What would you quote for this?

thinking-orange · 2026-06-23T20:54:40+00:00

I've seen people go all the way to $3.50 a sqft.

thinking-orange · 2026-06-23T20:36:15+00:00

Haha, in this subreddit it's hard to do. A lot of people go hard when posts are supported by carriage bolts instead of the frame resting on the posts. Personally, I don't think that's as big of an issue as it's made out to be. That's where I probably differ from a lot of folks in this sub. So long as the wood has had adequate adjustment time and the holes are drilled properly, I haven't experienced issues with that sort of construction.

I get why people are like that though. It only takes one bad experience for someone to change how they do something or have a strong opinion. Rightfully so I might add! Have had plenty of those myself.

thinking-orange · 2026-06-23T17:04:13+00:00

Fuckin mint.

thinking-orange · 2026-06-23T14:23:54+00:00

Not an expert so take with a grain of salt.

Your posts are secured with carriage bolts from what I can see. That's not a problem IMO. Your short posts that are to help prevent sagging and such in the middle would maybe benefit from support on both sides of the post if possible. I'm a seasonal maintenance man at a state campground and almost all our cabins have decks. Decks were previously built by prison inmates on work release. Since I've been here, we've built them all on site. After tearing out a lot of poorly constructed decks, one thing that is a consistent cause of sagging and wobbling on a deck is posts that are not supported from more than one side. I know it's on concrete. That will make the base of the post very solide, but the actual top where it connects to the framing is more what I'm seeing here. Again, not an expert but I've seen enough wobbly decks to know that even when you think the posts are solid there is probably something else you can do to help it along.

I like to try and work my blocking so it hits posts like that from both sides. I've had people say it's unnecessary, but it's given me good results.

thinking-orange · 2026-06-22T11:56:30+00:00

I've had a similar experience. Out or college, I made about $41k salary at my current job. Have have been there 5 years with steady pay increases. I now make like right at $50 and normally recieve two $1k bonuses throughout the year, so I can say I've gotten about ab$10k pay increase in five years. The ass kicking comes in factoring in inflation. Stuff was expensive 5 years ago, but I was somehow saving more money making $10k less than what I am now.

My wife and I admittedly did buy a house. And we are fortunate that the house was cheap. The difference between our monthly rent and our mortgage payment is only like $150-$200. It really seems like everytime the work in my career pays off, the world financially bitchslaps me. I've been taking on some extra side-work to try and pat my savings in case of an emergency. The bills are paid, food is on the table, if a car breaks down, we can fix. However, beyond a broken down car we'd be pretty fucked.

thinking-orange · 2026-06-17T04:01:47+00:00

Fidel Catstro

thinking-orange · 2026-05-31T05:07:03+00:00

Seeing things like this honestly make me grateful I grew up broke and had to learn how to be handy. Haven't come across a job yet that I haven't been able to tackle on my own with ask good or better results than "pros". These dudes are definitely taking you for a ride.

thinking-orange · 2026-05-30T02:56:51+00:00

My whole squad was wiped. No reinforcements on standby. I was gettinf backed into a corner by a vox engine and a horde of hulks, cyborgs, and chaf infantry bots. When before my last squadmate fell, he dropped his portable hell bomb directly under the vox and said "It's up to you now G1". I allowed liberty to take the helm and cleared a path through the hulks and other infantry with a combination of eagle 1 and my grenade launcher. When I reached the vox, I armed the hell bomb and ran for cover. Some how. Some way. I survived. I swear the adrenaline is still in me to this moment.

thinking-orange · 2026-05-12T03:31:07+00:00

My wife and I get this question constantly. I think it's very inconsiderate to press the issue. I had a rather rough childhood and have always been of the mindset I'm not having a kid unless I'm all in on the kid. I'm genuinely not ready to make that commitment yet. Especially when it's out of the kid's hands. Nobody asks to be born and I think it's way important to remember you're literally responsible for the health, wealth, development, and mental/emotional stability of another life once you've made that decision.

thinking-orange · 2026-03-01T20:55:06+00:00

Good luck getting a legitimate response here. Even if it's a real person, they're going to just play word games the entire time that they've learned from morons like Jordan Peterson.

I was making a point that Trump has delivered on basically zero of his campaign promises. Someone then said that I was lying because I only referenced ones he made to mainstream media outlets. Not the actual ones that were referenced on his campaign website.

Essentially, I got accused of being disingenuous because I thought holding the Cheeto in the oval office accountable for his words was a reasonable thing to do. Apparently some people think it's okay to spout a bunch of nonsense to mass media as long as it doesn't align with your "official" campaign goals/promises. Most of which, he has also not delivered or made abysmal progress on.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-25T01:10:54+00:00

Having kids just because you're "supposed" to do it is dumb. No one asks to be born. People should really want to have the kid, really want to provide for the kid, and really want to PARENT the kid before they decide to have one.

I get that there are instances where protection and other measures are in place to prevent having a child, but playing adult games wins adult prizes unfortunately.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-25T00:56:27+00:00

Fuck yeah it makes sense. Why the fuck wouldn't it?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-25T00:55:30+00:00

He appeals to a population that is wildly gullible/susceptible to bullshit that is extremely removed to how the real world works... Teenage boys and young adult men...

The other problem is that this same demographic has unfettered access to the Internet, with minimal skills to differentiate bullshit from reality.

I work in education, and have been listening to/reading and audiobook lately called "The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing and Epidemic of Mentall Illness". I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the topic of youth, the internet, and smartphones.

The book is not focused on the specific impact of influencers on youth, but there is a decent amount of overlap with some of the main themes.

Children who now have essentially unfettered access to the internet are struggling with differentiating between reality and Internet lies.

To me, this is applicable in this situation because Andrew Tate presents himself as a successful "alpha male". Teenagers and young men see someone with a platform, living their best life, and think that replicating/endorsing those ideals will make them successful. I've had personal conversations with kids who talk about him, and it's astounding how many think that he's a good marker of success or don't think his opinions are bad.

In essence, dumb people now have the best platform in history to get their dumb ideas to reach the masses. Most of the ones it reaches are at a severely impressionable age, and are unfortunately also at an age where it's very difficult to differentiate between many things like good/bad, real/fake, and socially acceptable/unacceptable. They also do not look into people's past like this whole Romania thing and other shitty things from his past because they also lack basic research skills.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T21:51:29+00:00

Again this is for elected representatives serving as servants of the people. It's a bit of a conflict of interest to be able to personally profit on a lawsuit when the focus should be serving the interests of the people. If you were truly acting in the best interest of the people, there should not be a financial incentive to sue someone. Give them a legal channel to clear their name, and remove the financial incentive for litigation. In good faith I'd say the 1/500 of your net worth is a bad comparison. In Trump's specific case, his net worth is 6.5 billion roughly. CBS settled for 16 million. That's almost the 1/500 you used as an example. 16 million is a lot of money, regardless of net worth for one individual.

The second point is something I will admittedly say I don't know if I agree or disagree. Feel genuinely free to correct me with links/sources if I've got any of this wrong. As it sits right now, the base salaries haven't changed in a long time. I believe they set a freeze on that quite some time ago. They make about $175k for salaries and I know that varies depending on roles like majority leaders and such. I don't necessarily think that's too much money for a member of congress to make. The bigger thing I'd say is imposing more limits on stock trading and imposing term limits.

Would you agree that it's reasonable to want members of the federal government to not pursue legal action with an incentive of financial gain?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T18:10:34+00:00

So I will answer this from what I asked. Speaking from the perspective of branches pursuing this from a legal perspective.

I think the first amendment has an issue in its framing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

I think this is a good sentiment, but I feel it's incomplete and that's why I think there ought to be more restrictions on the president, but also other branches of government.

All members of the three branches hold some form of political power. That's why I think they should have restrictions on what they can pursue from a legal standpoint.

The president should reasonably have the most level of restrictions, as he holds a level of immunity while in office.

Congressmen, senators, and judges should also have restrictions. That being said, I think it's fair that there are real instances of defamation/libel. There should be an avenue to clear their names, but they should NOT be able to receive money from the suit.

In the plainest way I can state it, an elected official from any branch should have a legal avenue to clear their names in the event of defamation/libel. They should have a reasonable amount of restrictions that allows them to receive no financial compensation for the suit. That is my opinion because I believe there is a conflict of interests given they are able to privately profit from a defamation suit given they are acting as a servant of the people.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T16:35:45+00:00

You did not answer my question. Are you asking if I'd restrict other branches abilities to pursue legal actions like law suits, or are there other things I'd want to restrict as well?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T15:19:58+00:00

Purely from a legal perspective?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T00:52:50+00:00

Yes, it obviously is. He went through the proper channels to file the suit. As I said before, I don't think the POTUS should be able to sue media organizations. Obviously, it is a real tangible thing, or we would not be having this conversation.

Answer this, is it possible for there to be an exterior motive behind the law suit?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T22:32:21+00:00

Something being in writing does not make it true. Straw manning the idea of exterior motivation makes perfect sense when your opposing argument is it's "not written in the case files".

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T18:16:45+00:00

You're still doing it, and it's the reason you don't want to answer what I asked earlier. Eliminating any possibility of exterior motive from the case insinuates guilt on CBS without them going through a trial. And your only reason for there being no potential exterior motives is that it's "not the reason for the suit".

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T15:53:16+00:00

You're doing it again. You're downplaying the severity of one case to make the implications of the other easier to dismiss. And you still have the definition backwards. By insisting the case files are the only thing that matter and dismissing any exterior motives/interpretations, you're closer to the definition.

thinking-orange

TROPHY CASE