Seltzer water 99% of the time. Ski otherwise!

1. For the first few years of my career after college which has a pretty generous 401k company matching scheme I put the maximum amount possible into my retirement accounts and lived well within my means to build up a nest egg. Now that I am married I have dialed back my investments so we can afford to live a little bit nicer with the knowledge that we have a really great start in our retirement accounts.

2. My wife and I moved in together two years before getting married. This made living substantially cheaper for both of us and made us positive that we wanted to live together and could tolerate each other prior to tying the knot :).

3. I got a vasectomy mid-last year. My wife and I both agreed long before marriage that we only want to adopt. Adoption is obviously very expensive, but now we have the peace of mind of knowing we have full control over when we start to invest in that process to expand our family. No "accidents" can happen which is very liberating.

The entire purpose of engineering as a field is to use outside of the box methodology to solve problems. Creativity is a crucial skill for good engineers. The idea that those two skill sets are mutually exclusive is wrong.

No thanks. One party already does everything it can to disenfranchise voters across the country. I think I'll stick with the pro-Democracy side of the equation.

To add on to this explanation, the food industry in the US is chock full of fake marketing terms that are designed to get more eco-conscious consumers to fall into their trap. This is a problem across large swathes of the food industry, but one of the most egregious is chicken.

• "No antibiotics" is supposed to mean the chicken was never given antibiotics (shocker, I know). There is no regular methodology for verifying this label is accurate outside of random sampling of poultry at slaughter.
• "No hormones" is a completely useless label you'll see used all the time. Hormones are not allowed in the production of chickens for slaughter in the US.
• "Cage free" is another tricky one. Chickens are almost never kept in cages when raised for slaughter. Hens are frequently kept in cages for egg-laying purposes. If you see this on chicken breast packaging it probably doesn't mean anything.
• "Free-range" means the chicken had some kind of access to "outside." There are no standards for how much "outside" space is required or what that "outside" space has to look like.

So unfortunately a bit more legwork is required to make sure product labeling statements are actually worth something. That's a problem in the US, but the opposite side of the coin is problematic too (like how many people now attribute "GMO" as meaning "toxic").

Prayer can be a powerful self meditation tool. It's effectively a way to organize your thoughts by talking to yourself. What is not helpful is sending "thoughts and prayers" every time something bad happens without actually attempting to do anything to address the problem at hand.

"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt." ― William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life." ― Captain Jean-Luc Picard

"How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it." — Marcus Aurelius

One massive point that most people are completely blind to is that with energy considerations we are aggressively pursuing two very different goals that in many regards are directly at odds with one another.

The first goal is electrification, which can largely be accomplished by increasing renewables, investing in battery technology, etc. But in the US, we have also been accommodating the desire for electrification by massively increasing natural gas capacity.

The second goal is decarbonization. This requires us to also nix natural gas from the equation at some point. In addition to the problems others have already mentioned (like the fact that renewables aside from hydro are not viable base load power options right now), there is a significant chunk of our energy infrastructure that simply cannot be satisfied in any regard purely with renewables. Like the huge number of industrial processes that need process heat to achieve their end product.

So the best solution is energy portfolio diversity. We can steadily continue to phase out heavy polluters for electrification, but if we want to truly decarbonize, industry demands a solution that can still produce high heat without emissions. Nuclear is a woefully under-exploited technology in that regard, but it is potentially a great solution.

Tabletop games, writing, doing little engineering problems at home, and recently I got into bookbinding to restore old crumbling paperbacks!

Planning and running my homebrew ttrpg campaign. I've sunk nearly three years into fleshing out my setting from plate tectonics to modern geopolitics!

This is one of the most commonly touted engineering myths that simply doesn't hold up to even a brief analysis. The first glaring problem is the inherent survivorship bias behind claiming Roman concrete was objectively better than modern concrete. As other users have already mentioned, modern concrete is actually very strong and exceeds the strength of Roman concrete when such strength is required, but where it really has an advantage is in its consistency.

If every concrete structure built in Rome was still standing and in good shape to this day, engineers would be salivating over the special blend and would be doing whatever they could to get their hands on it or replicate it. But we don't see that. We see the Roman concrete structures that have survived the test of time (so far), not the myriad structures that have not. Today's concrete on the contrary is deliberately consistent in chemistry, meaning even if it typically isn't designed to last hundreds of years, you can say with a great deal of confidence that it will last at least X years, and all of it will likely exhibit similar wear and strength degradation behaviors over that same duration.

There are other factors at play too:

1. Romans didn't use steel reinforcing re-bar, instead opting for massive lump sums of concrete to build structures. These massive piles are better against wear and porosity-related degradation, especially due to the self-healing properties of the Roman concrete blend due to volcanic ash helping to stop crack propagation.
2. Our modern concrete structures are much, much larger in many cases and/or are under significantly higher loads. Take roads for example—no Roman road was ever under the continued duress of having hundreds of 18 wheelers a day rumble over them.
3. Our modern concrete structures do things that would have been considered witchcraft to a Roman civil engineer. Consider the width of unsupported spans on modern concrete bridges compared to the tightly packed archways of Roman aqueducts.

None of this is to detract from Roman ingenuity, but to make the claim that Roman concrete was objectively better than what we have today is farcical.

Probably To Kill a Mockingbird and Fahrenheit 451 were my two favorites from my high school years.

This Old Tony, Abom, Tested (mostly just One Day Builds by Adam Savage), Wirtual, Isaac Arthur, CityNerd, Intelligence Squared debates, FloridaMan Diplomacy, Abom79

This is how I want to go out. A burial fit for a king indeed.

Yep a theater company in my town recently put on a play dramatizing the closing of the city's pools. Instead of integrating they filled the pools frequented by white patrons with concrete and the one frequented by black patrons with garbage. It also touched on the fact that the lack of availability for safe public swimming locations has led to needless deaths of hundreds and hundreds of black people who opted to swim in fast moving creeks and waters connected to industrial facilities. All because racists were unwilling to share a body of water with someone with a different color of skin.

Agreed with all your points. I used to love Airbnb because it was so much cheaper than staying in a hotel and would give you access to stay in areas much farther off the beaten path. But the last three times I have stayed in an Airbnb I or someone else from my party ended up on the phone for hours with them because the host blatantly lied about something in their listing or otherwise was inhospitable during the stay. Hotels are just way more consistent and when something does go wrong during your stay, you can at least count on a decent customer service experience.