I'm otherwise a lefty but I use computer mice right handed, because when I first started using a computer in elementary school all of the computer labs were set up right handed.
FWIW, I'm a righty, but relearned to use a mouse left handed for ergo benefits at my first real job; now I left mouse for work and right mouse for home. I prefer ambidextrous mice anyway, but it's really hard to find a left hand mouse if you want that. Even the ambidextrous mice often have thumb buttons for the right thumb. It's not to hard to learn to use a pointer with either hand; IMHO as someone who can't do a lot of complex motion with my non-dominant hand. I think there's a lot of convenience gained by accepting right mousing, although it is a longer reach if you have a keyboard with stuff to the right of your letters.
Weirdly enough, I don't know why I use the mouse right-handed. I was forced into doing it in any particular way, and beside the fact that I was already an adult when I learned of the existence of left-handed mice, I can't think of any reason why I'd naturally gravitate towards right-handed mouse use.
Interesting, over the last 18 months or so I've dabbled with both quitting/aggressively cutting back on drinking as well as aggressively cutting back on sweets (some periods where I've been super dedicated and others where I'm not).
Counter to OP's experience, I've actually found sweets to be more impactful than alcohol. That is to say eating dessert after dinner will impact my sleep more than a drink or two, and the periods where I lost weight have been more closely correlated with the periods where I was eating very few sweets.
Of course with both, the delta between low/moderate consumption and a baseline of zero consumption is low - it's the excessive consumption that causes trouble.
Like OP I found the daily ritual to be pretty easy after a couple weeks, but like OP I also missed the social aspect (and this is why I've sort of settled on the opinion that giving up drinking completely is not worth it, at least for me). If I felt like I was experiencing a step function improvement in life quality I'd keep it up... but for me it just hasn't been the silver bullet it's made out to be.
I'm not really one to label one food ingredient as the cause of all health problems, but if I had to choose one I would choose refined sugar long before alcohol.
How/what are you basing your "sweets/desert impacts my sleep more than a drink or two" on?
I was waking up an hour or more before the alarm (so waking up <=6AM with 7AM alarm). And I thought my sleep was good - after all Fitbit sleep score was 80-85.
Then after stopping alcohol I started sleeping longer. Specifically waking up later, at least for the first few weeks.
Seemingly alcohol was causing earlier waking due to spiking cortisol too early.
While waking-up time took a few weeks to recalibrate. Already 2-3 days after stopping alcohol - Fitbit was showing clear improvements in actual sleep quality metrics - HRV was increasing and RHR/BR were decreasing.
And now my "bad nights" have Fitbit sleep score of ~85, and it's regularly 90+.
Lab results are night and day - e.g. CRP was 20 (>5 signals inflammation), just few weeks after stopping alcohol it was ~10 while I was having cold/fever, and now it's <1.
The biggest/hardest problem for me was that after stopping alcohol, my sweets intake increased, especially in the evening. I was doing almost no carbs during the day, and then in the evening ... I guess brain was lacking some easy dopamine that it would previously get from alcohol... I would crave sweets, ice cream ...etc.
It took almost 3 months to be able to stick with strict keto diet. I'm finally doing <=20 gram of carbs because from past experience - any higher and I have a hard time limiting carbs to say just 50 (which would still be low carb/keto).
It's based on the sleep tracking data my fitness watch gives me, but also just based on how I rested I feel the next day, since I know there's limitations to the data quality a watch can give you.
I have noticed the early waking thing with alcohol, but for me that's never really an issue after a drink or two - only at higher consumption levels do I really have that problem (along with the bad dreams/nightmares that many have after drinking).
One other thing I've realized while experimenting with this is that I tend to be sleep better when I'm cooler - so anything that would raise my body temperature has a huge negative impact on sleep quality. This could be large amounts of alcohol, or it could be lots of sugar in the evenings, or a salty/starchy meal late in the day, etc. This seems to be a more important variable than anything else I've observed.
At least where I am, I would attribute it to code requirements. A livable attic requires much more work to meet code than a vented attic space. Not to mention the energy cost of having a livable attic can be higher because there is no venting and limited insulation. All of this is speculation of course. You definitely could do it. But, if you did you'd almost certainly have to use more expensive construction techniques to meet code insulation requirements.
I believe the post you're replying to is referring to roof trusses (and perhaps floor trusses) which are generally built off-site at a truss plant, but then attached onsite (usually with nails, but sometimes lag bolts or screws are needed).
A road where traffic moves at 30mph can be poorly designed and lead to lots of accidents, but so long as those accidents are not a vehicle hitting a pedestrian they're unlikely to be fatal.
A road where traffic moves at 70mph is another story.
USA has 12.9 traffic deaths per 100 000 people yearly with 330 million people.
Europe as a whole has 7.4 with 746.4 million people, and developed EU countries are around or under 5. Surface area is actually quite similar 9.3 million vs 10 million km2.
There are countries with population densities higher and lower than US in there, and ALL BUT ONE OF THEM have less traffic deaths than US. It's Bosnia and Herzegovina by the way. And it's at 13.5.
USA is crazy unsafe for a developed country, and it barely matters if you compare with sparsely populated Canada (5.2) or Sweden (2.0), or densely populated Germany (3.7) or Japan (2.1).
It's not about population nor population density. It's not about wealth. It's not about population distribution.
12.9 still seems very low to me. What makes the lower number better? I wouldn’t want the difference between 12.9 and 7.4 if it means I need to give up on driving cars and take slow inconvenient public transit or be limited to where public transit takes me. Cars are freedom.
I would also argue the US is more successful than literally every other country in part because of fast road infrastructure. So maybe they’re all just making the wrong tradeoff.
I'm all for having the vans snitch on drivers. Delivery drivers are trying to get deliveries done so fast that they're by far the most wreckless drivers on residential streets in my suburban neighborhood.
I'm surprised they can go fast at all while squinting at my suburban house number artfully written in cursive on the eaves instead of something more utilitarian.
for some time now, i've noticed that the delivery app folks have had other people in their car. i know as a teen, my friends and i would just drive around hanging out with no real purpose. now, they can still do that, but make some cash while doing it.
Yup. I popped into the Jeep/Ram dealer in Longmont, CO the other day and they had rows upon rows upon rows of 4xe Wranglers parked on their lot. Based on their websites, every other Jeep dealer in the area is in the same boat.
Stellantis dealers are flush with inventory right now and it's a buyers market if you're interested in any of their products.
You've had extremely high inflation over the past 3 years, along with a shortage of used cars. I had one totaled during peak insanity and got 7% more than I bought it for (used) 6 years earlier. But real (inflation adjusted) depreciation curves are still in existence, if slightly flatter as the cars have become more durable.
I have used Garmin's more consumer focused watches for years (currently have a Venu), and get great battery life too. Not two weeks, but a week is not out of the question.
Of course, I've found that after a couple of years the battery life starts to fade fast. Eventually I'm charging it every other day, at which point I usually start shopping for a new one.
