gknapp

Socrates was put death in ancient Athens in no small part to how much he was sinply a pedantic ass to everyone he interacted with, and yet it was this incessant questioning which laid the foundation for over two millenia of philosophy.

I read Crime and Punishment, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I then thought I'd move right over to War and Peace and could not get through the first 5% of the book. I'm sure with diligent effort, you can get over the very lengthy and plotless character interactions to the point where it's engaging, but I just felt like there were other books to read.

Now I'm back reading The Brothers Karamazov and it's instantly captivating! The author of this article describes the same thing... could it be that Tolstoy is just much more of a slog than Dostoyevsky?

I had to take down two absolutely enormous Douglas Fir trees on my property (> 36" base), and asked them to leave the wood rounds for me. I knew it was going to be a lot of wood, but even then, I was not prepared. I spent about a fair bit of my free time over the next 1-2 months just out there slowly working my way through the pile, and you're absolutely right - you get substantially better at it. For me, it looked something like this:

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.

What does this do that Obsidian doesn't already do? I've found that's my typical go to for pairing with Agentic work, and supports Markdown well, alongside tons of other functionality.

Well, it's easy! Just get the majority of voters to hate each other enough that it's a moral boundary to vote together on any law, effectively limiting any meaningful change.

> And no, please spare us all your justifications for how caffeine is fine or micro-dosing has been amazing, because they are simply varying levels of rationalization, I do it too, I’m just not in it as deeply. And no, just because you were able to become rich with and on the back of drugs does not mean you did it without harm, you likely just scandalized a lot of harm to, e.g., get rich selling some service to some coke head investor who will only fuel the abuse of data mining and social media addiction.

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.

I just played a full round of Geoguessr world with Gemini 2.5 and got a score of 22k / 25k (so a silver medal). This puts in the realm of a "pretty good" player.

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.

Right, but this is the same company, so the cost of marketing, auditing, R&D, etc. shouldn't be different for these products. That's a fixed cost for the company.

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.

I don't have a great sense as to how this works across the world, but where I'm at (Seattle) your property tax is a factor of both the improved and unimproved aspects of your parcel. The improved ones being the value of the buildings and the unimproved being the value of the land itself.

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.

People value family differently. For some, their dream life is to have sick cars and a sweet loft, for others, it's to raise other humans to be good. You should probably understand that there are some that read your perspective on life as equally puzzling.

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.

These are some interesting points around its value, but it can absolutely be inflated, no? Given that most of our standards of value are tied to fiats, and that Bitcoin's exchange with said fiats is highly variable, the value of your crypto wealth can totally be out of your control.

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

I can tell you honestly that I am personally hoping for a crash, and that's in part because I work on real estate. Home prices are unsustainably high by such a margin that it's absolutely killed transaction volume. Sure, earnings per transaction will go down, but we desperately need an increase in volume.

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.

The dictionary doesn't agree with both options. Cambridge has a single definition:

> 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.