Another bonus: at least for bamboo, it has antimicrobial properties compared to plastic, which tends to have all sorts of difficult-to-clean grooves for bacteria to hide in.
There are types of wood that have antibacterial properties which make them more rot resistant.
New Zealand has Totara trees which are truly beautiful. Over 100 year old Totara fence posts are still on various farms and some research group was buying them and extracting something out of it as a trial acne treatment.
Plenty of other woods have rot resistant properties too. Puriri comes to mind, it used to be a common house pile, but wow is it horrible to cut.
There are so many neat cutting boards available, with suitably eye watering prices. I made I nice Rimu one (though admittedly it was glued) out of old house framing that was otherwise going to be binned.
Chopping down these ancient hardwood trees for house framing is depressing to think about.
https://gatherandyou.co.nz/products/handmade-rimu-chopping-b...
Important to note that bamboo boards will dull your knives significantly faster than other woods.
Other kinds of wood are still better than plastics at being bacteria-resistant (but still need disinfecting after cutting meat etc.—and so does bamboo)
When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which lowers the expected return on each one. In the real world it's not so simple.
Similar reason why star players often have lower FG% than one might think: they are the ones tasked with trying _something_ when the shot clock winds down and there's no clear play. Not all shots are chosen equally.
> When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which lowers the expected return on each one
But then 2 pointers become easier. You can’t defend tightly both the perimeter and the paint at the same time. Sounds like a win-win. Again, nobody seemingly noticed.
You can try to counter it but go ahead and look at the highest volume 3 point shooting teams and compare them to the highest volume layup teams. Part of it is that theyre following analytics so theyre looking for layups more than other teams but gravity is very real and does make it easier to get layups when you shoot more 3s.
> When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which lowers the expected return on each one.
Well yeah, the idea is not to go all 3-pointer, it's that the borderline decisions need to adjust a few notches in favor of attempting 3-pointers, until the returns are balanced out.
This assumes the game is static and the question is selecting A or B, but all the variables are intertwined.
How does the percentage change when the other team knows you will go for 3? How much more effective is the three when you are able to have the threat of other scoring? A layup is 80-90% isn’t it worth it to try to create one?
Precisely. Shooting lots of threes with good/decent efficiency also made two pointers more likely as more players would be defending the perimeter. Again, seemingly nobody thought of this for decades.
Then why the first time someone tried it then it worked and it stuck for 15 years or so? Last season there were 35 3p attemtps per game on average vs 18 in the year before Curry’s debut, almost 2x.
It it really impossible to think that it was a huge oversight?
You can’t just tell your players to start jacking more threes and coast your way to success. Many tried, many failed. The game is more complex than that.
So in the 2008-2009 season, the one before Curry’s debut, the average number of 3 pointer attempts per game from a team was 18. Last season it was 35, so pretty much 2x.
If it was so intricate why nobody tried it before? And why after someone tried it it seemingly stuck? Is it really that far fetched that it was actually pretty simple and nobody noticed for many years?
Even if you consider the adjustement to the defense, you’d be making two pointers easier as you can’t defend tightly both the perimeter and the paint at the same time.
It was absolutely tried before. The 08 Magic shot threes at a similar % and volume to the 2015 Warriors, yet they got rolled in the playoffs every time.
Yes, 33% for 3pts equals a 50% 2pt shot, so beat that, and you've got yourself a pretty good scorer. But hitting 33% is not trivial unless you make a lot of other adjustments: multiple blocks for the shooters and not just a simple pick-and-roll or pick-and-pop, staggered blocks for a shooter switching from one sideline to the next. This has actually led to less specialization, as every player on the court needs to shoot 3s and defend faster or bigger players as switches became unavoidable.
And with all that, it only led to a "dynasty" when one player who could create his own shot and shoot from nearly anywhere at 35+% (Curry), paired with another ~40% career 3pt shooter and defensive specialist (Thompson) and completed with a power forward who could defend anyone and coordinate the attack too (Green). Even so, they did need another future hall-of-famer in Durant to win two of their last 3 rings.
That same team still has 2 of those core people in them, but they are unable to replicate anywhere near the success.
So if anyone can do this, why doesn't everyone do it?
This math makes sense, but it might not not always be so simple.
For example, maybe these probabilities might not always be the same as this in all circumstances. Also, how much risk you might take also might depend on the current score and remaining time (e.g. maybe you are likely to win even with only one more point than your current score, or maybe it depends how much time it takes to make a specific shot (I don't actually know enough about basketball to know if this is relevant)), and on how your opponent can defend against it at a specific situation (and if their defense would allow them to score instead; I don't actually know how much that is relevant either), maybe. There are probably other considerations as well.
(I do not actually know all of the rules or strategy of basketball, so if I am wrong, you can mention what mistake I made.)
Most of our clients either ended our contracts or scaled us way back. Normally we have to turn business away but now I feel fortunate to have full-time work.
A simple example to illustrate:
Say you had 100k revenue and 1 software developer you pay 100k per year.
Under the new law, you can only deduct 20k of the developer’s salary, so your profit is 80k, which you have to pay taxes on.
However, you have $0 in the bank because you earned 100k and paid out 100k in salary.
See how that is problematic?