have dealt with 9/11 and the ensuing decades of tragedy.

Do you not believe though, that consumers and producers will make decisions based on these inputs?

Consumer yesterday has a choice of $1 chinese toy or $1.10 US toy. Chooses Chinese toy.

Tomorrow: If Chinese producer doesn't make any adaptations, they will get $0. US toymaker makes $1.10 no tarrif collected

Our economy is very efficient, that means that even a few percentage change in price/costs of items will have a huge shift.

Chinese producer can either take $0 or lower their price to 90 cents. In that case. Consumer can buy either toy for $1.10, chinese producer makes either $0 or 90 cents, US gov takes either zero or 20 cents.

It's obviously more complicated than that, but I expect, if these hold steady, US production will increase, imports will decrease, prices will rise (but not by 20%), and government income will raise (though not by 20% of today's imports)

Also for government compliance. Yes, the government watches you sleep if you have sleep apnea and want to fly a plane or be a truck driver. I have to send the whole 365 sleep logs to the feds each year.

This would be easier to read as a fraction

On another forum I frequent, someone captured something that seems true to me. The first person to put out a Ford Maverick sized pickup with electric that is fairly cheap with decent range wins all the money.

I think a lot of people would jump on this thing.

One thing I like about going to Europe is the usefulness of a small handful of coins in my front pocket. As a kid this was still true in the US but now it doesn't get you anything. Having 1, 2, 5 euro coins will actually buy you a gelato or pay for a fare to something without breaking bills out.

sure, and honestly, we're always afraid (and surprised by) to use tax in the way it actually works. Tax what you want less of, don't tax (or tax lower) what you want more of.

Want less GHG emissions in your state, put a fairly stiff tax on carbon $1/gallon tax on, maybe phased in over 5 years. This gives people time to pick better commutes, more efficient cars, more efficient furnaces, etc. You can tax NG and coal too, but then let the market decide on the right mix of generation, you'll find that there will be lower emissions, but in a more efficient way than the government trying to mandate everything.

Also, if we want less plastic or forever chemicals and you can't outright ban them, just tax/tarrif them. It will shift to using less and really only using them where they are the best substance vs, "everything is plastic because it's cheap".

Thank you for sharing that story, I couldn't recall it. Kudos to him for managing 110 on Spirit Lake Hwy and surviving.

Yes, all of these things are mandated by people who've never lived outside of a city with mass transit.

The number of times I've had to rush due to life safety (which could include fleeing a road rage incident, responding to a natural disaster, rushing someone to the hospital) is a long ways from zero.

I know you're trolling, but a few points.

1. The Mulford act was passed in 1967. That was 55 years ago. These aren't the same people who passed that. Note that the Gun Control Act was also passed in the same time period (1968).

2. Not one gun owner I know would advocate for lying on the federal firearms form, or for having drug abusers have guns. This is all currently illegal and the gov't just needs to process criminals, like Hunter, not pass new laws.

This is 100% true in rural Western Washington too. Mint is great in the populated areas, but once outside of the city or heading to the coast, US Cellular is likely to have bars when TMo goes to zero, for hundreds of miles.

I have two SIMs (one US Cellular as a backup for when I'm out in the hinterlands, and one that is Mint for day to day in the city).

It would be great if Tmo got the coverage of US Cellular. Hopefully we don't end up paying for both and getting the worst of both.

I wouldn't be suprised if they offer an "extended network" plan that is an extra $10/mo and uses US Cellular frequencies and coverage, I'd pay it in a heartbeat and drop the second SIM.

It seems like you are running out of housing and resources because the population has grown massively.

In 1980 the UK population was 50M, in 2024 it is 68M. That's 18M more people to house, food, water, educate, etc. A 36% increase!

Of that 9M were foreign born, so basically 1/2 of the growth was due to immigration. Probably a touch higher since it doesn't look at children of immigrants. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep...

37% of London is foreign born. How would housing be in London with 1/3 less people?

Yes, or if their consumer products weren't hot garbage. All their domestic appliances are unreliable nightmares. they could DOMINATE that market for the upper mid end with just $5 worth of attention on not ripping off their customers.