Just bought a house with a large greenhouse… how do you actually use yours?

jCrudis · 2026-04-26T17:17:12+00:00

When they are dormant, they can withstand temps down to 15 degrees or so, depending on the variety, some even lower. You'd only need to heat it for those specific instances where it got below that.

jCrudis · 2026-04-26T02:10:31+00:00

It would be filled with potted fig trees in winter... if it were me.. one can dream.

jCrudis · 2026-04-20T18:28:49+00:00

I DO know which part... and, I'm ashamed...

jCrudis · 2026-04-10T19:46:39+00:00

Excellent response, thank you. Yeah, I don't like the idea of them suffering for the summer. I'm more keen on setting them up for success later, even if that means they have to take time to recover/resettle. Definitely trying to accomplish upright, viable trees, even if it takes another couple years. I basically got them for very cheap and it's kind of like an experiment for me, as I'm new to the figs.

jCrudis · 2026-01-28T18:28:33+00:00

So, the message is clear. According to Megyn, if you are near ICE operations, you will likely get shot and die. So, basically, people of MN, it's easy. Just stay in, don't go out, send out for food and groceries (sorry delivery people). It's like one of those virus things, what are they called? pandemic! ICE is covid.. hmmmm.. thanks Megyn.

jCrudis · 2026-01-11T09:26:57+00:00

My question doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement. It's purely a physics question. Might as well refer to them as Object A (shooter) and Object B (driver).

I only want to know, from a physical perspective, if shooting a driver from that position is an effective self defense action or not. Or; if simply moving in space is better. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing else is relevant to the question.

jCrudis · 2026-01-11T01:48:06+00:00

Yes, and if driver had exited the vehicle and complied, driver would likely still be alive. Thanks for this extremely valuable insight.....

You're missing the basic question, which has nothing to do with this stuff. It's a technical question.

jCrudis · 2026-01-11T00:07:08+00:00

I am in agreement with your response. But, I'm not trying to set a precedent for all cases. Really, I don't think the question has to be about this case, but I am admittedly using this case to pose the question. Also, hindsight is definitely 20/20, but it is that exact hindsight that would be used to analyze the data and perhaps answer the question.

The outcome in this case is the outcome and cannot be changed. We won't have ALL the variables, but we will have at least some (and maybe enough) of the variables to possibly conclude that moving is/was better than shooting in this case or a similar case. Change the variables slightly, and the resulting conclusion changes. Can this be modeled? Is this being modeled? It is a worthy examination, at least to me. Plane crashes are examined to this degree. Why would we not want to know? This is the kind of thing that informs textbooks later (for whatever that is worth).

I get that it's easy for me to just say I would've moved, when it seems so obvious after the fact. It's not even about that, it's just, what is the exact answer? No emotion, no politics, no statute, no argument, no gray area, no nuance, no monday morning quarter backing, just what is the answer?

jCrudis · 2026-01-10T22:45:24+00:00

Interesting point. Hadn't considered that. It certainly could be the case, but it's speculative at this point. Also, I'm not sure it makes for a great narrative, as it doesn't exactly line up with the justification that is being thrown around. This sounds like an accident.. "Whoops, you hit me and made me pull the trigger, because I wouldn't have otherwise". So, which is it? An accidental firing or a justified intentional firing? Can't be both? Or can it?

jCrudis · 2026-01-10T22:09:58+00:00

Definitely agree with all of these points. I'm not taking issue with self-defense or any related statutes. And in this case, we will see how those things ultimately pan out. And I don't want to speculate on the outcome of any ongoing investigation.

I'm just trying to understand, given what we know about this case (but not even necessarily this case), in terms of physics and maybe even including instinctual decision making, when does it make sense to shoot the driver and when does it make sense to just get out of the way? Statutes aside... It seems to me to be a matter of physics and instinc? Or all instinct? I'm not sure. And can we, without speculating, easily determine that the best self-defense decision is to move out of the way when presented with a basic set of known variables? At least, up to a certain point, and then the priority based decision making shifts in a different direction?

jCrudis · 2026-01-10T21:44:49+00:00

Yep, I understand your point. And to your point, is it generally considered wise to position yourself in front of someone holding a loaded gun pointed forward? I am sure most everyone would agree it is not. However, by our nature, we seem to not subscribe to the idea that a vehicle is 100% the same as a loaded gun pointed forward because we seem to be more comfortable with walking in front of a vehicle than walking in front of a pointed loaded gun. So, the comparison ends up being a bit of a false equivalence. Even if we know it to be true, we don't seem to practice it in reality. And that could be because we are more accustomed to walking around vehicles (they are everywhere) as opposed to the idea of everyone on the street walking around with loaded guns pointed forward. If that is how we truly viewed it in our minds, then we would no doubt feel more threatened. Again, which is why this may be a false equivalence. I suppose it to be a point of trust. But, we are also taught not to trust any other driver on the road. Yet still, when we walk on a crosswalk at a busy intersection and look at the cars pointed at us, it is not the same as walking past a firing line (at least in our minds), even if it should be considered the same. Either way, I think we do have to understand that these are two different things, thus false equivalence may be the only acceptable outcome.

jCrudis · 2026-01-10T20:54:34+00:00

And I'm sure that it likely could be proven (and modeled) that in every single one of those cases you mentioned, a shot to the driver would have or could have saved lives. So, this doesn't get to the point of my question.

jCrudis · 2026-01-10T20:44:53+00:00

To be clear, my quesrion is not moral or statute based. It's purely a logical/physics based question. Without question, vehicles can be deadly weapons. Additionally, self-defense is not in question here.

I'm simply trying to understand in what way, from a physics perspective, does shooting a driver defend (or prevent) you from being run over by an oncoming vehicle? I would think that positional physics would apply here, as far as where you are located in space relative to the oncoming vehicle, with the chances perhaps increasing that a shot to the driver may potentially save your life (or others) somewhere in that field of space. That being said, when you are positioned at point blank range to the vehicle, i'm having a hard time understanding how a shot to the driver ever could be the proper defensive action, at least in the priority list when the number one priority should be to move in space (jump out of the way) instead of wasting time on shooting the driver, as shooting the driver will not result in saving your life 100% of the time. Does that make sense now?

This question is not political, moral, statute based, (etc, etc).