I think they mean Newport and Claremont.

Looks like it's already going to have dumped a lot in Massachusetts before 6:00 a.m. and it's going to keep going until 10:00 a.m.

All day!

I know how to manage situations like this. By staying home.

If you're serious about wanting to check your color vision, here's a website that has a bunch of tests, and tomorrow could be a good day to stay home and do that.

https://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/

Thanks, yes, I didn't mean to imply we should be OK with it!

There are >1000 derailments a year in the US.

If you want to try something outside the usual, Nourish Deli in St. Albans has a vegan "Cheezsteak". I haven't tried that dish but it's a great place in general.

I don't understand why Google doesn't just fix their algorithm to penalize recipe pages for doing stuff that nobody likes.

I seem to be having trouble communicating here. Absolutely, dollar cost averaging is the way to go. The other stuff I'm suggesting, I'm suggesting because it's worse, and if you want to show how good dollar cost averaging is, you need to compare it to something that is worse, but that somebody naive might do. I'm suggesting these for your plot, not for your investing strategy. For investing strategy, dollar cost averaging is the way to go, unless you are a genius or you have a better understanding of the particular market and company, then is available to expert investors.

I'm not suggesting that method as a good strategy. I'm suggesting it as a comparison to show the benefit of DCA is a simple, unbiased way.

It won't show a huge advantage in this case, because the main story on Tesla stock was the several huge increases. Where it shows a clear advantage is when a stock has a generalizing trend, but has a lot of volatility.

If you want a comparison to what a naive investor might do instead of dollar cost averaging, rather than a neutral alternative like what I suggested, it could be that each month you put $100 into your bank account, and then look at what the stock did over the past month. If it's been steady, you invest $50. If it's been rising gently, you invest $100, and it it has been rising rapidly, you invest everything in your bank account. And if it has been falling, you invest nothing.

A more interesting comparison might be to invest $1,200 a year, two different ways. One would be to invest $100 a month, and the other would be to look at the average share price over the year, figure out how many shares $1,200 would buy you, and buy 1/12th of that each month. That way you'd be still investing your money over time in a similar way, but you'd be missing out on the specific benefit of dollar cost averaging of buying more shares when the price is low and fewer when it's high.

All your showing here is that starting to save for retirement early is better than doing it later.

OP should tell us where to buy a good axe that comes sharp and stays sharp.

Or a step stool, or if somehow you're stuck somewhere where you don't have those, there aren't many parts of New Hampshire where you can't find a stick.

I thought I was building on what you said and agreeing with you. Usually people find it helpful and reassuring when someone else expresses agreement.

There used to be a field with cross country ski trails behind the fire station in the next town over from me. I skied there often, but once on an icy day I fell and dislocated my shoulder. It was excruciating, but it was very convenient that I was less than half a mile from the biggest team of well-equipped first responders in the region. And it gave them an excuse to fire up their snowmobile to tow me in a sled behind it to the road.

Oh yes, sure, one does not decide to go snowshoeing and then keep walking with snowshoes even if the conditions are such that it makes it harder to walk wearing snowshoes than with just boots or with it a studded grip strip strapped onto your boot.

As far as it being boring, I think of it as a tool for the purpose of enjoying being in the woods, not so much an activity in and of itself.

This is an excellent comment. My first thought was to say there's nothing to it, just put on snowshoes and go for a walk, which to some extent is true, but everything you said is important to at least be aware of.

What was it that dropped it from 4 to 3 starting in the 1960s? A rule change or an innovation in defense strategy?

You have people on your streets still? They're all flooded here and you basically only see ducks.

> but people kept asking me

This is your second post of approximately the same thing. No comments on the other post requested that.

It would be interesting to see this on a per unit population basis.

Microwave them with a bowl over the top of the plate there on or a plate over the top of the bowl they are in, and if necessary sprinkle a little water in.

Or if you are truly dedicated to the craft, got a steamer basket for a pot, and boil your choice of a half inch or 1 cm of water in the bottom of the pot, put the fries in the steamer basket, and put a lid on the steamer.

The scale of it is astounding. From OP's link, 94% of non-human mammal biomass is livestock, and 71% of bird biomass is poultry livestock.