On 5/4/2022 at 1:06 PM, PeteM said:

I do (or did!) a lot of engineering forensics.  There are a lot of "tests" that are designed to sell products.  Remember paper towels vs hand dryers using air?  Completely bogus methodology, conclusion invalid.  I see a lot of that.  So I keep right on taking the baby aspirin.

One of my favorite books from college days (17 years after written in 1954), so the prices are a bit out of date.  But I get it out and re-read every few years. 

My favorite is the "Gee Whiz Graph".   I never see a graph without needing to look at the scales, particularly the vertical one.  If there are no numbers on it, even more suspicious.  If it doesn't start at zero, it's useless.

2 hours ago, Grandpadave52 said:

Where is your sense of adventure?

It's off somewhere on an adventure.   I was terrible at math. That's why I went to law school

Me and numbers have an agreement.  They leave me be and, I don't mess around with them.

19 minutes ago, Cliff said:

It's off somewhere on an adventure.   I was terrible at math. That's why I went to law school

Hmm, I thought math would be very useful for a lawyer doing financial, tax, trusts, divorce, or estate work.  But I realize there are many facets to law.  I might have considered it had I known that not all lawyers did criminal defense.  Growing up, the only people I knew with college degrees were doctors, teachers, and preachers.  Very blue collar area.

2 hours ago, kmealy said:

financial, tax, trusts, divorce, or estate work

I have never done any of that.

I started out in Crim Def.  I was a state's attorney in FL in the WPB public Defender's office.

Then rural PA where I did sex crimes defense and general litigation

Then to East Joizy were I took a gig as GC for a surety bond firm where I learned to do what I've done since then.

I had my home in NJ all the while, That was like not even three years.

I developed a private practice model where there are no clients (I hated clients),  no opposing counsel (I hated them too),  never any sophisticated legal arguments,  no briefs to write, I never go to court - don't even own a suit - so no judges (I hated them too),  never hand out my card,  My phone is unlisted, I don't advertise.

And Financially,  I do pretty well.

 

4 hours ago, Cliff said:

It's off somewhere on an adventure.   I was terrible at math. That's why I went to law school

 

4 hours ago, Gene Howe said:

Me and numbers have an agreement.  They leave me be and, I don't mess around with them.

 

4 hours ago, kmealy said:

Hmm, I thought math would be very useful for a lawyer doing financial, tax, trusts, divorce, or estate work.  But I realize there are many facets to law.  I might have considered it had I known that not all lawyers did criminal defense.  Growing up, the only people I knew with college degrees were doctors, teachers, and preachers.  Very blue collar area.

Math can be fun. I learned it at home from Ma & Pa. 

 

Yep Pa math is hard to argue with

 

I have to agree with Cliff. Historically a lot of joinery techniques from the past were related to the strength of the glue that was available. Horsehide glue was the standard for several centuries but it isn't that strong compared to modern glues and therefore required more joinery techniques to attain the needed strength. The modern glues usually create a bond that often exceeds the strength of the wood itself. But that’s only one piece of the puzzle. Wood moves in response to changes in humidity and temperature and the stresses that movement can exert can easily exceed the strength of any glue. That’s where the interlocking joint and lap joints ( dovetails etc) come into play. Steve Ramsey’s point about over complicating things definitely applies to joinery. Some joints are going to require that added strength and others will not. 
Paul