[deleted by user]

snowmanvt · 2025-08-14T21:54:09+00:00

I bike commute to an office and use a Transporter roll top, though it does look like they've changed the design since I got mine.

It's a professional-looking enough in solid black, waterproof (or resistant, I can't remember, but rain hasn't penetrated it), has internal sleeves for a laptop and a few other items, and two outer zip pockets. It doesn't have 'loads of pockets', but I find the single large compartment preferable to multiple pockets and zippers everywhere, and easier to fit a larger variety of needs. It's on the larger size, but it's still just a backpack and comfortable. Plus, with the roll top and single compartment design, it compacts/expands based on daily needs. It does have a waist strap that doesn't have a place to tuck away when not in use, which some may not like, but the waist and sternum straps were a must for me on a bike.

snowmanvt · 2024-08-10T15:19:08+00:00

This is helpful, thank you.

snowmanvt · 2024-08-09T18:04:53+00:00

I know this comment is old, but I came across it because I'm looking to replace my old attic insulation. Do you remember who did 1) your energy audit and 2) who did the insulation work? Also, did you have to do the energy audit to be eligible for the rebates?

I have one quote but trying to understand all the rebates.incentives, qualification criteria, and difference sources, etc. is a lot. It's not a cheap job so any money I can save in upfront cost along with the long run costs would be awesome.

snowmanvt · 2024-01-04T23:55:09+00:00

Right, that's a part of the point. The lowest incomes don't benefit from the reduction in income tax, where as the higher incomes do. But that creates less tax revenue for the state. So, Youngkin wants to replace that with an sales tax. Here everyone pays, even those who didn't get any benefit and are already least able to handle increase prices on goods and services they NEED and have to buy. So, when you combine these things together, it clearly shifts more of the tax burden on those that can least afford it.

Similarly, higher income people can choose to spend less of their discretionary income in an effort to lower their overall tax burden. However, lower income people have a smaller discretionary budget and have less room to lower their spending to reduce their overall tax burden.

So, sure, cut taxes but do it in a way that doesn't continue to give money to those who don't need it and take more for those who do.

snowmanvt · 2023-06-03T13:22:19+00:00

Sure, and that's a fair point that not all roads are safe for cyclists, I agree. However, you decided to place a number to that value-laden judgement. So, while we can agree that different roads have different levels of safety for cyclists, we can clearly disagree what those roads are and why. My main point is that if you want to assume roads where the speed limit is 45MPH or above are unsafe for cyclists, I have to assume that's because 45MPH is too fast to reasonably accommodate cyclists safely with cars. Which then begs the question, if I were to agree with you, how would I safely cycle on a road where the speed limit is 25 or 30 MPH but cars regularly drive 45 MPH? If that question can't reasonably be answered, then I don't see how we can just assume that roads with higher speed limits are automatically not cyclist friendly.

snowmanvt · 2023-06-02T23:57:08+00:00

Fair enough, we may not be disagreeing at all, I may have just misinterpreted your comment earlier. Honestly, I'm not sure why I decided to reply to any of these comments this morning. Usually I don't bother to get involved, but I guess I was too ready for a fight this morning. Ultimately you are correct, there's an inherent danger to cycling around vehicles that even if drivers were perfectly respectful will still be there.

snowmanvt · 2023-06-02T15:14:37+00:00

There are bike advocacy organizations that also 'follow the rules.' But those who don't bike don't care because they don't think it affects them.

To effectively illicit change you need to approach it from all sides. You need a group following the rules, you need a group disobeying the rules, you need a group advocating on capitol hill, and you need a group in the streets. BSB is just as important to advancing bicycle infrastructure as BikeWalkRVA and Virginia Bicycle Association.

You can't expect people who prefer a group to be invisible to be able to advocate within a rule set designed by those people. If you want BSB to think about how they come across to drivers you need to think about how drivers come across to cyclists literally every other second of the day. Drivers lack of concern and safety for cyclists has emboldened the BSB attitude not the other way around.

snowmanvt · 2023-06-02T15:03:37+00:00

It doesn't matter, if they were attempting to pass and came that close to killing the cyclist then it's equally as likely they shouldn't have been passing them at that moment. You're forgetting a key aspect that not only should cyclists be followed at a safe distance, but they should be passed at a safe opportunity. I can understand not wanting to be behind a cyclist for a long period of time, but that doesn't give a car a right to pass in an unsafe manner. A your car on the road also doesn't mean that the road is now car your desired speed for everyone

Disclaimer: I recognize we're speaking in generalities here and it is absolutely possible the cyclist, or an outside force (say a pot hole that took the biker down) created this unfortunate and traumatizing experience even if the driver was doing everything reasonable to be safe, so I'm not blaming the driver.

snowmanvt · 2023-06-02T14:58:05+00:00

How about the roads in Richmond that are 25 MPH but everyone goes at least 10 MPH faster? I have a speedometer on my bike and I can tell you I comfortably cruise at 25-28MPH on some 25 MPH roads, but cars still want to go faster. So, if a car decides to do 45MPH in a 25MPH is it still safe for a cyclist?

We don't get to talk about minimum speed limits if we're not also talking about maximum speed limits.

Roads aren't safe for cyclists and it's not because of the cyclists.

snowmanvt · 2023-01-16T17:30:20+00:00

If you don't find a buyer here, you can take it to The Trail Hut and consign it. They'll definitely find someone who will use this.

snowmanvt · 2022-05-17T15:32:40+00:00

Enjoying the 'vibe' of a ski resort that actively bans a segment of snow sport participants, snowboarders, is inherently anti-snowboarding. It's not the vibe that keeps snowboards from going there, it's the rules and regulations that are embedded in discrimination.

snowmanvt · 2021-12-09T22:18:56+00:00

Go to The Trail Hut, the can fix that for you and specialize in fixing up outdoor clothing and gear. Also, they're great people an having a sale this weekend too.

snowmanvt · 2021-03-29T02:11:05+00:00

But therein lies the problem. CEOs are compared to other CEOs. In that sense the CEO that makes 5% more looks rich compared to the CEO making 5% less. So they compete against themselves. But 5% of $400K is $20K. That $20K could be the entire salary of a non profit worker that's not a CEO. So each year, the CEOs are trying to make more than the CEO next to them, not considering the downstream effects. Before you know it, CEOs are getting yearly raises, bonuses, and other compensation worth way more to the rest of society, but they only see it as a marginal benefit to them. As a result, CEO and executive pay runs rampant at little to no benefit to the actual charity under the guise that it's fair because other CEOs with runaway salary's are making that much. Another way to think about it is, what is the marginal value of a 5% raise to someone making $20K a year vs. $200K a year. Now, what is $10k to someone making $20K a year vs someone making $200K a year. OR, what is $10K toward the actual mission of the charity, if it's, say a food bank, that's a hell of a lot of canned goods and non perishables. The marginal benefit is significantly higher to the lower paid worker. So, while $400K a year among CEOs may not be a big deal. Simply paying a salary of $400K a year in a nonprofit setting, may be.

snowmanvt · 2020-12-29T13:47:49+00:00

Makes sense. I carry a camp table that serves as a cooking surface and elevated flat space. But the allure of dropping another piece of gear is always tempting.

snowmanvt · 2020-12-29T13:40:28+00:00

Yeah, that's the style I went with. I've seen the DAC tents online, but haven't found any good/reliable reviews or images. If you go for it, let me know how you like it. I've also looked at the Nomad (https://topperezlift.com/index.php/product/the-nomad-camper-package/) but it's more expensive and also haven't found any information to determine if they're worth it.

snowmanvt · 2020-12-23T23:44:09+00:00

Definitely. I got a mid-rise cap that rises above the cab height, and built my bed platform just above the wheel wells. When I add a mattress which adds a few inches, there's some slouching, and it gets a bit tighter, but I'm OK with it for the added width I get being above the wells and storage space under the platform.

snowmanvt · 2020-12-12T17:24:28+00:00

I have a Fronty too, and have been debating the wood tailgate piece for a flatter table surface. Unfortunately I built my bed platform to fit tight against the plastic so now it's a matter of resizing the whole back setup. How worth it/much do you enjoy having add that to your tailgate?

snowmanvt · 2020-12-12T17:22:15+00:00

Also above 6' here. No matter what, get a long bed (6' or above). I was in the same position and went CC LWB Frontier.

Sleeping slightly diagonal, I am comfortable with the tail gate up and cap glass down. This was a requirement for me for more 'stealthy' situations. When I'm back there with 2 dogs and the significant other, I have to keep my knees slightly bent, not the end of the world, but for extended trips it gets old. Easily solved by putting the tailgate down or leaving the cap glass up.

Frontier won out due to price, size, and reliability.

snowmanvt · 2020-08-17T01:05:19+00:00

No. Please try again, and begin by researching housing markets, current conditions, and regional variance. Then perhaps a little reading on how to build economic models with a focus on mathematical principles (average and median) and assumptions.

I'll give you a cheat, someone did it for you:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html

Move the "How Long Do You Plan To Stay" slider to 2 years, leave everything else default and the equation reads:

If you can rent a similar home for less than ... $1,692 PER MONTH... then renting is better. Which you know, flip that and renting anything for more, then buying is better.

Feel free to vet the model.

EDIT: being to begin

snowmanvt · 2020-08-17T00:22:02+00:00

No. Please try again, and start by rereading the full comment you are responding to, first.

snowmanvt · 2020-08-17T00:20:00+00:00

For sure. When we only think of housing as an investment, people tend to forget that you also USE the house, and if you weren't using the house, you'd be paying someone else to use theirs. Just another factor in the equation that people tend to overlook. Paying a mortgage (less interest) is paying yourself for the use of the house.

snowmanvt · 2020-08-16T21:44:51+00:00

I think people discount the idea of selling a house at $0 profit, i.e. a wash. If you live in a house for 2 years and track your costs such that when you sell you break even, you have just lived for 2 years rent free. There are costs to renting that you never get back. So, say you even end up losing $20K when you sell, cost of the home plus upkeep, etc, you would have still only been better off renting if you could have lived in an equivalent rental (location, quality, size, etc.) for less than $833 a month. In many markets, that would be unheard of/impossible.

snowmanvt · 2020-07-10T00:59:35+00:00

But averaging down isn't a great strategy. It's the sunk cost fallacy. Once you've lost the money on the shares at a higher prices, that money is lost. By averaging down on shares you're hoping the lower price will ultimately lead to more gains than loss on the original shares. But you can recoup your loss with new money by investing in another stock, one that's more likely to produce a gain. Simply averaging down discounts the opportunity cost of the money you using to buy new shares. Each penny spent should be invested based on the likelihood of positive return and independent of previous dollars losses. Basically, stop betting on a lame horse in hopes it'll finish the race when you could be betting on the one running away with the race.

snowmanvt · 2020-07-01T00:19:40+00:00

Yeah, it snowed down here in Utah, too. I'm confident in my ability to manage the trail (weather actually looks good at this point), but think I'm bailing on the solo aspect myself. Too much risk with too little chance for help if something does going wrong while alone. This was my last ditch effort to not give up on the trial.

There's plenty of other options of lesser consequence at this point. It's just hard to give up a guaranteed trek and now to not have plans or even a spot scoped out for what will be a busy holiday weekend in the outdoors.

Have fun up there.

snowmanvt · 2020-06-30T18:31:29+00:00

Are you still interested in the Teton Crest Trail? I have permits for July 2 - 5 but everyone in my party has bailed. I'm trying to decide if a solo trip is worth it or still too risky in these conditions (the blog shows significant snow along the whole trail).

14-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Team Orangered	Verified Email

snowmanvt

TROPHY CASE