Every time i look into wood related work, be it home repair or artsy stuff, everything is huge. I have a Prius. I'm not too thrilled at the idea of buying a 2nd car (truck), and i don't want to drive only a truck.. so how am i to get the supplies?

Sounds like a silly question, but yea - things are just big. And i always thought i can't bother if i don't have a truck. Especially with the ~$70 overhead on shipping i see from lowes, home depot, etc. And i'm not aware of any local (wood) places that deliver.

Am i missing anything obvious?

Be aware that nominal lengths are usually approximate. I busted a windshield in the Civic because I knew I could fit a ten footer. Turns out my ten foot board was 10' 2" and when I was wiggling it to get the back end in the trunk, I wiggled it into the windshield wrong :-(

I knew I had successfully put in a 10' piece of plastic conduit before. I tried it again, wiggled a little too hard, and crack. The 1" conduit is not as flexy as 1/2" and that was enough to cause a problem. I use a towel on the windshield end now.

If possible, I get the store to cut the stock down beforehand. Works for 4x8 sheets of ply, for example. To fit in my car, it kind of needs to be less than 36" wide and not much more than 8' long, but specifics vary.

If I need basically a full sheet (4'x8' or 5'x5'), I put a blanket on my car roof, put the wood up top, and use 2 moderate-duty ratcheting straps (less than $20) to hold it down. No problem.

If it's long stuff (for my car, ~10') then I either put it up top, or let it hang out the back with a red flag on it. You can optionally get an accessory for your car to hold the trunk lid partway open so it does not sway up and down throughout the trip home. Keep the driver's window down a bit so you don't pull exhaust into the car.

Another solution that I've used to avoid delays getting pieces cut down is to take a saw with me. A basic $25 Japanese-style pull saw will do a great job on mouldings (and is just a good tool in general), and a hacksaw works for thinner metal. Some people take a battery-powered circular saw -- again, not a bad tool to have anyway, especially if you're bought in to a given battery-powered system (e.g., Bosch, Makita).

I live in a city, and this means I often have to take surface streets on the way home. I favor closer lumberyards for that reason.

There's also the idea of making friends with someone who has a larger vehicle. Minivans work almost just as well and are more commonly available.

I haven't tried it yet, but I'm convinced with the right strapping and padding, and driving at low speeds on a non-windy day, you could also strap full 4x8 sheets on the roof.

You'd be surprised how many mom and pop places will deliver. And like others have said, for anything else, there's always the rental truck or a U-Haul.

We're not talking about apple crates here. Some people make some very nice boxes. You can start simple and get more complex, but even the simple projects require precision and care. You can involve all sorts of advanced woodworking techniques like inlay, homemade veneers, marquetry, hidden joints, it's an endless list. You can't really buy nice boxes like you can build, unlike furniture. And you end up with nice gifts, especially for people who appreciate fine craftsmanship.

But you cant really fit a 4x8 sheet into the back of the car, truck rentals might work out. But honestly if you have a buddy with a truck, just ask, and if they say yeah, fill up the tank for them when your done with it.

From what I've seen though, wood isn't cheap to have delivered. They can cut it for you in the store, but obviously a prius still isn't best to ship it in.

Maybe find a friend with a truck or light trailer that you can borrow every couple of months?

Also, I have fallen in love with the fold down rear seat on my Civic. You can fit surprisingly large objects in the car with the seat folded down.

The biggest things I put in my SUV are large plywood panels and long dimensional lumber. Those can be strapped to the roof if you have a top rack.

Sidenote, i love how i can pay Element and support Matrix/Element.

Particularly for the situation you described - small, family chats - I'd recommend Signal over Element / Matrix.

https://element.io/plans-and-pricing/pro

If a Riot contributor is reading this comment, go try Keybase out while you still can, there are things it does well.

With good UX, easy encryption, the option to self host if you feel so inclined, I haven't found anything to complain about.

The only UX feature I miss is threads to help organize bigger discussions better.

There are some other matrix clients, like Pattle, which hide much of the complexity and give a more familiar UX to other messaging apps.

Software that achieves my goal in a focused manner is something i typically enjoy. I don't want it to do everything under the sun, i want it to do one or two things well.

These days, to me, a "lightweight" alternative to Dropbox would be one that focuses on filesharing with none of that other junk.

The other quality of flexible composable systems is that they can be extended with something akin to an AoP system. Non-essential qualities can be woven and applied during composition so that each component doesn't have to implement various features.

A counter example is the find command, it has to implement a predicate language into the tool itself. If it omitted typed objects, a filter engine could select the subset. If find implemented polymorphic values, the predicate would dictate what facets were populated in the structures themselves but our shells don't work that way. A metashell that could define its environment and the streams of structures flowing between components could get us closer to a pervasively composable mode of system construction.

Unix pipelines [2] are awesome, but they aren't the pinnacle. I feel like all of us fall short in creating systems that compose. Most (scalable) systems should be fractal, while most composition is limited to a narrow first-order mode of operation.

[1] https://nixos.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_McIlroy

However one problem i never see solved from any "normal" distros is reproducible systems. Hypothetically if i used Nix as a Desktop my config would be bulletproof. .. but then i'm going through a fair amount of work configuring everything when, as established, i want none of it.

So i (as a user) seem to want some middleground between no effort installations / configurations of my Desktop, with reproducible snapshots/states/configs/something.

You can use Nixpkgs on other distros/OSs, so maybe that is enough. But is there a better way?

And yes, the fact that I can configure all of my systems with a shared set of configs and have consistent and reproducible environments is fantastic.

I wrote up my thoughts about the switch here: https://kevincox.ca/2020/09/06/switching-to-desktop-nixos/

While i've dabbled in Nix in the past some things felt more odd to me than perhaps they should have. Primarily the fact that it felt like all these configs were spread out and i didn't understand how Nix wanted me to version them.

Flakes (from early tests) seems to make this very clear. As it starts from a repo, so i'm attempting to make all my configs, including Home Manager (of which also feels weird lol) start from the Flakes installation.

Flakes also solves the reproducibility problem that i didn't get why NixOS had. So far it's really neat.

I would imagine that you could use Home Manager on a non-NixOS system to at least create reproducible configs for the programs you use, although the OS as a whole would of course still be non-reproducible. However, I do not know how well Home Manager works on non-NixOS systems.

As you mention, just using Nix itself can be sufficient to get a reproducible set of packages on your system. I recall reading a blog post about someone who does this on both Ubuntu and MacOS.[1] The way this person does it is interesting because it’s more sophisticated than spawning the occasional ‘nix-shell’ or something. For example, they get the benefit of Nix “generations,” with a new generation being created each time they modify their declarative config files.

[0] https://github.com/nix-community/home-manager [1] https://www.nmattia.com/posts/2018-03-21-nix-reproducible-se...

* Config files aren't always stored in text (e.g. KDE Plasma, Gnome)

* It's all-or-nothing usually, unless you can find a way to make the home-manager config your "base"

* Changing settings isn't integrated, and requires editing/rebuilding/reopening (e.g. I can't just hit Ctrl+ to increase font size in VS Code, I have to edit a config file, run home-manager switch, then usually reopen)

* Plugins, especially things like extension stores, are a hack and a half. You have to hunt for hashes, then change it every time your old version falls off the CDN.

It's a nice idea, in theory, but it only works in a vacuum.

Edit: Oh, and obviously I keep the playbooks+roles in version control.

I refuse to live in a flood plain. Why would you? Not only do i not want my house to be destroyed, but the insurance alone is a good incentive to not live there.

If fire repeatedly pops up in my neighborhood i'll do the same thing, move. Why wouldn't you?

If the insurance would be insane because statistically it's likely to repeatedly happen why should taxpayers fund that sinkhole? I'm normally super liberal with taxes, but there has to be a balance. I believe in "free" healthcare, but we can't promote bad health patterns, as it would be a needless drain on the healthcare costs. Likewise i'd support taxpayers covering these types of disasters, but if you know the area is insanely prone to disasters why should the taxpayers fund it?

You're playing the victim card too hard mate. I get your point, but i don't think it's a "region bigot" issue here. Yes, people should move out of fire prone areas, why on earth would you think otherwise?

The flood plains mostly aren't inhabited here. (Yes, there are some exceptions.)

The area isn't what everyone seems to think it is.

If insurance can calculate costs and decide what is too expensive to insure, we can too. That's all.

First off, the idea that this entire area is all in a floodplain or is repeatedly being rebuilt is just plain false. It ain't. End of story.

The bigotry comment is due to the history of the region. Flood control has historically been used to forcibly evict black communities, particularly along the gulf coast. Its a bit of a dog whistle here.

Yes, I'm a white guy. Yes, I'm still bringing it up.

Ever notice how it's only the majority non-white cities people are calling for forcibly evicting everyone from? Case in point: Houston, but not Galveston or Corpus Christi. New Orleans but not Baton Rouge or Covington.

Ever notice how it's the poorest communities that are at risk of losing their land, and not the wealthy-but-equally-flood-prone communities next door? (E.g. no one's saying "force people out of Katy", they're saying "force people out of the third ward")

Maybe you don't, but here, it's a big deal.

Historically, that same argument (it'd be better for everybody if no one lives there) is at the heart of a lot of egregious behavior by local and state governments (mostly local).

It's the reason people were _so_ pissed off about the arguments that big swaths of New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt. It's why "we will rebuild" was such a rallying cry.

And it's why targeting the main African American population center in the state specifically (Houston -- I'm not talking about Lake Jackson in this, as I don't know it that well.) and falsely claiming it's flooding all the time and constantly having to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense tends to provoke a strong response here.

> Flood control has historically been used to forcibly evict black communities, particularly along the gulf coast. Its a bit of a dog whistle here.

To what end? I'm not disputing you here because frankly i have completely zero idea - but i struggle to even understand the assumed motivation. Evict black communities from their home, but then later let them return (as most evacuations are temporary)?

Or is eviction different than evacuation here? Do they kick out the black communities calling the area unsafe, then move white communities in? Seems bizarre, but i'm often quite abstracted and puzzled by racist behavior. Again, not disputing, merely questioning.

> Ever notice how it's only the majority non-white cities people are calling for forcibly evicting everyone from? Case in point: Houston, but not Galveston or Corpus Christi. New Orleans but not Baton Rouge or Covington.

I really haven't, but this isn't something i pay attention to. I certainly wouldn't have read someones comment about forcibly evicting someone to assume they wanted to then, later, move white folks in.

> Ever notice how it's the poorest communities that are at risk of losing their land, and not the wealthy-but-equally-flood-prone communities next door? (E.g. no one's saying "force people out of Katy", they're saying "force people out of the third ward")

I'd be in favor of this situation if the state/taxes were paying for the "third ward", but less so Katy. Rich folks tend to live in nice areas, regardless of how much of a risk that area was in before money moved in.

Which isn't to say that taxpayers didn't _also_ cover the rich folks. I'm just saying i wouldn't immediately assume rich areas need tax payers to have their homes protected from floods. And, i'm generally against tax payers helping constant flood areas. Seems a waste of resources.

> Historically, that same argument (it'd be better for everybody if no one lives there) is at the heart of a lot of egregious behavior by local and state governments (mostly local).

Plenty of things have been used to commit horrible things - i don't see that as an argument of the idea being inherently bad. You can do good or bad with just about any tool/power.

You may be correct, but does it make living in Tornado Alley (or w/e random example) any more safe? Any less of a burden on the taxpayer? I'd imagine not.

> And it's why targeting the main African American population center in the state specifically (Houston -- I'm not talking about Lake Jackson in this, as I don't know it that well.) and falsely claiming it's flooding all the time and constantly having to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense tends to provoke a strong response here.

That seems perfectly fair. With all of this said, i haven't changed my view, but i imagine we agree more than disagree. Since i'm not making, imo, any grand exclamations. Merely saying that we shouldn't live in areas that cost too much to be worth it.

I know very, very little about the New Orleans incident, rebuild, etc. It just seems foolish to build a house on sand, is all.

Historically, the evictions are eminent domain. There's no returning. The local government simply forces you off your property, nominally paying you something, but often pennies on the dollar. At a broad brush, national-level, this is a good start: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=756342 I'll try to find some gulf-coast specific historical summaries in a bit.

The land usually then gets sold, often to developers. Here, the rationale is "flood control". Elsewhere it's "urban renewal". The end result is the same: "You can't stay here. Go to some other state/county".

Next, there's development. The real culprit in a lot of urban flooding is more urbanization than climate change. When you pave over more and more of the watershed, water reaches the streams more quickly. This leads to more flash floods, as more water reaches the trunk stream quickly (or reaches a drain that can't handle the volume in a lot of cases). Zoning doesn't help with this much. Buildings, roads, and parking lots just don't slow down and trap water the way trees and winding bayous do.

The main issue is that the poor communities are in the lower-lying / downstream areas, usually. Development happens upstream / in higher areas. Places downstream that _never_ flooded before now flood multiple times a year, because everything upstream is paved. The community that paved things over does great, the community downstream suddenly has to deal with all kinds of issues.

The community that paved things over then complains about the "taxpayer dollars that are going to support those stupid people that built where it floods". The folks downstream are forced out, and their property is sold to developers, and the cycle repeats.

This is the historical pattern that explains a lot of why people get _really_ touchy about the whole "why would you live here" part.

At present, the main controversy is around targeted buyouts, which can be a very reasonable way of handling things overall. They're voluntary (we'll give you X for your house, will you take it?), and only offered if a property has flooded multiple times or is deemed at extremely high risk of flooding. They're supposed to be held by govt and kept in an undeveloped state. In practice, it often gets more murky, with the properties quickly being sold, yet again, to developers. Targeted buyouts are a very good way to handle things -- it's the execution that folks often object to. Again, history plays a role.

One thing to end on: Nowhere is particularly immune to disasters. There are certainly lower-risk and higher-risk areas, but trying to mark _vast_ swaths off-limits will end poorly. My point is, saying all of the broader Houston-Beaumont region is uninhabitable is just silly. We have floods due to hurricanes. Other places have fires, or droughts, or earthquakes, etc. It's a game of "pick your poison". We're higher risk than, say, Denver, sure. We're lower risk than say, SF, or Seattle, or Miami though.

Because WSL2 i've not had a single "chmod" issue, .. not sure why i would. Chmod within linux works just like you'd expect. However permissions across the OS boundary is another story.

Though TBH i'm not sure what you'd expect from chmod'ing files in the Windows side. Seems unfair to expect Linux-centric behaviors to work on the Windows installation. Eg you wouldn't expect to be able to put Windows applications inside Linux Containers, right?

Which is litaraly the same reason i use(d) Mac, but am now looking to move away from. Mac has too many problems, so i may as well move on.

So now i'm installing Windows and Linux, comparing them and the ease of use. I don't want _any_ driver problems, frankly i just want the OS to get out of my way. Historically, Linux has given me such a terrible experience with things like "my BT doesn't work, my sound doesn't work, my monitor doesn't work" that switching away from Mac was viewed as an impossibility.

Now however, i see a way out, and i'm taking it. I've experimented with WSL2 and it's shockingly good so far. I'll likely install PopOS this weekend to see if i experience problems. If i even hint a problem in Linux, i'll likely revert back to Windows.

Mac is losing it's lunch imo. But, i get to build a workhorse of a PC for the same price i would have given Apple - so i'm happy.

Why sell to these demanding power users wanting complex stuff when you can sell to the rich consumer who just wants to dick around on Facebook and play with their iDevices all day :P

I've paid thousands to the Mac ecosystem over the years purely to avoid these problems. I just want the OS to work, and i've literally never had that experience on Linux. I'm sure it's much much better these days than it was the last time i tried, but - everything i hear tells me they still exist to some degree.

4k and 1080p is my exact setup btw haha. I was debating installing PopOS this weekend.

Edit: there was no configuration needed. I selected Wayland from the menu and it just worked right out of the box. No bells and whistles, just a great desktop experience.

The longer i'm a software engineer the less energy i have for dealing with my OS, i guess.

I know the CPU/Ram/GPU i want, but i imagine most of the trouble is motherboard, since so many features are there.

I'm also curious how my current hardware rates on compatibility.

I also have an Nvidia right now, so.. hopefully it works great hah. Otherwise i'll be on Windows.

AMD: check in which kernel version AMD added the support for your GPU, and which Mesa version has feature parity (most of the time it's already there because there weren't any big shifts since Vega, RDNA2 might be that one) and you're good to go on any distro.

NVIDIA: Wayland support isn't there for years and foreseeable future, random issues with driver updates. Supports only 3 distros (Red Hat family, SUSE and Ubuntu without derivatives, I even made a page for devs how to add Debian flavour of it on any deb distro since Mint users were constantly struggling), Debian makes it's own decoupling of blob which works flawlessly but new version might not be there for a month because maintainers aren't there. I still remember that full support for Pascal has landed 6 months after the release.

Eg on a native system (Linux/Mac), a lot of editors launch subprocesses like Language Server Protocol Servers which would expect to be in the context of Linux. But the Visual Studio Code instance is running in.. windows, right?

Same goes for Alacritty - i'd want the executable GUI to be running, but to run within the context of Linux.

How does that work for you?