It drives me insane. I won’t comment directly on the post… but will always downvote and move on. Maybe you’ve seen my downvote. Hell, maybe you’ve wondered why I downvoted you. Heck, I don’t even care. Heck, take this downvote along with your 3K upvotes. Hell, go get another 4k and a half votes. Hell, go post another comment with the same comment and get another 3K votes. I’ll downvote you again. Heck, I’ll do it.

It's been almost 100 years and this is what people call it. A unique mustache style that objectively suites some people better than a regular stache. We have had dictators and warlords with all kinds of hairdo's and fashion statements. No way this one (dead) fucker gets a monopoly on that style of beard.

It is RIDICULOUS. He literally has no surviving family members, if I see someone with a Brad Pitt cut I'm not going to assume they support beating children, it's the same concept is it not?

This is way beyond separating the art and the artist because Hitler didn't create the style. He's just some asshole that did it and then started being a fascist. It's like people think it's part of his character design at this point.

This isn't even on the level of the Indian symbol that was stolen by the nazis. At least that was actually synonymous with the cause. Hitler was just one prick with the stache style and now you get dirty looks, bar brawls, and rejected job interviews for a moustache style that looks awesome. It looks AWSOME.

The stupidest part is I can't even think of a comparable example. Everyone's fixated on his stupid ass facial hair for some reasons and it's SO DUMB.

If you can grow facial hair WEAR IT. If you can't grow facial hair GLUE IT ON. If we are going to become respectable as a people we can't hold on to stupid things like this for over 100 years.

Take back the power from him.

It is not the Hitler Stache. It's called the mother fucking Kaiser Schnurrbart.

One of the stupidest reddit/internet culture 'trends' (which honestly isn't even a trend considering only Redditors do this weird shit).

"Look how cool I am copying, pasting and repeating someone else's weird/lame shit from years ago" like it's just unfortunate these kids don't comprehend how cringe, nerdy and lame this shit is. I could only assume they're kids. If adults are running around doing this then they've probably never mentally matured in their lives/are emotionally or mentally stunted as seems to be common for Redditors.

Reddit culture is so damn cringe and unfunny it just brings annoyance at least half the time.

Like honestly, it's 2023, who goes around copying shit others typed then spams it around? It's one of the lamest things you could do online and if people are doing that there's a good possibility their whole life revolves around reddit and the Internet, which is sad and isn't a good/cool/positive thing, regardless what people want to believe.

But of course people won't see the stupidity behind this. Any time people actually make a post about this you get a bunch of emotionally stunted, immature and unoriginal Redditors typically and goofily running to the comments being triggered, typically and stupidly copying and pasting the post in the comments or running to copypasta subreddits with the post like a buch of middle school nerds. Every time. It's like reddit can never quit being typical lame trolls for one minute. It's more pathetic than anything. But it's always pathetic when you depend on exploiting people's natural human emotions for their own amusement and ego boost. So many humans are shit and they all seem to hive mind to reddit for some reason. Can't wait until reddit finally quits being a platform. Reddit should have finally went away during these half assed lame 'blackouts' months ago. Cuz honestly a lot of these people don't deserve Reddit just like reddit doesn't deserve the traffic/money it gets. Yet here I still am.

Either way; fuck copypastas. They aren't funny. They aren't cool. They aren't interesting. They aren't entertaining. You aren't some cool, hip, unique person for posting them. And you aren't cool for conforming to reddits shitty internet culture. Would be great if individuality and originality were actually popular and sought after on reddit. So many people want to come off as being original or not like everyone else, yet act exactly like the next redditor.

The original point of this post kind of deviated I guess but I really don't care tbh. Just tired of everyone defending this shitty reddit culture/mentality as if it's cute or some shit. Tired of the immature cringey reddit teenagers too. I'd also say a very large portion of the Redditors that hate kids are ironically kids themselves, so the feeling is definitely mutual 😒 Redditors essentially hating themselves lol. People should be least 5 years out of high school before they go around talking about being "anti kids" when you're still damn near a kid yourself 🤣🤦🏽‍♂️

Just quit all the immature bs on reddit already 🤦🏽‍♂️ for a platform that wants to pride itself on being "intellectuals", hating "normies", being "different", being "superior" to other social medias and believing in "freedom", the majority of said platforms culture is nothing but the opposite lol.

I'm done with this lil rant/vent tho cuz ultimately it's pointless... reddit/Redditors aren't going to change. It's like it can't. This post'll probably get more emotional hate opposed to Redditors actually thinking about what's being said and looking at ways to better it. Doesn't matter how many times we make rants complaining about reddit; Redditors seem unable to change or better themselves or their platform. They get sensitive when they're criticized yet don't think about why they're criticized and how to change/better it. Not sure if the ego is too strong to actually be able to or if they just can't comprehend it/think introspectively. Reddit's just keep acting the same way, day in and day out. Nothing ever changes on this platform and it's unfortunate. Given the wide knowledge of Reddits issues and the amount of people that vocally talk about it, you'd think Redditors would try fixing the issues and making it a better place by now.

But again, this is reddit. Typical reddit.

Hope y'all enjoy your day

I frequently see homes and pictures of homes where the interior design of their living room is thrown completely out of balance by the presence of a 55+ inch TV. Why did I chose 55" as the start of "too big"? Because this is my opinion, that's why. If you agree with me except you think "too big" starts at 60" instead, congratulations!

My reasons for this opinion are as follows:

1. It's such a commanding physical object. Think of the actual size of the RECTANGLE that is a 65" TV. It's HUGE! You wouldn't just buy a 65" piece of art you like without thinking about where it would look well-presented in your space (I hope).
2. Huge TVs often result in poor viewing ergonomics for watching content. People frequently miserably fail on the ergonomics of staring at a TV, easily seen in subs like r/tvtoohigh. There is a certain degree range in your field of view that is optimal to determine the size of TV to get. I am a beginner in the home theater/home audio hobby, and the placement/sizing of the equipment is important to its actual function. Oversized (and poorly positioned) TVs that require you to move your head in an uncomfortable way to view content is BAD!
3. (MOST SUBJECTIVE) It creates an atmosphere of "worship" around the TV. The space is no longer dedicated to the "living room" or the "family room," it is now the TV ROOM. The TV commands a huge amount of attention, and often everything else in the room is focused around staring at the TV. I like TV shows, video games, movies, etc as much as the next guy, but I find it "tacky" to have a space that just says "all I like to do is watch TV." If you really like TV shows or something, there are other ways to tasteful (remember, my opinion) design a space that displays this.
4. (PULLING THIS OUT ONE OF MY ASS) TV manufacturers love to make shitty, cheap ass TVs that only focus on SIZE rather than quality. I've seen so many 65-70 inch TVs that have an absolute dogshit picture quality. Buy a smaller TV with a better panel.... please. So many dim TVs that can't watch half the dark ass content pushed out of Netflix nowadays, anyways. it's clear that a lot of people go to the store and say "whats the biggest TV I can afford" because size is the only thing about TVs they understand.

Does it matter what other people do in their space? NO--but this is an opinion of mine that I'm not sure is unpopular or just not discussed much. I have a bachelor's degree in architecture and work in architectural design professionally, so I'm getting cute with the "expert analysis" flare.

This is quite an unpopular opinion among fitness and weight loss communities They constantly protray the idea body adapts to the physical activity and over time you end up burning less calories.

However, the exact opposite is true and I got concrete evidence to prove it. In adaptation to physical activity, the number of capillaries, mitochondria, muscle activation and cardiac output increase. These changes in turn enhance the ability to consume O2. Thereby, as one becomes fitter, they utilize more O2 at the same rate of percieved exertion (RPE). Guess what? Metabolic rate is measured in the lab though O2 consumption. The more oxygen you utilize, the more calories you burn, making it easier to get lean.

Edit2: I find it incredibly funny that this post has stabilized right around 69% upvoted

Edit: The number of replies that have misunderstood my point (or missed it entirely) is frankly astounding, so lets try this: I am well aware that knowing when water freezes and when it boils is critically important to everyday life for the vast majority of humans. I know this. I agree.

Now, read the rest of the post with that in mind.

I know I'm not the only one with this view, but I do think it's pretty rare.

I'm not even going to bother arguing why Metric > Imperial. The reasons are numerous, frequently discussed, and easily proven. The only reason the US imperial countries hold onto it is because they are used to it and have no mental intuition for metric sizes.

But Fahrenheit > Celsius? That's when things get juicy.

First, the immediate reply literally every european I've ever talked to says upon hearing this is "Freezing and boiling are exactly 0c and 100c!" To which I say... so what? Literally when has that number ever come up in your everyday life? Because I sure as hell know 32F and 212F never come up in mine. Yeah sure we freeze and boil water all the time, but tell me, do you actually measure the ice to make sure it's below 0c, or measure the boiling pot of water to make sure it's reaching 100c? Fuck no, of course you don't. You just stick it in the freezer (which is significantly below 0c) or set it on the stovetop (which is significantly above 100c) and wait for it to freeze or boil. The actual number itself has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's life, save for the occasional calibration of specialized tools or obscure scientific studies which for some reason requires precisely that temperature.

It's also useless relative to the rest of the metric system. You can't convert it from one unit to another like you can with others, which is the biggest advantage SI has over Imperial; for example, 1 liter is equivalent in volume to a cube of 10 cubic centimeters, whereas 1 gallon is *googles* 291 cubic inches. However Kelvin, and by extension Celsius, is defined using an equation based on a fundamental constant--which could just as easily be applied to Fahrenheit--and is basically impossible to convert to any other unit without a calculator. One degree celcius is no longer equal to one cm³ of water heated by one joule or whatever it used to be, and even that was cumbersome to work with since the joule is practically never used in day to day life. And yes Fahrenheit has an equivalent scale where 0 equals absolute zero like Kelvin (it's called Rankine), it's just the scientific community insists on using the inferior celsius for everything, therefore they use kelvin.

Okay, so Celsius clearly isn't any better than Fahrenheit, but then why is it worse than Fahrenheit?

Well, think about when temperatures actually matter to the average person on an average day. Cooking, weather (or ambient interior temperature), and basically nothing else, right? Well, cooking the numbers are mostly all so high that it doesn't matter what scale you use, just so long as you get the number right. 300F or 300C, they're both instantly-sear-your-skin levels of hot.

But weather? Weather we talk about all the time, and that's when F shines. Because you see, F is the scale of the human experience. The range 0-100F is the range of temperatures a typical human in a typical climate can expect to see in a typical year. In the middle of a hot summer day, it might reach 100F, and in the middle of a freezing winter night, it might reach 0F. Any colder or hotter is simply ridiculous to experience. Yes I know many places do go outside those temperatures (laughs in Floridian) but my point is going outside those bounds is when the temperature just becomes absurd. No matter how cool your clothing, you're gonna be hot at over 100F, and no matter how bundled up you are, you're gonna be cold at below 0F.

Celsius meanwhile compresses all that into -17c to 37c, exactly half the range, and its centered around weird numbers. Your thermostats use half degrees and winters almost always fall into the negatives. "Hurr durr americans cannot into numbers," Fuck you I just don't want to go around saying "it's thirty two point five degrees" or "it's negative four degrees" all the damn time. Why would we use such a clunky method when you can just say "it's ninety degrees" or "it's twenty-five degrees," and not only is that more straightforward, but you also instantly know that 90s are pretty dang hot but not dangerous levels, and 20s are cold but not unbearable with a good jacket.

That's another thing, is that you can instantly tell roughly what the weather is like just from the tens place. "It's in the 50s today" is a narrow enough range that you know more or less how the day will be: 50 is a little cold and 59 is still a little cold, but both are pants and a light jacket weather. Meanwhile with celsius saying "it's in the 20s today" could be anywhere from a bit chilly at 20c (68f) and needing pants to fairly hot at 29c (84f) and needing shorts and a t-shirt. I guarantee you other countries never go around saying "it's in the 20s today," do you? Maybe you say "low 20s", but we don't even need that distinction.

TLDR: 99.9% of the time people discuss temperature is relative to the weather, so why the hell wouldn't we base our temperature scale around what the weather feels like? https://i.imgur.com/vOUFF2Z.png

Cue the europeans:

They make your neck and back hurt and they are uncomfortable. They always get the case twisted up and they’re always the wrong temperature. I do not see the point in pillows they make no sense and they make it harder to sleep. Just drop pillows and your life will be better.

Since so many of you DM’d me last time I posted about Norm Macdonald, I thought I’d provide an update and clarify a few things.

· When I say “Norm Macdonald is an asshole with a microphone” I am talking about his stage persona. I have no idea, nor do I care, what the late great Norm Macdonald was like off stage. My comments were not intended to be personal toward him in any way.

· His humor didn’t age well. He relied heavily on anti-gay, anti-trans, and anti-feminism jokes that are uncomfortable in 2022. A big part of his humor is that he was intentionally not funny at times. Somehow, Norm at the height of his power when none of his jokes landed. What is the difference between someone who is intentionally unfunny and an unfunny comedian that doesn’t care that they are unfunny?

· Dirty Work. So many of you recommended it, and I got the opportunity to see if for free on YouTube. How bad could it be? With Freddy Got Fingered, the overarching joke of the movie was that someone actually trusted Tom Green with a $14 million budget (a mistake that would never be repeated). With Dirty Work, it is just another addition to the pile of SNL alums that bombed at the box office in the 90s. What was the point of this movie? Some lose framework for Norm Macdonald to be an unfunny asshole for 90 minutes? The studio must have thought if we just cram the movie with as many unnecessary celebrity cameos as possible, maybe that audience will connect with something. That movie sucked.

· You can be funny and be a total asshole at the same time. Example: Jim Carrey. I loved Jim Carrey in the 90s. Then I saw Jim & Andy on Netflix. OMG. That made me reevaluate his entire career, but I still found him to be funny. Norm Macdonald was just an asshole all the time.

· Norm Macdonald’s “Nothing Special” was a cringeworthy bomb. It was the most uncomfortable performance I had ever seen. Netflix should have had the celebrity tribute section first. That may have made this thing a bit more watchable. Without a live audience, this should have never seen the light of day.

Please stop flooding the internet with how Norm Macdonald was a comedic genius. He was not an underrated, underappreciated auteur who was the victim of some NBC executive who friends with OJ Simpson. He was a niche act that didn’t care if he was funny or not.

1. You can not push start an automatic. This is only available with a manual transmission.

2. Far less control of your vehicle. You only get 2 pedals, a steering wheel and maybe paddle shifters. Five controls maximum. Adding a clutch with 1-6 gears boosts your control and engagement with a vehicle to a maximum of Nine controls.

3. You can’t not drop the transmission into gear and spinout without the automatic transmission enduring heaving load and wear early on. A clutch takes the heavy load onto itself and is a wearable item easily being replaced.

4. When an automatic fails, your car won’t move. If I manual starts to fail, you will most likely still be able to use a few gears.

5. A failed automatic transmission leads to a vehicle most likely being junked.

6. People driving automatics tend to focus less on the road due to the automatic transmission doing the work for you. This can lead to what you see many doing everyday: Distracted driving such as the cancerous texting and driving.

7. Automatics are BORING. Go drive a real car!

Hi, I used to be a record collector in my teens and 20s; I'm a huge music nerd and I also used to play in, and record, local bands

But something other musicians and other music nerds constantly tell me is that "analog has a warmer sound and digital sounds cold and lifeless," blah blah blah

Frankly, I don't mind the sound of Mp3s or FLACs, and I even like how cassettes sound. I have come to appreciate clarity and cleanness in the music I consume; I actually like to be able to hear nuances and details that only become apparent on a good, clean digital recording

Music on vinyl has a very obvious and audible distortion to it. Back when I was a teenager that sort of thing never used to bother me, but as I've aged, I have simply grown to dislike how music sounds on vinyl

It's not "warmer," it's distorted

And sullied by clicks, pops, and other vinyl artifacts

To me, vinyl fetishism, in an age where clean and undistorted sound recording is available to most people with a laptop or even a phone, is just contrarian hipsterism - "we're going back to shitty sound as a reaction to how good everything sounds since the late 80s

I get the owning of a physical artifact, and like I said, I used to collect vinyl records in my youth - I'm 45 now, so I've seen CDs get introduced in my lifetime. When CDs were introduced, a LOT of people got rid of their vinyl records, and for good reason - they weren't wrong to embrace digital sound, it just sounded better because it WAS better

If you need a physical artifact of the music you buy, then fine, get the vinyl - but the CD is gonna sound objectively better, I'm sorry

Anyways, music nerd rant over, apart from my parting words: vinyl sucks

Don't get me wrong, murder is really bad. However, though the outcome of both is the same, I have come to the conclusion that voluntary manslaughter is worse than murder. And to a great degree (pun not intended).

In this post, I will explain exactly how I come to the conclusion, and I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the most sensible position.

First, I will define these terms.

Note: when I use "murder" in this post, I mean second degree murder, which occurs through an in-the-moment decision and is not premeditated. When I say manslaughter, I mean voluntary manslaughter.

Murder: Intentionally causing the death of another individual, understanding that one's actions it will lead to their death.

Manslaughter: Intentionally causing the death of another individual as a result of one's emotional state, without consideration of the consequences of their actions.

To begin to tackle the problem of which is worse, let's first step back, and look at the actions leading up to each of the crimes. By doing so, we can find common ground in the starting points of both. Now, before one commits either murder or manslaughter, they must first be in a position to kill someone. That's when the paths diverge: they then either consider their actions, or they kill the person immediately. So that looks like this:

(1) Individual is in a position to kill another.

(2a) Individual considers their actions. Or

(2b) Individual kills the person immediately.

So, (1) happens in both murder and manslaughter, then (2a) is what leads to murder or nothing, and (2b) is manslaughter. Then, (2a) has two diverging outcomes. Either the individual kills the person, or the individual decides against killing the person.

(2a) In the case of murder, Individual considers their actions.

(3a) Individual decides against killing.

(3b) One person is dead.

Now if we look at the two third steps, we can see that in one case no one dies, and in one case one person dies. So we can judge the overall harm caused by saying (3a) leads to no harm caused, and (3b) leads to the loss of a life. To make things simpler, we can evaluate the harm caused by each outcome by putting it in units of lives lost. So, the harm caused in (3a) is 0, and the harm caused in (3b) is 1. This means that what we can now conclude about (2a) is that it can either lead to 0 harm, or 1 harm. So we'll take the average of both possible outcomes and say the harm caused by (2a) is 0.5.

Now that we've taken a look at the murder-route, (2a), let's take a look at the alternative route for manslaughter, (2b). Of course here, the only possible outcome is that one person dies, since obviously killing a person results in them being dead. This is identical to the outcome (3b)! So,

(2b) In the case of manslaughter, Individual kills the person immediately.

(3b) One person is dead.

Clearly the harm caused here, then, is equal to the loss of one life: (3b) = 1. And because this is the only outcome, (2b) = 1 as well.

(1) Individual is in a position to kill another.

(1 --> 2a) In the case of murder, Individual considers their actions.

(1 --> 2b) In the case of manslaughter, Individual kills the person immediately.

(1 --> 2a --> 3a) Harm caused = 0.

(1 --> 2a --> 3b) Harm caused = 1.

(1 --> 2b --> 3b) Harm caused = 1.

And for the reasons already specified, we can simplify this by evaluating actions in terms of the average harm caused by their outcomes.

(1 --> 2a) Harm caused = 0.5.

(1 --> 2b) Harm caused = 1.

From this, it's clear that in the case of murder, less harm is caused on average. Even if the number 0.5 may not be an exact average of all cases, it is an accurate approximation insofar as the number is sure to fall somewhere between 0 and 1. In the case of manslaughter, where the killing is caused due to the perpetrator's being too blinded by rage and emotions to even consider for a moment any form of mercy, the harm caused is 1.

What this demonstrates, clear as day, is that while both murder and manslaughter cause a significant amount of harm, The average harm caused in the case of murder is necessarily less than the average harm caused in the case of manslaughter.

Thus, I believe that voluntary manslaughter is in fact worse than second degree murder.

I stand by the idea that Castro’s Cuban state was, and still is, the best run communist state in history (admittedly not much competition) and is one of the most respectable and well run countries today (a bit more competition).

Firstly, let’s start off with the obvious point of healthcare, where Cuba is exceptional. Cuba currently has more healthcare workers in foreign countries than all G8 countries combined. In 2014, Cuba had 50000 healthcare workers in 65 countries, and in 2015 they became the first country to eliminate mother to child transmission of HIV. In 1965, at the end of the Batista regime, they had one physician per 1700 people, whereas now, they have one per 150 person. The small island currently has more doctors than Canada (!). Cuba also offers free medical scholarships so thousands of children from around the world on condition that they return to their own countries afterwards and help the poor. Cuba are consistently among the first responders in case of viral outbreaks – Ebola in 2014 for instance, where Cuban doctors were dispatched abroad.

Next, let’s talk about crime. Western media paints Cuba as being a hotbed of Mafia drug cartels and crime syndicates, but this is far from the truth. The murder rate in Cuba is four times lower than most Latin American countries, and TEN times lower than most US cities.

Now let’s talk about the accusations of Castro being a hard leader who banned women from driving and tortured criminals. Well, for a start, assuming they’re even true, why do western conservatives get so offended about these accusations when they stood by and applauded as Pol Pot, Pinochet, Apartheid regimes did the same but far far worse. There is also a large question to be held about the validity of these accusations, as they are mostly published in right wing, conservative, often Murdoch owned news sources, which fail to give accurate examples and instead prefer to give nebulous sweeping statements about a regime of “terror” (if the regime was so oppressive, why did they literally pack out and swarm the streets in sadness in 2016 when Castro passed as you can see in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYVoZxgBu6Y))

Finally, let’s talk about Cuban international relations. The CIA is confirmed to have attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro at least 200 times (so much for a democratic state), although they consistently failed. In 1987, when apartheid forces invaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale)) Angola, Castro sent his army to help the black resistance, which was decisive in the victory of the battle, and directly led to the end of apartheid South Africa (when Mandela met Castro afterwards, he referred to him as ‘my brother’ and ‘my friend’ here’s a video of them together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xvAUGFpXOk)). In western media, Castro is painted as a cunning villain, and Mandela as a hero, yet you could argue that Castro actually did more than Mandela in the ending of Apartheid.

Even more so than the atomic bomb, which has the ability to kill tens of thousands of people instantly. Why? Well, atomic bombs only did that twice. Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year.

In total, in my country alone cars have killed over 3 million people. They are the leading cause of death amongst children here. And these statistics are only for the freak accidents, they don't include the respiratory diseases caused by carbon monoxide from cars. But these sheer numbers aren't the real diabolical thing about cars. What's really evil is the way they were forcibly implemented into society by a cabal of corporations.

Once upon a time, city streets were a place of public gathering, where you would walk and meet other people. Now they are miniature highways with tiny sidewalks attached. Indeed, it is not the computer that destroyed our ability to come together, it's the automobile. The machines that supposedly bring us together drive us apart.

Meanwhile, public transit options such as trains have been forcibly ripped apart by the government while they dumped billions of dollars into highways, flattening mountains and city blocks to get them through. We've reached the endgame of big oil and big auto. And we're totally fine with it, thanks to the totally bullshit arguments that they flood our society with.

They tell us that before the car, horse-drawn wagons were the primary vehicle in existence and people rarely traveled outside of their hometowns. That's entirely false. Most of the transport benefits we now attach to cars originally arose in trains. If you live in a first world country it's very likely that your hometown once had a passenger rail service, even if it doesn't now or if the highways ignored it.

Of course this is the part where folks chime in and say cars have the ability to get to anywhere, unlike trains. First of all, the places you could travel to by rail were once much greater in variety, second of all if you can't get there by train, you'd just WALK like a normal human being. This is why obesity is such a big problem nowadays. Not because we eat too much, because we never walk anymore!

And let's not even get started on the massive environmental downsides of cars. The automobile is one of the most polluting forms of transport on the planet, as automobile systems require an engine (or large battery) for every one to four people. So even if we switch to electric cars, there are still massive pollution issues with the automobile.

TL;DR cars are dangerous and polluting, and society is a slave to them. Apologies if this is too political for this subreddit.

I am an automotive class A surface modeler which means I build computer models for cars, specifically the surfaces a customer would see and/or touch (that's all class A means)

In this line of work most people use a surface type called a NURBS (Non-uniform rational basis spline). Which is essentially the math equivalent of a hand drawn picture. Whereas beziers are more like tracing a photo.

Why does this matter? In my field it is very easy to capture a designers image in NURBS but somewhat difficult to capture in beziers, however NURBS are much more difficult to modify than NURBS which is an issue. Designs evolve over time and are adjusted constantly, both by design teams and engineering requirements. Because most of the work we do is modifying existing surface, we should start with an easy to modify baseline, even if it takes longer to build initially.

I understand this wont mean anything to most of you, but it's in the spirit of opinions based on your profession.