Just because some people have a different opinion than you, doesn't mean it is due to fallacious reasoning. Ultimately, it seems to come down to rust haters who have a sunken cost fallacy - I spent years writing bad code in bad lanaguages, so I don't want to give that up to do things better.
Please be more patient :) Flamewars will not help us, definitely. I'm nobody to criticize your way to communicate, but for the sake of Rust community reputation - please let's avoid "Rust vs X" wars.
"Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. "
We're exactly talking about fire codes. But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? Probably not, different ways wood can be treated can dramatically affect how it behaves. How it's cared for (drying, etc) can also do the same. Both of those definitely contribute to flammability. Or just "Where did the wood come from? Is it from an area likely to have borer beetles, compromising any treatment?"
I mean, sure, if you pick through codes, there's probably cruft in there. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that everything is 100% based on modern understanding of materials science. But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
Most lumber stamping is done by machine vision. If you've spent any time at a big box store that sells lumber you will realise how shitty lumber can be while still having that magical grade stamp. I've picked up 2x4s that break when you pick them up at one end but they still have a grade stamp and could be used in a structural wall because it bears the correct grade stamp.
For most stick construction you can clearly see a 2x4 or 2x6 will or won't support the load given the checking and knot size. Code, though, requires a grade stamp.
No we're not. That poster pointed out how fire codes helped, but that most codes do not. We're talking about building codes.
>But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know?
None of those things have anything at all to do with stamps. That's the point. If the code specified lumber by strength it would be fine. But it specifies lumber by "you have to buy it from an approved member of the lumber cartel" and makes absolutely no mention of strength.
>Probably not, different ways wood can be treated
Building lumber is not treated. If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, why throw out random nonsense?
> But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
Nobody suggested that. Responding to silly strawman arguments is not constructive.
>This isn't about building codes. It's about stickers and permits
That is the building code. It is all about stickers and stamps. Why is a tree that grew on my land that I cut myself not acceptable? It has nothing to do with the wood obviously, it has to do with creating make work jobs for bureaucrats to "inspect" and stamp lumber.
Trees are not covered under building codes. They are covered under city ordinances. And I cut down 3 trees on my property because I wasn't going to spend $150 per tree so that city hall could get themselves a nice Christmas bonus for doing nothing except filling out paperwork.
No, they were done because of lobbying from the lumber industry. If you have any evidence that stamped lumber is superior in any way I would love to see it. Because if you've ever built a house, you'd know you have to throw away about 10% of stamped lumber because it is trash.
"No, they were done because of lobbying from the lumber industry. "
This is simply false.
Seriously. I'd love to see where this history came from?
Do you have any real source, or is this typical "lobbyists did it" bluster.
Here is the history of stamping in the US:
There were failures and complaints in ~1920's from mills/etc starting to sell substandard lumber due to the depression. Code enforcers wanted a sane way to ensure the houses being built weren't being built with substandard lumber.
Folks asked Dept of Commerce to come up with voluntary standards for grading and inspection.
NIST (well, what is now NIST) created a set of simple voluntary grading standards. They've revised it a few times.
Literally the only thing the grading agencies do is grade. They don't actually care about the end result. They don't make more or less money one way or the other.
The grading standards are also pretty simple. It's not like it's rocket science.
Note that most mills stamp their own lumber. You just have to have someone trained to do it.
In wisconsin, for example, it takes 1 day to be certified.
One of the 7 grading agencies randomly inspect, and if they find enough errors, they'll hold you up.
As for the amount of waste, most waste i've seen is from
1. later-bent studs due to wood movement. This is not structurally unsound (just nobody feels like re-straightening them), so the stamp still is doing it's job of saying it's sound.
2. damage during transit.
Your other question was "evidence stamped lumber is superior in any way".
I will strongly assert that lumber machine tested and evaluated for actual strength and stamped as such is superior to random lumber that is untested and unknown.
Visually graded lumber is usually graded based on things like knot size and slope of grain, both of which have a significant structural effect on lumber (structural strength decreases as grain deviation increases).
Assuming grading is being done properly (and again, there's a lot of checks going on), yes, the lumber is structurally better.
But maybe you don't believe the physics, and think that things like slope of grain don't impact the structural properties? If so, i guess i can't solve that problem for you. It's pretty well studied:
This is a huge problem. Javascript has become a blight on the web, and browsers really need to make it easier to manage stopping scripts on background tabs and such.
You have a magic firefox then. I try to use it that way too, but its sitting at 1.8GB of RAM and 25-30% CPU usage with 103 tabs and it routinely bombs on me after a week or two when it gets up to 2.5GB or so.
>It's less confusing when you focus on the 'freedom of the users'.
No it isn't. The entire purpose of the GPL is to restrict the freedom of the users. Public domain gives freedom to the users. Everything else adds restrictions. And it is all a big argument about which restrictions are "good" in the eyes of the people arguing.
Not sure if this is still the case. Digital ocean had a pricing structure for bandwidth, but was not charging for that used bandwidth because they did not have a way to show how much bandwidth has been used in a billing cycle. Best to ask them if this is still the case.
It depends on the item. China is known for low quality goods because companies outsource to China to save money. They are telling the companies in China to make cheap crap. The manufacturers are perfectly capable and more than happy to make high quality items, it just isn't requested of them very often. It is always "use the thinnest possible" not "make it twice as thick as it really needs to be".
