Less than half price on the best wood preservative

NOTE: THIS OFFER IS NOT YET ACTIVE. I am posting it to see how many buyers may be interested. Please leave a comment if you're interested or have questions. 

Several years ago, after discovering some rot and termites in my porch and fence, I went on a hunt for an effective wood preservative. I did a lot of research. 

I ended up buying a gallon of "Copper Green" for $35 at a local hardware store. Effective, but a little spendy. 

Further research revealed that this product is just a 1.18% solution of something called Copper Naphthenate (Cu-Nap for short). If you know where to look and buy in bulk, you can find this in concentrated form for a lot less, and dilute it yourself with mineral spirits or diesel fuel (I use kerosene I already had, which works fine). 

I bit the bullet and bought 5 gallons of the concentrate (for $259 + shipping & tax) which is far more than I'll ever need—it makes 25 gallons of 2% solution—nearly double the strength of commercial Copper Green. A single brush-on coat protects outdoor wood from fungus, rot, and insects. For wood contacting the ground, use multiple coats. And if you want fence posts to last almost forever, soak the underground portion in a half-strength (1%) solution for 24 hours before setting them. 

Important: if you're building with pressure-treated lumber, you MUST treat all end cuts with this stuff (or buy a little can of "end-cut solution" for several dollars, which is the same thing). 

Here's my offer:

• Bring me a clean gallon jug and $25 (cash only, please). 
• I will put 25 ounces of concentrate in the jug. 
• You fill the jug with mineral spirits, kerosene, or diesel fuel, making sure it's mixed well. 
• You've got a gallon of 2% copper preservative, for less than half of what you'd pay at the store or on Amazon. 
• If you like, you can further dilute this down to 1%, which is adequate for some uses. 
• If a gallon is too much, I can do a half-gallon for $15. 

Notes:

• The preservative has a long shelf life—just keep it tightly capped and out of sunlight which may rot plastic jugs. 
• Don't use indoors—it has a strong odor which will dissipate over a few days or weeks. 
• It has a greenish tint, which fades to brown with exposure. 
• If you use diesel fuel as a solvent, it's recommended to make it slightly stronger: leave about a pint of air space in your gallon jug. 
• Resist the temptation to make it "extra strong". It's not necessary. 
• It's much less toxic than previous preservatives, but there are some environmental considerations. In particular, don't bathe in it, and don't let it come in contact with fish. Because the smell is hard to get out, wear gloves and don't get it on your clothes. 
• This information comes from the supplier: Poles.com; I haven't personally verified it. 

Open Letter to GM Financial

 

Mr. Daniel E. Berce
President and CEO
GM Financial
801 Cherry Street, Ste. 3600
Fort Worth, TX 76102

Dear Mr. Berce: 

Can I describe a situation to you and ask you to please explain how it makes sense? 

39 months ago, my son leased a new 2020 Bolt from Everett Chevrolet here in Washington state. The lease specified a buyout price of about $21,000. 

Now the lease is up, and he would be interested in buying the car, which, as you probably know, has a current market value of thousands of dollars less than $21,000. 

You could simply be done with this by offering him a fair retail price. But I've been told by both the dealer and your phone rep that this simply isn't possible! What he could do is turn in his current Bolt, and purchase another one at the going price. He would hand over the keys to one Bolt, and drive off the lot with a nearly identical one. 

For no reason!

I asked the dealer's sales manager what will happen to my son's current Bolt after he turns it in. She said it would go to a dealer auction—where you would no doubt sell it for a wholesale price considerably lower than you could sell it to my son at retail. Presumably, if he was willing to wait, he could then buy it back from whichever dealer got it at auction. 

Consider the two scenarios: 

1. How it works now:

• My son returns the car to the dealer. 
• It is sent to the dealer auction (not open to the public, of course).
  
• You receive a wholesale price for the car—several thousand dollars less than the nominal "buyout" price.
  
• Meanwhile, my son buys a similar car at the retail price from a dealer. 

2. How it could work:

• My son pays you retail price and keeps the car. You get more money and less hassle!
  

I understand that GM may have its own internal reasons for operating in this absurd manner. But to any outside observer, this can only be seen as sheer insanity. 

Can you make it make sense? I'd be most grateful. 

Yours very truly, 

Rob Lewis
groblewis@mac.com 

cc via email to Michelle Owen, mowen@chevroletofeverett.com
posted to robrites.blogspot.com

This "Clam Dip" is basically a chemical stew

Well-known food writer Michael Pollan counsels us not to buy any food product with more than five ingredients. 

A couple of weeks ago, I saw this on sale at my local supermarket, and thought "It might be nice to try something different from my usual home-made onion dip." After all, the package advertised "The Perfect Dip For Chips!"

Can't argue with "perfect", so into my basket it went. 

Sadly, it fell considerably short of perfection. Though labeled "Creamy Clam Dip", it had no visible clams and almost no clam flavor. And its texture was…not creamy, but a sort of watery, gelatinous blob that was nothing like the sour cream-based dips one usually sees. 

I got curious about what was actually in the stuff. Here's the ingredient list, exactly as printed (in very small, slightly fuzzy type) on the plastic tub: 

SOUR DRESSING (NONFAT MILK, PALM OIL, STABILIZER [MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, GELATIN, MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, GUAR GUM, CARRAGEENAN, SODIUM PHOSPHATE], SOYBEAN OIL, FLAVORING [LACTIC ACID, WATER, CITRIC ACID, ACETIC ACID, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS], MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES AND BETA-CAROTENE, POTASSIUM SORBATE [PRESERVATIVE], NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR), MAYONNAISE (SOYBEAN OIL, WATER, EGG YOLKS, VINEGAR, SALT), CLAMS (SEA CLAMS, SEA CLAM JUICE, SALT, SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE [TO RETAIN MOISTURE], CALCIUM DISODIUM EDTA [TO PRESERVE COLOR]), SUGAR, WATER, VINEGAR, SALT, SEASONING (MALTODEXTRIN, XANTHAN GUM, HYDROLYZED [CORN, SOY, AND WHEAT GLUTEN PROTEIN], POTASSIUM SORBATE [PRESERVATIVE], CITRIC ACID, CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, SPICES, SUGAR, VINEGAR, MOLASSES, COD LIVER OIL, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, CELLULOSE GUM, SOYBEAN OIL [AS A PROCESSING AID], CARAMEL COLOR, SALT, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, GARLIC POWDER, YEAST EXTRACT, TAMARIND EXTRACT, LACTIC ACID), DEHYDRATED ONION, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, SODIUM BENZOATE (PRESERVATIVE).

If you make more than a passing attempt to wade through this, you will soon be waylaid by the various parentheses and brackets that group ingredients and explain their functions. It's a confusing jumble. But relax, I've done the hard work of parsing the list and organizing the ingredients. Here they are, in hierarchical outline form: 

sour dressing
    nonfat milk
    palm oil
    stabilizer
        modified food starch
        gelatin
        mono and diglycerides
        guar gum
        carrageenan
        sodium phosphate
    soybean oil
    flavoring
        lactic acid
        water
        citric acid
        acetic acid
        natural and artificial flavors
    mono- and diglycerides
    beta carotene
    potassium sorbate
    natural and artificial flavor
mayonnaise
    soybean oil
    water
    egg yolks
    vinegar
    salt
clams
    sea clams
    sea clam juice
    salt
    sodium tripolyphosphate
    calcium disodium EDTA
sugar
water
vinegar
salt
seasoning
    maltodextrin
    xanthan gum
    hydrolyzed protein
        corn
        soy
        wheat
    potassium sorbate
    citric acid
    corn syrup solids
    spices
    sugar
    vinegar
    molasses
    cod liver oil
    modified corn starch
    cellulose gum
    soybean oil
    caramel color
    salt
    natural and artificial flavors
    garlic powder
    yeast extract
    tamarind extract
    lactic acid
dehydrated onion
modified corn starch
sodium benzoate    

I've tried hard to keep it all straight, but it's possible I've made errors. 

Now let's talk about unique ingredients, because several ingredients (salt, e.g.) are listed multiple times. Here's what I've come up with (in order of appearance, not in order of decreasing amounts, like normal ingredient lists):

1. nonfat milk 
2. palm oil 
3. modified food starch (thickener/stabilizer)
   
4. gelatin (thickener/stabilizer)
   
5. mono- and diglycerides (fats) 
6. guar gum (thickener/stabilizer)
   
7. carrageenan (another thickener/stabilizer)
   
8. sodium phosphate (thickener/emulsifier)
   
9. soybean oil (a "processing aid")
   
10. lactic acid (adds "sour cream" taste)
    
11. water 
12. citric acid (more sour taste)
    
13. acetic acid (essentially, vinegar)
    
14. "natural and artificial flavors" (this covers a lot of ground!) 
15. beta carotene (for color)
    
16. potassium sorbate (preservative)
    
17. egg yolks 
18. vinegar 
19. salt 
20. sea clams 
21. sea clam juice 
22. sodium tripolyphosphate (preservative, also used in detergents)
    
23. calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (My God, just read what Wikipedia says about this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic_acid)
    
24. sugar 
25. maltodextrin (basically sugar, but with a higher glycemic index)
    
26. xanthan gum (thickener)
    
27. hydrolyzed corn protein (simulates a bouillon, or broth taste)
    
28. hydrolyzed soy protein 
29. hydrolyzed wheat protein 
30. corn syrup solids (a cheater term for "sugar", basically) 
31. "spices" 
32. molasses (really? for color and flavor, I assume; contains a lot of sugar)
    
33. cod liver oil (no idea what it's doing in here; not usually considered great-tasting!) 
34. modified corn starch (thickener/stabilizer)
    
35. cellulose gum (thickener/stabilizer)
    
36. caramel color 
37. garlic powder 
38. yeast extract (adds "umami" flavor)
    
39. tamarind extract (adds sourness and flavor)
    
40. dehydrated onion 
41. sodium benzoate (preservative)
    

There! Did I miss anything? At least FORTY-ONE ingredients, and probably quite a few more (Who knows how many different mono- and diglycerides there are? Or "natural and artificial flavors"? Or "spices"?). When all is said and done, we're probably looking at at least 50 different ingredients. In Clam Dip! 

And they still couldn't make it taste good! 

Michael Pollan advises no more than five ingredients total. Here we have fifty! Of which, I count eight different thickeners and stabilizers, and at least three different chemical preservatives. 

Yum! 

The way we test applicants for programming jobs makes no sense

I'm acquainted with a young man who has finished one programming job and is looking for his next one. 

He's applied for a few software engineering jobs and has generally sailed through the first couple of evaluations, leading to an online test of programming skill (typically four different programming problems, to be solved in an hour or so). 

But the skills these tests demand have no discernible relation to any business problem I'm aware of. 

Examples: one problem requires that the applicant write code to find the longest palindrome in an arbitrary string of characters (a palindrome is a string that reads the same forwards and backwards). Another requires a string to be printed out in a weird "zig-zag" format that has never been needed in the entire history of business computing. And this is the basis of how we choose whom to hire? 

The scoring of answers gives extra points for code that runs faster. And since these problems have been around for years, they've been attacked by numerous amped-up nerd geniuses whose self-worth is wrapped up in shaving a few milliseconds off execution times. Thus, any normal programmer who solves the exercise will always be judged against solutions that make their efforts seem inadequate on a raw speed criterion. Keep in mind: the applicant is generally allowed 15–20 minutes to dash off a solution: not nearly enough time for the thoughtful design process necessary to produce correct, reliable code that works even in the "edge cases". Again, this bears no relationship to how programmers are expected to function in the real world.

The inordinate emphasis on execution speed is only marginally relevant to good "real world" programming practice. Given the choice, most businesses would opt for code that is easy to understand, maintain, and modify—over a tricky algorithm that shaves a few machine cycles off execution time but is dense, fragile, and incomprehensible without major study. 

Modern computing systems are very fast, and have the ability to optimize code before running it. And in any real-world business application, overall processing speed is likely to depend far more on things like the speed of the network and the responsiveness of a remote database server, than on the details of the algorithm used. The programmer has no control over these limiting factors. 

The tests are designed to favor shoot-from-the-hip hotshots over programmers who actually engineer their software by carefully considering all the factors that go into good software and balancing them to produce the best solution. 

Is this the best the industry can do at selecting people to be in charge of one of their most important assets, their base of mission-critical software?

I cracked the code for great homemade tortillas

 Been a fan of Mexican cuisine for more than 50 years. Several times along the way I've bought bags of "Masa Harina" to try making my own corn tortillas. It never really worked out. I'll spare you the details because I've finally gotten the winning formula. It's not difficult, really!

What you'll need 

What follows is a description of what works for me. Experienced chefs will know how to adjust for the tools they have on hand. If you're a rank beginner, please follow these directions closely before you tell me they don't work. 

Here's the list: 

• The right kind of cornmeal. I stumbled onto this stuff and it seems to work much better, and taste much better, than the usual Masa Harina: https://pancorn.com/english/recipes.php. My personal choice was the whole grain option, but they have others.
• A good kitchen scale. Accurate digital scales have gotten so cheap that there's no excuse for not having one. (Side note: every recipe that specifies "cups" of anything needs to change to "grams".) 
• A tortilla press.  There are many options but most fail IMO because they don't ensure consistent thickness. I modified my press to fix this problem (I'm considering offering this mod as a service, so let me know if you're interested.)
  
• A hot, dry cooking surface. The "comal" is traditional, but not necessary. I have one, but find that a cast-iron skillet works just as well. 
• An induction cooking plate. Again, not necessary but works terrifically to maintain the right cooking temperature of 350–400°F. 

Procedure: 

• First, disregard the package directions. On my bag of whole-grain cornmeal, they specified 2.5 cups of water for 2 cups of meal. This results in a sticky dough that is difficult to work with. I found that 2.25 cups of water worked much better.  
• 1 cup of meal = 160 grams, and will make six 6" tortillas.
  
• Follow the package directions for kneading and resting. I rest it for at least 10 minutes. 
• Heat your cooking surface as described above. 
  
• Line your tortilla press with plastic wrap. 
• For my 6" press, it takes 65–70 grams of dough to make a tortilla. YMMV. The most important thing is to have consistent thickness. Use your hands to roll the dough into a sphere and place it near the hinge of your press. If you try to go too thin, you will probably have problems. 
• Carefully peel the tortilla from the plastic wrap and slap it hard onto the heated cooking surface. This is a satisfying move!
  
• From here, you're on your own. With a nicely hot pan, it should take less than a minute to cook the first side. Experience must be your guide. 
• Use a metal spatula to turn the tortilla, because you may have to scrape hard to undo any sticking. 
• Once the other side is done, you're good to go. Enjoy!
  

A modest proposal to reform online "star" product ratings

Star ratings suck. They are next to useless. 

In my years of online shopping, I've noticed something interesting: pretty much every product I look at on (for example) Amazon is rated close to 4.5 stars.

How is that helpful? 

People talk about "grade inflation" at colleges. Now let's talk about "rating inflation" in online stores.  

• Why should a product that simply does what's expected of it get the highest possible rating? 
• How can you accurately rate a product without using it for a while? 
• Why should a product be rated "1-star" because you didn't understand what you were buying?
  

Here's my proposal for a "New Star" rating system. (And if you use it, you should identify it as a "New Star" rating to distinguish it from the bad old system.)

Here's what I think New Star ratings should mean: 

1. Terrible. Avoid this product. It completely fails to do what it's supposed to. (Don't assign this rating just because you're a little disappointed.)
   
2. Flawed. The product works, but has some significant problems. Buy at your own risk. 
3. Satisfactory. The product performs as advertised, possibly with some minor flaws. You won't go wrong buying it.
   
4. Excellent. The product performs better than expected and is a superior value. I'm glad I chose it over alternatives.
   
5. Awesome. The product is close to perfect. It surprised and delighted me with how good it is. (Don't assign this rating just because the product, you know, works.)
   

In this scheme, few products would get a 5-star rating. A rating of 3 stars would be the norm for products that simply do what they're supposed to. An average rating of 4 stars would indicate a superior product.

And, folks, don't rush to give something a rating the minute you take it out of the box. Many (if not most) products can't be accurately rated until you've lived with them for a while. Especially things where longevity is a key attribute (like, say, batteries). 

In my perfect world, whenever you you try to assign a star rating on a website, it should pop up a reminder to observe the "New Star" guidelines. Unlikely, I know, but I can dream. Taking this further, sellers could go through a transition phase where they display both New Star and old star ratings. And perhaps New Stars should be visually distinct from the traditional ones, for example with 4 points instead of 5. 

What do you think? Wouldn't it be great if star ratings were actually helpful?

What if the government was run like a private insurance company?

We're all familiar with how insurance companies, being smart, will invest a little money as a hedge against a big claim. They'll pay for a free flu shot rather than incur the risk of having to cover the much more expensive treatment of a flu victim. They'll waive the deductible to get your chipped windshield fixed before it turns into a full-on windshield replacement. 

What if the government operated this way? Prime example: we have plenty of evidence that pre-K education pays big dividends in later life, in the form of higher productivity and income, and even better health. It's not even close. If government was run like a private insurer, it would insist on funding preschool because the return on its investment would be so great. 

Some other areas that a rational insurer would want to cover: 

• Climate mitigation and resilience. Much cheaper than ever-increasing expenses for disaster recovery. 
• Clean energy. As has been noted, the health benefits alone would deliver a big payoff for getting rid of fossil fuels. And what rational businessperson wouldn't want to invest in virtually unlimited free energy? 
• Drug development. What if, instead of granting patent monopolies and then struggling to insure the spiraling cost of extortionate drug prices, the government simply invested in drug research and made the results available as cheap generics? The savings to Medicare and Medicaid alone would be massive. 

There are many other areas that a rational private insurer would want to invest in, in order to lower its future payouts and drive down the cost of premiums. But when it comes to government, the anti-tax crusaders view every expenditure on social welfare as a net loss to the economy. Since most of these people claim to be fans of business, how can they oppose the government operating more like a private insurer?