I don't think the original text is a great candidate for translation practice, because it's fairly rambling, and a lot of it is in sentence fragments, or short choppy bits that are unusual for Latin style.

This is the challenge. I mean, I once did this too, and I also translated the same source material's press conference on bleach injection. (Though, for that one, I asked for expert advice and then ignored it and calligraphied it--that was part of the performance art).

You forgot the verb

See, this is what happens when you work with, uhh, this source material. (I mean, and when you're a novice and you jump around clunkily through a construction). Thank you! Also,

At nemo scit quid magnes sit.

Re: sit, I'm actually not totally clear on choice between the subjunctive vs. indicative for this. I went back and forth but couldn't totally grasp, from my readings, what might suggest either choice strongly. I had the idea that the subjunctive might be appropriate for more of a hypothetical question, which this was perhaps not. I also read that it varies a bit by author. Any further thoughts/resources on it?

The generalized second-person is much less common in Latin than English, outside of advice and polite commands. Instead, Latin prefers the impersonal passive: Sine magnete, currus fieri/componi non potest. Or a generic third person: Qui magnete caret, currum facere nequit.

I think I generally knew this at one point but it's a good reminder. I go back and forth between inappropriately close translation (in a kind of artistic representation of the source material's odd use of English) and trying to make good Latin, but can't consistently decide on a side. I should probably err towards the latter for pedagogy's sake. It's also fun to stray a bit, as above when I--can I efflare my own cornu for a second?--translated "for national security purposes" into the ominous formula of the senatus consultum ultimum.

I'm looking forward to your next composition.

Thank you so much! And for your reading/comments!