| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard nothing about vaccines from our health care provider.
Edit: Naked Vaccine Dance, that's the way to get vaccinated!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting mine friday.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Impus Major had his first significant collision since he got his license. (One time while I was teaching him he took a right turn too close and fast and burst the left rear tire.)
What did he hit?
He turned too sharply while trying to park the Prius, scraping the crap out of the passenger side of the Prius against the already-dented-in front of the Celica.
If it had been someone else's car, it would have easily been $1500-$2000 in damage.
For us? Meh. It's not like people will notice the extra scratches. No harm, no foul.
Getting mine friday.Second dose, right? I feel quite certain that I made a joke about driving down there, pretending to be you, and getting the shot.
Mine was the J&J single dose vax, so I don't have to deal with going back for seconds.
Yeah You would probably want to get the first one first. I have no idea what the consequences would be for skipping the first one and going right to the second but I'm sure it wouldn't be good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's going to be a surprisingly action packed day today.
1. Playstation 5 is on the delivery, truck tracking information says.
2. Crookshanks has her ACT today, on the other side of town (she's taking the bus, completely her choice, but I'm on standby in case buses are missed).
3. After work we have an appointment to get our [redacted] done.
And, despite all this, I plan on working so I can finish laying down the pavers for my sunrise patio and then start edging and sanding it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My side of the family is entirely vaccinated already. Pretty much everyone is in a high risk category except me and then a few also work for the Red Cross, which has an inside track on vaccinations.
The General's parents are vaccinated, but the rest of her family belong to the MAGA cult, so they have not, which is just fine with us, because that just means we have an easy excuse to leave if they show up anywhere.
Same boat with some of my in-laws. It will be a great excuse to not invite them to things.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know you're doing a good job when the homeowners come back from vacation and tell the boss "I went out to see how things were going and I couldn't believe how beautiful the work of art was!"
I'm absolutely going to let that go to my head.
You know you're doing a good job when the homeowners come back from vacation and tell the boss "I went out to see how things were going and I couldn't believe how beautiful the work of art was!"
I'm absolutely going to let that go to my head.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things you learn while prepping a game:
I'm trying to set up a self-sufficient farming community, and the amount of farmland is important, so first I looked up "How many people can a hectare of land support?" and I got a scholarly article that claims the number is an appallingly-low 5 people per hectare. However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.
Thus, given my community is 65 people, I need 13 hectares of land.
Then I looked up, "How many people does it take to work a hectare of land?"
The answer, of course, is, "It varies," but a "general rule of thumb" is 4 people per acre, which results in 10 people per hectare. So my community needs 130 people to work the farms to support themselves.
In short, according to the internet, it is impossible for a community to feed itself, and we should have all starved to death the moment agriculture came along.
Hmm... maybe, just maybe, someone's getting their numbers a bit off...
Things you learn while prepping a game:
I'm trying to set up a self-sufficient farming community, and the amount of farmland is important, so first I looked up "How many people can a hectare of land support?" and I got a scholarly article that claims the number is an appallingly-low 5 people per hectare. However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.
Thus, given my community is 65 people, I need 13 hectares of land.
Then I looked up, "How many people does it take to work a hectare of land?"
The answer, of course, is, "It varies," but a "general rule of thumb" is 4 people per acre, which results in 10 people per hectare. So my community needs 130 people to work the farms to support themselves.
In short, according to the internet, it is impossible for a community to feed itself, and we should have all starved to death the moment agriculture came along.
Hmm... maybe, just maybe, someone's getting their numbers a bit off...
I could have sworn there was an app for that a while back. Showed how many people a certain area on the randomly created map could support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.
This may be the variable that is causing the problem
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paraphrased from a story told by a member of a band:
"Now, I was born and raised in Southeast Texas, but I didn't think I was a redneck until a couple of months ago. We were going to be in Alaska for a few weeks, and my aunt decided she wanted to come up for a few days, see a couple of shows, and experience Alaska in summer. On the day she was supposed to leave Texas, we get a call from her. She missed her flight. Because she was detained by TSA. Why was she detained? She had a can of lard in her carry-on luggage, and they needed to test it to make sure it wasn't a weapon of some sort. Why did she have a can a lard with her? Because 'I need it to make proper biscuits for biscuits and gravy, and I wasn't sure if they had it in Alaska.' When I heard that, I thought to myself 'You know, when a close family member basically lives a Jeff Foxworthy joke, you need to reevaluate just how much of a redneck you are.'"
I bet she made some damn good biscuits though. Probably makes excellent pie crusts too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.This may be the variable that is causing the problem
No; that was the high end showing how bad it could get. The "world average" seems to be 0.20.
I think the miscalculation comes in how much work it takes to "maintain" a hectare of land. During plowing, seeding, and harvesting a single hectare could easily take 10-20 people working full time for several days (or even a couple of weeks) to prepare the land, and that's probably where that "10 people per hectare" comes from.
For the rest of the year, when the crops are simply growing, I'm guessing 1-2 people to walk the land every day, check for weeds and pests, etc., is probably sufficient.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm signed up for the vaccine on the state site, but not heard back other than to confirm I'm on the list. Not had any luck getting it through the Publix & Winn-Dixie "Black Friday morning/lotto" setups yet. Dad already has both his Moderna shots, so my worry level has dropped to normal levels.
I'm signed up for the vaccine on the state site, but not heard back other than to confirm I'm on the list. Not had any luck getting it through the Publix & Winn-Dixie "Black Friday morning/lotto" setups yet. Dad already has both his Moderna shots, so my worry level has dropped to normal levels.
Because I've been watching a lot of Cells At Work, I see this as a gigantic sign inside your head with "Everything's okay" "Mildly concerned" "Concerned" "Worried" and "Everybody freak out" levels with a tiny you with a megaphone announcing concern/worry levels to the rest of your body.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm signed up for the vaccine on the state site, but not heard back other than to confirm I'm on the list. Not had any luck getting it through the Publix & Winn-Dixie "Black Friday morning/lotto" setups yet. Dad already has both his Moderna shots, so my worry level has dropped to normal levels.Because I've been watching a lot of Cells At Work, I see this as a gigantic sign inside your head with "Everything's okay" "Mildly concerned" "Concerned" "Worried" and "Everybody freak out" levels with a tiny you with a megaphone announcing concern/worry levels to the rest of your body.
That is how it works, right?
Right?
Youtube, I do not think the Babylon Bee's channel and I are likely to get on well together.
Hello, everyone.
Hello John!
Could this help?I could have sworn there was an app for that a while back. Showed how many people a certain area on the randomly created map could support.Things you learn while prepping a game:
I'm trying to set up a self-sufficient farming community, and the amount of farmland is important, so first I looked up "How many people can a hectare of land support?" and I got a scholarly article that claims the number is an appallingly-low 5 people per hectare. However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.
Thus, given my community is 65 people, I need 13 hectares of land.
Then I looked up, "How many people does it take to work a hectare of land?"
The answer, of course, is, "It varies," but a "general rule of thumb" is 4 people per acre, which results in 10 people per hectare. So my community needs 130 people to work the farms to support themselves.
In short, according to the internet, it is impossible for a community to feed itself, and we should have all starved to death the moment agriculture came along.
Hmm... maybe, just maybe, someone's getting their numbers a bit off...
From the site:
A square mile of cultivated land (including not only farmland, orchards and pastures, but also the roads and settlements attendant to them) will support around 180 people.
At 259 hectares per square mile, that's 1.44 hectares per person, which is worse than the worst real-life scenario. So yeah, they include "roads and settlements", but even if you look at satellite pictures of California you'll see roads and settlements are a tiny percentage of overall land use. So "made simple" unfortunately makes things worse for me. But I appreciate the link. Interesting reading, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things you learn while prepping a game:
I'm trying to set up a self-sufficient farming community, and the amount of farmland is important, so first I looked up "How many people can a hectare of land support?" and I got a scholarly article that claims the number is an appallingly-low 5 people per hectare. However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.
Thus, given my community is 65 people, I need 13 hectares of land.
Then I looked up, "How many people does it take to work a hectare of land?"
The answer, of course, is, "It varies," but a "general rule of thumb" is 4 people per acre, which results in 10 people per hectare. So my community needs 130 people to work the farms to support themselves.
In short, according to the internet, it is impossible for a community to feed itself, and we should have all starved to death the moment agriculture came along.
Hmm... maybe, just maybe, someone's getting their numbers a bit off...
First of all, ignore "American diet". It's a miracle of productivity owing primarily to advanced agricultural techniques undreamed for before second half of 20th century which is also tied into an economic system much more advanced than anything else.
The numbers I could find say that 2 acres of rice/wheat, around 1.5 of potatoes, or approximately single acre of barley/maize, using late ancient techniques (a wooden plow harnessed to two oxen) produce enough yield per growing season to feed one working adult. In temperate climate you are likely to get two growing seasons, but you also need to keep a significant part of the crop as seeds for the next season (between a quarter to half, because pre-modern grains are terribly inefficient).
The numbers get somewhat better using more advanced medieval techniques (including a horse-drawn plow).
The number of people needed to work the fields are rather off or rather the timing of it - you don't need four people to work the acree ALL the year - the very definition of historical acre is "an amount of land that can be plowed with a pair of oxen in a single day", which in typical setting is a two man work, followed by two more people sowing the seeds on the plowed land.
You will need a few days to clear and prepare the fields before that, and then check on the growing plants, shoo the vermin, and remove the weeds now and then, but the same four people can plow and sow seeds across multiple acres on consecutive days.
Supposedly (I have no real idea, never worked in agriculture and it's unlikely that I ever will), harvesting crops from an acre takes six man-days of work, though again, those can be spread between multiple days.
Could this help?I could have sworn there was an app for that a while back. Showed how many people a certain area on the randomly created map could support.Things you learn while prepping a game:
I'm trying to set up a self-sufficient farming community, and the amount of farmland is important, so first I looked up "How many people can a hectare of land support?" and I got a scholarly article that claims the number is an appallingly-low 5 people per hectare. However, many additional articles support this same result: An American diet takes 1.08 hectares per person per year, and another says 2 acres feed a family of 4, yet again giving me the 5 people per hectare number.
Thus, given my community is 65 people, I need 13 hectares of land.
Then I looked up, "How many people does it take to work a hectare of land?"
The answer, of course, is, "It varies," but a "general rule of thumb" is 4 people per acre, which results in 10 people per hectare. So my community needs 130 people to work the farms to support themselves.
In short, according to the internet, it is impossible for a community to feed itself, and we should have all starved to death the moment agriculture came along.
Hmm... maybe, just maybe, someone's getting their numbers a bit off...
From the site:
A square mile of cultivated land (including not only farmland, orchards and pastures, but also the roads and settlements attendant to them) will support around 180 people.At 259 hectares per square mile, that's 1.44 hectares per person, which is worse than the worst real-life scenario. So yeah, they include "roads and settlements", but even...
Historical population average density in Medieval Englad was around 5-10 people per square mile.
Ancient Egypt, the most fertile of lands in pre-modern times could reach tup to 75 people per square mile, though it had a very limited number of those fertile miles. I assume that the river floodlands of Ancient China could have similar density.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this as a gigantic sign inside your head with "Everything's okay" "Mildly concerned" "Concerned" "Worried" and "Everybody freak out" levels with a tiny you with a megaphone announcing concern/worry levels to the rest of your body.
I just checked the sign; "Mildly concerned" is covered in cobwebs from disuse and I burned the "Everything's okay" portion back during 4th-5th grade sometime.
My worry level has dropped to normal levels for me, not to "not concerned" levels.
The numbers I could find say that 2 acres of rice/wheat, around 1.5 of potatoes, or approximately single acre of barley/maize, using late ancient techniques (a wooden plow harnessed to two oxen) produce enough yield per growing season to feed one working adult. In temperate climate you are likely to get two growing seasons, but you also need to keep a significant part of the crop as seeds for the next season (between a quarter to half, because pre-modern grains are terribly inefficient).
The numbers get somewhat better using more advanced medieval techniques (including a horse-drawn plow).
This aligns amazingly closely with what I posted above. 1 hectare = 2.5 acres, so from the above using barley/maize would support 2.5 people, but with more modern techniques (likely available in a medieval fantasy game), 1 hectare per 5 people still seems like a solid number.
The labor looks like I'm going to have to take a random guess, but given that the entire point of agriculture was to move humankind away from, "I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week just to feed myself," I'd hazard a guess that agriculture dropped it from an 84-hour week per person to a 21-hour week per person (just a guess), meaning half the population can be doing something other than farming.
I was more amused by the basic internet searches showing that simple agrarian societies can't be self-sufficient than by anything else.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, I finished the patio I was working on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Playstation 5 arrived, which was a pretty sweet reward to walk in the house to see after finishing a patio.
Unfortunately I spent my video gaming time downloading the two games to the new console we have so I didn't actually get to play any video games.
Tomorrow night!
Night John.
Laundry?
Turing it off and on again should always be top of the list of things you try. I hate calling IT as well.
My computer has been a low key pain tonight to. Working just enough to get by but slow and not everything loading just enough to get on my nerves.
Just say it was that way when you found it. unless you fix it. then it was all you.
2nd shifts do have a tendency of passing the buck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes, timing is everything.
Yesterday the boss came out to see how everything was going at the job site.
Everyone else had a list of problems or issues that have cropt up since he stopped out at the end of last week.
He finally gets down by where I'm working and he says "How's it going, Yesterday?" To which I reply (as I'm picking up my tools) "Great! I just finished the patio!".
That is true. The fact the boss comes in the morning right after my shift as opposed to right after 2nd shift Probably has a lot to do with it.
I see the boss in the morning when I punch in but he also stops by the job site a couple of times a week or if the situation warrants.
Yesterday, one of the college kids blew out the engine for one of the skid loaders on site.
My post wasn't related to you guys, I meant to post that last night but I forgot.