SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
A very good point. Due to some strange workings of my states regulations, I am “grandfathered in” to the rights equivalent to a small-scale mining permit, or 5000 tons/year. Expanding beyond this would be difficult because of a recent push by environmentalist groups to halt all mining in my area.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
This always seemed like the best option, but my father had terrible experiences with it. He attempted working with a dozen or so mining companies over the decades, and inevitably they would try to pull some scheme to take the property, or cheat him out of the profits.
For instance, one company, after an entire god-damn year of planning and testing, insisted on including in a final contract a line that states the company could “remove any amount of material from the property as ‘mineral samples’ without pay. They were unwilling to accept any cap on this amount, and presumably planned to use that line to take as much ore as they wanted for free.
Just one of many examples. You’d be amazed what people try to pull when they think you’re too provincial to read a contract.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
This is exactly the type of thing I’m hoping to do, thank you. I’ll dive into it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
It’s a fair point, and I fully understand why this is the majority of the responses I’m receiving, but I hold out hope primarily due to the sheer absurdity of the mineral richness of the property. No gold mine on earth has tests on the order of several oz/ton across a wide area, and rare-earths are typically so dispersed that they’re usually measured in ppm or tons/oz rather than oz/ton.
If a degree in mineral engineering is what I need then I suppose I’ll set out to get one; I just hoped that since mining predates degrees by several thousand years that I could make do without.
I think perhaps I didn’t get across the perspective well enough in my top-level post. Most mining today is basically scraping the barrel. We spent the last few thousand years taking the easy stuff, and now we have to try really hard to get the rest. I have a cache of the easy stuff that has been hitherto passed-over.
To use oil as an analogy, this property isn’t ‘we need advanced fracking techniques to access the oil reserve a mile underground.” It’s “I stuck a shovel in the ground and oil started shooting out.”
I don’t expect it to be easy, but I do think it’s at a level that’s attainable, even if it takes me the better part of a decade of hard work.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Originally a law firm, but then a sort of legal scam between the law firm and a mining company left my father on the hook for about half a million dollars of legal debts. We found out much later that the our lawyer, the owner of the mining company, and the judge were all buddies, but by then it was a settled matter.
I understand it’s not a super typical case, but it left a sour taste for lawyers. I’m loath to repeat the mistakes of my father.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Sadly no. My extended family is all more likely to fall on the other side of the law, and I haven’t made any lawyer friends, nor have any of my friends, to my knowledge. You have a good point though, and I’m going to need to find a way to foster that relationship. If you have any advice on how, I’ll take it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Nobody would hire Joe Biden, or Trump or Bernie or MTG or AOC to do anything important. But these are exactly the kinds of “leaders” we produce
Is this because of the voting, or because of the options? Who exactly is out there ready to lead America to a new age of beauty and success but is prevented from rising to the top because of voting? If we had a Caesar or a Churchill waiting in the wings, do you really think they couldn't win an election? Against either of the geriatrics? Frankly, they're just not that good then.
The reality is our best and brightest don't try to become president because the president just isn't that important. The systems we've constructed as a society have many levers to control them, but they are very spread out. The president has less power over what type of buildings get built than whoever puts together the International Building Code, less power over environmental standards than the employees of the EPA, less power over the financial industry than the leaders of international financial institutions etc. If you want to make a big difference, becoming a top dog Democrat and trying to become president seems like a middling choice compared to going and starting a lobbying organization or something. At best you get to fight the system in the attempt to do things nominally in your power (RIP Trump), at worst you lose your goals in the process of getting there (RIP Obama) or have your staff run around you to continue business as usual (RIP Biden). There are many, many players at the top, and any single defector from the general direction of the herd gets thrown down pretty hard from what I've seen. There is no publicly visible #1 role, and probably just isn't a #1 person at all. That's what oligarchy is all about I suppose, and it seems to me we're already there.
Monarchy/autocracy seems like the solution to some people, but it's really just a roundabout way of achieving what we really need: the ability of society's best people to be in positions of power where they're able to say ''No, fuck you, this is how it's gonna work," and to be able to say it not just to the plebs, but to the rest of the elite.
I want the president of Harvard to be able to say "No, we aren't about inclusion, our whole purpose is to be exclusive so the best people can all hang out," and act on it, without losing his position. I want the President to be able to say "Yeah, we're building nuclear power plants everywhere, including your back yard. You're scared? Too bad. They're statistically optimal." Currently, those are just impossible. They'd be ripped apart by their own class, no matter how right they are. Of course, this level of power is ripe for corruption and may cause collateral damage. That's why great leaders are so important. Of course, no one believes we have great leaders at the moment, and so neither side wants anyone having those kinds of power. Why?
I think we as a society have just largely lost the ability to make great people. Outside of very narrow groups, parenting is mostly terrible, education ranges from mediocre to actively harmful, and nearly all societal systems work very hard to prevent people doing anything unusual or experiential enough to grow into a top-tier individual. No one has values, let alone a set we can all agree upon, and the idea of virtue is largely ignored. The best we've got are turbo autists blessed with immense intellect who are never taught the wisdom to use it well, and very boring run-of-the-mill groomed elite. The latter enforces the status quo, the former lacks the understanding required to shatter it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Not all problems necessarily have practicable solutions, but I'll do my best.
Parenting: rebuilding intergenerational wisdom after a gap occurs is difficult, and the reality is traditional parenting is difficult to work in the modern world.
Additionally, the average parent just isn't that good at navigating the modern world in their own right. However, children need role models, guidance, and all that, and frankly the state should be able to provide at least some of that. State sponsored tutors, a restructuring of the school system, and similar things could help, or even just state funding for third-places with productive activities would be good.
Values: Mine obviously, but I'm not so unreasonable as to think that's a solution. I see it as [my values > your values > no values > my values inversed]. Most value systems I've encountered are broadly good, with some rough edges. What isn't good is a valueless society drowning in ennui. Obviously some values will prove to be maladaptive, but those inherently end up being uprooted one way or another.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
"The same boiling that hardens the egg softens the potato"
I've found people's opinions on things like bullying or violence tend to just be them projecting their own egg-ness or potato-ness onto others. Yeah, some people will grow character because they got picked on, pull themselves together, become more socially adept etc, but others will just break, curl up into a ball in their own isolated corner, and suffer for it for a long time.
Now you can just say "they should be better," but I'm not sure that's possible. Most things are genetic, and I'd be surprised if fragility isn't heavily genetic as well. There's always trauma adaptation, but that usually makes the person less fragile and also less socialized, so there is a tradeoff there.
The way I see it, the problem is trying to act like everyone is equal. By insisting that this is true, we've left no room for people to exist safely at the bottom of social hierarchies. There's always a sense of "why aren't they better?" that just wouldn't exist in a world where it's understood that yes, some people are at the top, and others are at the bottom, and you each have responsibilities and expectations. Meritocracy has become an excuse for those at the top to ignore the responsibilities they must carry, and an excuse to blame the bottom rung of the ladder for not carrying out responsibilities they shouldn't even have.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
The 'catering' we do for the bottom is caused by the meritocratic view, however. Believing that every ghetto-denizen and backwoods hick is just a temporarily-embarrassed email worker is a direct result of ignoring the fundamental differences between people. Our current system is built around trying to pretend the bottom is "really" just like the top, while shunning anything that's actually 'bottom-ish.' Proper recognition of natural differences means that we can accept that no, most of the bottom has very different ways of thinking than those at the top, and will never be the same.
The same goes with cry bullying. It only works because privileged people are able to pretend that they're not. Proper noblesse oblige means that the privileged are held to higher standards.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
This makes me extremely interested in what a day in your life looks like. Would you be willing to share?
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
More of a Friday Fun post, aside from my minor questions, but here are some updates on the mining:
Winter slowed things down, but I now have a shaker table, a jaw crusher, a propane furnace, a non-functional ball-mill, a 55-gallon drum of sulfuric acid, and a ramshackle shack.
First concentration runs with the table were interesting, but not particularly good. Managing angle and flow across the table is harder than I expected, and I seem to have lost about as much good material as I got. Regardless, I ended up with some buckets of concentrates to play with which will hopefully inform me what's in the rock or extractable.
Acid leaching is honestly shockingly simple and easy. I've got blue crystals containing copper and other metals now, and was able to melt them into small nuggets of a pinkish copper/silver/gold mix, with swirls of color throughout. Biggest issue would be scale. Doing it in small trays is easy, but IDK if I'd want to deal with larger amounts of acid. Does anyone know if there's a market for small irregularly shaped blobs of metal, maybe as a craft thing?
As I progress, I'm becoming increasingly aware of the daunting task of metal extraction that's coming up. I can get some basic amount of mixed metal blocks by furnacing, but actually separating the different metals is much more chemistry than I'd like to have on my hands. Which brings me to my main question: does anyone here have knowledge or experience shipping concentrates to a refinery? If I could simply do the concentration as I have been, either through acid or crushing and tabling, and then sell it to the professionals, I'd be sitting pretty. I've been away from polite society for a good while, so I've been putting off sending emails. Maybe ChatGPT can help.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
This is almost certainly not true actually. Females have a roughly standard distribution in most traits, where most are about average. Males have a bimodalish, flattened distribution, where most males are either above or below average. Because of this, there are more men at either extreme. The peaks of humanity, and the dregs of it, are something like 10:1 male:female.
SophisticatedHillbilly
11mo ago
Honestly it's one of those things I read somewhere, but I don't have the source on me or the time to find it. I will note that it was for general quality on numerous metrics which extends beyond physical attraction.
As to your point, it would only be true in a case where:
-
Everyone must have a long-term partner
-
No two people can have the same partner.
Both of which are distinctly untrue. Just means more women will share the non-1s or end up alone. People, especially women, have standards, and won't just end up with trash because everyone else was taken. There's always the option of getting knocked up from a man a couple notches up and being a single mother.
A man who is actually a 1 in attractiveness is actually horrible, given that even a total uggo would still score above a 1 with nearly any redeemable qualities. Single motherhood is almost certainly preferable to even being in the same room as such a man, let alone interacting with him.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
Is that not the employers fault for firing someone for such an absurd reason? I find it hard to blame the teens for that particular aspect of this.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
Like, what is the natural process that results in the probabilistic construction of a jet engine?
Simple: Some self-replicating biological robots gradually improve through natural selection, eventually forming large multicellular organisms, some of which create jet engines as a by-product of reproductive competition and predatory defense. It's more or less the same natural process that creates ambergris, really, differing in only minor details (like evolutionary pathways) that are meaningless on the scales we're talking about. Jet engines are a thing naturally formed by humans in the same sense that boogers are.
It's worth considering that we do, in fact, live in the universe that natural processes formed a jet engine. Of course people seem to draw a (to me) completely arbitrary distinction between our actions and those of a protocell.
Now if the question is "How would a jet engine be naturally formed without going through the natural processes that form jet engines," well the answer is clearly that it wouldn't, the same as nothing, not life, not an engine, not even a simple rock, will simply wink into existence spontaneously.
The make-it-or-break-it question at hand with abiogenesis isn't "what are the odds of this?" it's "is this the natural process via which life is formed?" The research seems to be gradually moving towards showing that yes, it is, but we also definitely aren't there yet.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
As someone with 4 siblings and who ideally wants 12 children of my own (my father had 11 siblings!) I think I can offer some perspective. Me and my siblings are basically going through the gamut of possibilities, which I find very interesting
My eldest brother moved away, currently works in some sort of research support role, and is part of a poly-amorous relationship. He drank the Blue-aid as deeply as possible, and he has no intentions of ever having children. If pushed he'll say something like "when I can afford it," but he doesn't seem to be too interested in saving up to do so. He takes international vacations, he lives in the core of a big city, and he spends what he makes. He is also perpetually miserable, God knows why.
My second eldest brother is severely physically disabled, and he has no real shot at procreation. He exists by still living in the childhood home, cared for by our mother. Sad, but he does okay. He actually tries his hand at creative projects quite frequently, but he's not particularly capable mentally either (though not retarded.)
My younger brother is the only one of the family who grappled with the challenges to religion and kept the faith, and he is in the process of steadily working himself into a well-paying trade job, buying some land in the middle of no-where, and intends to have a large family with the girlfriend he has had since he was a young teenager.
Then there is my younger sister. She wants to farm, and she does so. By the age of 10 she had convinced her parents to buy her a few dairy goats, which is now a sizable herd with impeccable lineage. She has maintained a rigorous schedule for as long as I remember, and refuses to break it for anything. I don't know what her plans are for children. I don't know if she's considered them. She just wants to farm.
Then there's me. I intended to become a journalist, run away to a foreign country, and experience interesting places and things. Once I learned that the whole field was rotten, discovered I hate working for other people and returned home, I have gradually grown in my desire to have children. I think part of it is being around a place where I have childhood memories. Part of it is knowing that I can bring them into a world where they have a future of something better than [school (which I hated and was worthless) --> college (same) --> Drone job (same).] Part of it may be reconnecting with family history, which I have records of going back a straight 130 years (not just names, but business records, letters, all sorts of things.)
More than anything though, I think my desire just grew as I began to hate life less. All these convoluted schemes seem to be missing the core idea that "people who are miserable and think life is meaningless don't really want to perpetuate that." But that's getting too into my own analysis, which I can share separately if anyone cares.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
The issue with this I think is that they don't have to be. Many of the costs of children provide no net benefit to anyone in the long run and you can simply not pay them. Maybe people don't know this? Perhaps simply a nationwide education program about it would suffice.
Effectively all of them. Getting kids into expensive private schools? Twin studies have demonstrated them to be pointless. They end up exactly as successful and happy by the age of 35 regardless. This is also true of special early education, fancy extracurriculars, cool vacations, neat gadgets, a nice first car etc. This is all generally verifiable from twin studies. Nature wins, nurture... sort of helps, at least as far as "don't lock your kids in a basement and starve them."
As someone who personally grew up for extended periods of time without running water or electricity it was just sort of fine. Didn't really have a massive impact on my life, got me outside more, spent some more time with friends, etc. Occasionally annoying but like: you wash your hands in a bucket instead of the sink, you haul drinking water from the well (exercise), and you don't brain-drain in front of a screen. Frankly seems pleasant compared to how my college roommates lived.
You want to have your kids do better than you? Marry up, don't starve them, provide a very basic level of opportunity, and you're good to go. The sad reality of parenthood is there's very little you can do. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. It's been known for a long, long time.
That basically leaves as expenses: diapers, food, gas for driving them to school, clothes. That's practically covered by tax benefits alone. Medical expenses are a legitimate concern, but they can be dealt with (or just ignored, if you're lower class and have already acquired a mortgage!) If the wife's career is an issue, I can't really speak to that. That's just never been an issue in any of the relationships I've known as all the women happily jumped on being a stay-at-home-mom when it was an option (as my own girlfriend wants to, and is ready to drop her career plans at a moments notice,) so I've no experience with it.
I'm phone-posting, but for sources I'd look into 'Selfish Reasons' For Parents To Enjoy Having Kids by Brian Caplan, which is very good, and just general twin studies. SSC has some good old posts about it as well I believe if you dig.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
This is extra true of those murders which, especially in the southeastern US, have little connection to other crime. Most murders there are a personal feud sort of thing, or a "you fucked my girlfriend" sort of thing. Totally expected and seen as very reasonable in local circles. Very different than gang activity, robberies that go wrong, etc.
SophisticatedHillbilly
10mo ago
Any explanation of the Christmas Effect that's faster than 1.5 hours?
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
Sometimes men and women behave the same, instead of differently - what then?
Now this is an honest question and not meant to be snarky: When?
I just genuinely cannot think of a single situation in which men and women behave the same. Not one. Not when studying in school, not when walking to the bathroom, not when sitting down for lunch, not when speaking in a business meeting. Maybe I'm just not thinking broadly enough?
Currently though, I'm liable to think the proper heuristic is "men and women literally never behave the same in any situation ever, and if anyone says they do they're either smoothing over differences or autistic." If there are some weird exceptions then those seem to fall more under the "exception that proves the rule" than anything else.
This doesn't give unlimited explanatory power, but it does require every single generalization about people to be split into two more specific generalizations, which I feel will cleave reality much closer to the joints.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
Which shouldn't be exceptionally surprising. Men aren't significantly more likely to molest children, I believe, once you account for reduced reporting rates among male victims of female molestation.
This seems to line up with that, taking into account the naturally higher rate of homosexual attraction among women, which pads the numbers somewhat.
SophisticatedHillbilly
9mo ago
There are two prongs to this:
1: Yes, citizens spreading their ideology is legitimate. It can also be evil, if the ideology is evil. Whether legal or not, evil should be combated, especially when it personally influences one's children. The debate then is whether the LGBT ideology is evil. It would also be legitimate for citizens to spread Nazism, but that would be evil, and I would like it fought however possible.
2: The issues around schools are entirely separate from what is considered for citizens to do. It is legitimate for someone who works as a teacher to spread their ideology, but not in their capacity as a public school teacher. It would not be acceptable for a public school teacher to secretly teach their students about God, hold prayers, tell them to hide it from their parents, bring in crosses for the kids to wear etc. The same goes for any LGBT ideology.
I want to start a mining operation and I need help figuring out what the best way to get off the ground is with limited starting capital and only a modicum of technical know-how.
Normally, this would be a pie-in-the-sky nonsense dream, but I have an unusual set of circumstances. I have inherited a 400-acre mountain property which was the site of an old mine about 100 years ago. That mine was started by my great^4 grandfather, but it died in the fuel-rationing of the World Wars.
My father attempted to start a new operation, but a lack of business-acumen, determination, and time prevented him from doing so.
The property itself is loaded. The 20th century operation was attempting to mine copper, not realizing the immense mineral wealth they were casting aside as refuse. Of particular interest to me are two things:
There is a particular mineral vein (about a 100ish feet wide, around 1000 deep) that tests show containing several ounces per ton of gold, an obscenely dense amount. However, this gold is AuO2, or gold oxide. I’d you’re thinking “gold doesn’t oxidize!” you would be mostly right. AuO2 has been made in labs, but I can’t find much info on it. A PhD student from a local college went and did a paper about it, but had few answers. No idea if it complicates extraction at all.
There is another deposit that tests show as containing around a half an ounce per ton of Rubidium. For those who don’t know, rubidium is a rare-earth metal used in many electronics which the US is currently 100% reliant on imports from China for. It is worth somewhere in the ballpark of $100 per gram.
It’s definitely an opportunity, but getting off the ground will be difficult with me having no idea what I’m doing. My circumstances are as follows:
Bank loans are usable, but the property must never be used as collateral.
I currently make $45,000/year in a low COL area, and don’t pay rent as I live in an RV on the property. I work 45 hours/week
I have a friend who inherited a fortune and is willing to bankroll me effectively for free but only if I have clear, well defined checkpoints and goals.
I need help figuring out where to start. I messed around with acid leaching in high school, and I’ve looked into making an arc-welder furnace, but I’m somewhat lost as to what the extraction process should even look like, or where I should start. I’m just rather scattered.
If anyone here can help, I’d greatly appreciate it. If there’s any interest, I can post mineral tests.
More options
Context Copy link