Castanza

Non Facebook link

"Starting today in Ashburn" Referring to my company (at least partially). This is a big deal. Most of our customers are choosing Azure and Oracle products/services over AWS.

One more reason it's going to go away over time. Cash doesn't give you cashback rewards or points either. I don't think cash will go away. I think it would get voted down in the supreme court as unconstitutional. Louisiana tried to do something similar in 2011 which would prevent all 2nd hand cash transactions (yard sales and stuff like that). But it was almost immediately revised to only be for cash to precious metals as it was getting called unconstitutional.

Music is a very broad category though. i don't know if I would classify that as niche. Although it certainly will have an impact on eBay's bottom line. Regardless, I think this threat will be limited and unable to penetrate to other markets. I mean some products on eBay are so niche and specific it would be impossible to create a reliable market place for each one. Not to mention probably not worth the marketing costs to make users aware of such platforms. But I would agree that there are some other platforms popping up. My brother in-law makes a small fortune buying and selling Legos on eBay (Did like 80k rev on the side last year). Bricklink (a Lego trading platform) has existed for a while and has a good crowd of like 50 million visits. Anyways, he has recently started selling on both and has increased his profits like 5%. Point being, even if niche platforms pop up, I think sellers and buyers will use both platforms. I mean, its basically free marketing for sellers to list on more than one site. I highly doubt that one market place will own or take over the entire niche.

Yeah, that is a good point. I guess Facebook could implement a pay and ship feature. But the scale definitely isn't there. And the item listings seem to gravitate towards large items in local markets which wouldn't be shipped anyways. All I see on there is used couches, old canoes, and stuff like that. I have to say it is useful. When I moved this past November I unloaded about a dozen items in a day or two. Part of what makes Facebook marketplace great is that it builds on the existing social infrastructure so that you can click on a person's profile and see that they're a real person and that you might even have mutual friends with them. Unfortunately this also makes disintermediation trivial should they go to a pay online/ship model that takes a % fee like eBay. Buyers could pretty easily message each other and arrange to pay/ship via PayPal. I don't really see Facebook marketplace being as much of a threat to eBay. Craigslist, LetGo, OfferUp etc. though are definitely being impacted by it. Personally I think the bigger threat to eBay is the rise of niche marketplaces that focus on a certain product and build a community around it. A lot are still in their infancy but I could see a number of product focused marketplaces cutting into eBay's moat. But eBay probably realizes this too and they'll do what they can to prevent it. The big difference is FB marketplace is focused on local markets. This severely restricts the breadth of products that are available to the consumers. Like you said, eBay is the king of carving our niche markets. FB marketplace is like an online yard sale where eBay is a true global marketplace with an unbelievable amount of unique products.

I was just looking at 3M and scratching my head. Off hand I believe it's dropped more these past 2 months than during the entire 2008 financial crisis. Trucking industry is beginning to look juicy imo. Good article http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2019/05/truck-tonnage-looks-quite-bullish.html

For anyone else who loves learning about the ins and outs of a companies history in 15min or less check out this YT channel. It's called "Company Man." The creator (author?) does a great job narrating and there is a good variety of companies. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQMyhrt92_8XM0KgZH6VnRg Cheers

How many customers will continue to buy a Tesla if the price continues to drop? At some point they have to be thinking to themselves "should I buy a car which needs specialty service if the company might not exist in a year or two?" Realistically, I'm sure parts and service will still be available as someone else picks up the pieces. But you still have to wonder about the psychological affects the stock price will have on buyers. I doubt there is a Tesla owner who doesn't follow the stock. But for Ford and GM there are millions of owners who couldn't care about the stock prices or company.

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation" Do scientists not also do this by saying "time did it"? We just assume given large amounts of time that something has/will happen based on mathematical probability. They all seem equally arbitrary to me. It also doesn't benefit science to simply ignore the possibility of a God or a Simulation. It doesn't necessarily help it either. I think it's ignorant when people like Dawkins say there absolutely is no God. I much prefer people like Sam Harris who are open to the idea, but don't let it deflect them from scientific empirical study. Science does not find truth, it approaches it.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying. If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise. This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy. The end result looks "planned", but it isn't. BTW: I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer. Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place. I disagree. Matter doesn't need to "know" that the law of gravity exists. Matter has no conscientiousness. The laws of physics are what they are, whether or not anyone "knows" what they are. The universe has followed the laws of physics since long before Newton or Einstein. Your example of that experiment where they had to change the rules, just proves that life might be able to come about even if the rules where different. We know life is possible in this universe, simply because we are here. Yes, but matter cannot act outside of the laws of gravity....that's my point. Life being derived from nothing is not a law. It is not seen anywhere in physics or biology. So we cannot expect that it has happened in the past. Us existing isn't enough to draw a conclusion that life exists elsewhere. I think math more supports that we are completely alone. The entire human existence is a mere microsecond on the entire time scale. If you take you're idea that life probably exists elsewhere would it not also make sense that there should be evidence for life everywhere? The Universe is supposedly 14 Billion years old. There are 40 Billion "earth like" planets in our galaxy alone that could potentially support life. It would take roughly 100 million years using the Von Neumann Probes method to explore our entire galaxy. So in that case wouldn't it be reasonable for evidence of life elsewhere be abundant? That time-frame has been exceeded 100 fold and yet nothing....It's not much different than Stephen Hawking disproving time travel by having that room setup in his house. Or the roadkill theory disproving Bigfoot.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying. If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise. This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy. The end result looks "planned", but it isn't. BTW: I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer. Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place.

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos. :) I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over. Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises. Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign. I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else. Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition? If life exists here, then it is possible that exists in other places too. Life exists, so we can say that life originated somewhere. That could be either here on Earth, somewhere else and was transported to Earth (naturally or by other life), or it may have come to be in multiple places in the universe independently. Even if we are living in a simulation, that means that intelligent beings created that simulation and are living in a universe where life originated somehow. We do not know the answers to these questions and nothing can be ruled out. There does not have to be anything greater than ourselves. That is a subjective statement anyway depending on your definition of "greater". There may or may not be something other than ourselves. I agree exactly with this. My point is that people want to say "fact" when in reality nobody knows and science is far from answering these questions. So really no hypothesis is more ridiculous than another. I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos. But to each their own! Anyways I'll leave you with some quotes from various scientists from various beliefs and fields of study. I'll let you get back to your UFO discussion :P Sorry to derail the thread! Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2) George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3) Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4) Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5) Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6) John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7) George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8) Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9) Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10) Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11) Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12) Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13) Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14) Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall� be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity. Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17) Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18) Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19) Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20) Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21) Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22) Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23) Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25) There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

Nope. I can say there is possibility of life else where based on my observation that life exists on this planet. Its a fact and I have several ways to prove the hypothesis. I don't need to understand how planet was created to prove that there may be other planets in the Universe. Probability does the trick here. Actually it makes no sense. Current hypothesis is based on the fact that life exists here and we have observed it. Let me know when you observe the God almighty. If you can prove life exists elsewhere then NASA wants your number. We observe life as it already exists. We have never observed life being created from nothing. You're blurring lines to fit your hypothesis. I'm simply saying a God could exists, just like you're saying life could begin on its own. You also can't disprove a God with science soooo.

Your statements may be correct but your inference is precisely wrong. If you believe both to be true AND you can observe life on earth than it is safe to assume that there is a possibility of alien life somewhere else. Mind sharing the hypothesis for that pre supposition? You can only say there is a possibility of life elsewhere if you understand how that life came to be. Again, mathematical probability is not a proof. Its merely an educated guess which was my main point. It's like the use of infinity in mathematics. It works in our equations to give us extremely accurate measurements etc. But it hasn't actually been shown to exist in the real world. But it works within out "scientific worldview." As far as me "believing in something greater", my point isn't that I'm right; It's simply the fact that it makes just as much sense as any of the current hypothesis' out there. yeah yeah I know, God is un-testable in the sense of religious Gods, but there are plenty of things in science we take as "fact" which are indeed un-testable theories as well. I think Stephen Webb makes a lot of sense.

We know how life got started. At some point our planet had an atmosphere with plenty of organic and fairly little free Oxygen and plenty of lightning storms. It has been shown in lab experiments that this leads to the formation of fairly complex organic molecules which started to a accumulate. At some point, a molecule was created that could replicate itself (the Ur DNS) and things got started from there. Surely, the creating of a molecule (or several different molecules) that could replicate was a huge milestone they took many many rolls of a dice so to speak. It also recall, that we had a laboratory the size of planet earth and hundred of millions of years to the disposal. It is likely that something eventually will evolve. Once something works, evolution goes to work. We don’t know why the big bank happened, but it is sort of an irrelevant question. Before the Big Bang happened, there was no space/ matter or even time. Even the laws of physics as we currently know them didn’t exist. Since time didn’t exist, there is no beginning or end either. We do not know how likely other life is, but we do know that planets like our own seem to be plenty full in the universe, as are the elements they our life is build upon. It is also possible that life may develop based on other chemistries (Silicon can create macromolecules, but the bonds are not as stable than carbo, so this would likely develop at lower temperature and probably not water based. I am not an expert on this but the driving force of evolution (whatever works survives and multiplies, whatever doesn’t, ceases to exist) can lead to the evolution of complex, self organizing structures that are able to duplicate. That’s what life is. No we don't. That is scientists best guess, but if you go read any of the Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Berkeley, Chicago, journals they say they don't know for sure. There is a big difference between having chemicals and compounds suitable for life and those chemicals becoming a living being. Science has not explained this and it's not even an educated guess as none of it has been testable etc. The closest we've come is in computer simulations but even the creators said that the parameters were based on DNA and RNA as we know it. In other words, they are giving it the answer. I believe off hand scientists have also been able to create synthetic DNA and RNA and possible replicate it. BUT they have only been able to do so with it being derived from actually DNA and RNA. Again, this is a HUGE and key difference from random compounds forming molecules then somehow forming proteins, enzymes, and ribozymes then RNA and replicating until they form a single celled organism. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-primordial-life-earth-replicated.html Here is a recent article highlighting the "breaking news" However, once you get past the click bait title you can see how ridiculous it is. "If a ribozyme could replicate folded RNA, it might be able to copy itself and support a simple living system." "but if the RNA was folded it blocked the ribozyme from copying it. Since ribozymes themselves are folded RNAs, their own replication is blocked." BUT!!! "scientists have resolved this paradox by engineering the first ribozyme that is able to replicate folded RNAs, including itself." So scientists had to skip past how nature naturally works an synthetically make it work in a way which it doesn't work in nature....hmm? "We found a solution to the RNA replication paradox by re-thinking how to approach the problem—we stopped trying to mimic existing biology and designed a completely new synthetic strategy." And don't forget the part where the current theory is that this happened near the sea floor by warm vents. Yet in the experiment here they had to use -7C water to concentrate the RNA strands and prevent them from interacting with anything else. They also had to provide a pure environment which wouldn't have existed in the "primordial soup."

If anything is an issue it will be AI and algo trading. We've already seen how many flash crashes the past few years.

You lost me at "alleged whistle-blower" and then again at "all high ranking officials confirm space craft crash." Not to mention you forgot to name the book :P _________________________________________________________ To be honest, I don't buy the whole alien thing. One it relies too heavily on the pre-supposition that we understand how life began. 1.) We don't know how life started. 2.) We don't know how, why, or where the big bang happened. Where was this floating speck of dense matter? So how can we assume other life exists based on mathematical probability based on a hypothesis that isn't testable and without a proof? Just because mathematical odds can be applied to something, doesn't mean that it will or has happened. Especially once you remove all pre-suppositions and go based on empirical data only. Even if you believe that life came about because some magic mud got struck by lightening creating a single celled organism (1 in a gazillion chance) and then on top of that, the single celled organism, somehow "learned" to function, replicate, evolve, etc. So if you take the odds of life beginning and then the odds of that life surviving and then the odds of life evolving I just don't buy the alien argument. Because it's all based on something we have ZERO knowledge of. Personally I think there has to be something "greater" than ourselves. If I had to pick some Sci-fi "hypothesis", I think it's much more likely that we are just some simulation being run by some neck-bearded nerd. And all we are is sentient AI which is operating within a set of parameters (Laws of Physics, etc) of a program. I once heard someone say: "Mathematics is the language of God." perhaps it is.

Personally I wanted to start with a clean slate. I will probably adopt an approach similar to what Greg previously said now that I'm comfortable with my debt/liquidity and debt/income rations. However, moving forward I won't ever take out another car loan. Mortgage I'll probably opt for a 15 year and aggressively pay it off balanced against investing (depends on rate, term, and total).

Yeah I can understand this approach. But I don't think not following it is because you are fearful. I mean, I see it more as a hedge. For example, say you do have these loans or financed products, phones, lawn mowers etc. How do you handle a down market? To me it's disadvantageous to have a large portion of your capital tied up in monthly payments that need to be met before you can allocate that money to investing opportunities. A good example would be in real estate. If we were to have another housing market crash (hypothetical) if you are young like myself I would doubt that a bank would give out a loan to me if they saw I had tens of thousands of low interest loans tied up in student debt, vehicles, lawn mowers, etc. To me it's not necessarily about being afraid of the worst. But I feel it gives one the ability to be more "risky" when opportunities arise. But both methods obviously work well. And you could probably argue that your method is the better one. I dropped out of college after my sophomore year because I didn't love what I was studying, I had lost some of my scholarships (GPA standard for hard sciences is a bit high...avg mech-eng GPA is 2.8). And the industry was a bit cyclical. So not wanting to be 50-60k in the hole like everyone else I went and worked as a driver for UPS (took a lot of shit for that lol) making 65-85k a year. Paid off my loans in one year and then finished college online while driving. Took me an extra year and a half to finish school, but unlike my friends I'm debt free, have two new vehicles paid off (with 10 year warranties) a steady job and the ability to invest. I think too many people are stuck in the mud when it comes to life flexibility and which paths to take. Especially my generation. People act like if you don't finish college in 4 years or before you turn 22 you're screwed. Thanks for the alternative perspective though Greg. Cheers!

There seems to be a big dichotomy in the financial industry right now. One side says if you can make a higher return in the market vs what you're paying in loans do that. The other side is saying pay off loans first, regardless of interest rates as it's a guaranteed return and market uncertainty is growing. Personally I took 50k this past year (few weeks ago) and paid off all my debt (student loans 4-6.5%, 2 auto loans 2-3%). Yeah, I could have probably just paid on those loans and potentially got a better return on my money. However it has freed up an additional 1.5k a month for investing. Not to mention the psychological benefit of being debt free. I mean, I'm happy with it. My wife and I already max out Roth IRA's and 401k's and would like to have a kid in the next two years as well as buy a house. So I guess I was prepping a bit for our income to be reduced once she stops working. Who knows, maybe the bull market will rage and continue, but to me it seems like returns will be mediocre in the near term and possible over the next year or two. At least relative to my loan rates.

Curious what the consensus on here regarding personal debt is and how it should be paid off etc. Does anyone on here strive to live debt free regardless of having access to low interest rates (sub 4%)? How have you prioritized paying off debt vs investing over your lifetime? Any other life lessons or unique situations some of you may have experienced.

There's a large Lithuanian community in Chicago. I have relatives there and have visited them recently. Chicago is great city: great downtown, arts, culture, eating. I'd probably be happy living there. Climate sucks more than Boston though and there's no ocean, but overall it's a good place to live. RE is way cheaper than Boston. Jobs are there. There's tech sector that might not be as big as Boston/NY, but not tiny either. Logistics/transportation is still there and large. Pittsburgh is contrarian? It's got CMU and that's one of the hottest schools in tech/AI. I'm pretty sure there's tons of tech jobs based on CMU collocation/startups/spinoffs/etc. As someone who frequents Pittsburgh quite often I can say that's about all it has. University of Pitt isn't bad either. But that city is still heavily blue collar and the younger generation doesn't seem to stick around. The city is very dated and doesn't have great cultural arts and entertainment like other cities. Don;t get me wrong there are some fun areas in Pitt but it's still got a long way to go. That being said I believe Uber and Google were both looking at it for possible corporate branches. Some tech companies are beginning to move in (probably due to CMU and Pitt). Definitely seems more contrarian. PA has struggled with poor leadership and it's reliance on industrial jobs. Harrisburg is terrible, both in living conditions, high taxes, pension issues, etc. PA also has some ridiculous regulations which prevent a good entertainment (food, bars, etc) from opening. The whole northern half of PA has been a continual boom and bust story with he natural gas job exploitation. And Philly is well, Philly. They have a solid college presence but "innovative industry" never seems to stick. State College (Penn State University) area has seen some good uptick the past decade. I think it helps having a decent DoD presence there. Long story short, PA needs better leadership if it's going to turn around.

I have been building a woodshop dust collection system with HVAC metal ducting the past 6 weeks. I went to homedepot tonight and the wyes I've been paying $14.50 each are now $18 .68. I went to Home Depot and Lowes to buy some black iron pipe the other day for a project. It was 2-3 times the price of copper piping. A length of pipe that used to be $3-5 a year or two ago was now $10-15. I even had some old pipe with price labels still on them that I compared it to for a sanity check. I talked with a guy in the isle who was also looking at the pipe (happened to be a part-time plumber) and he said he's never seen iron pipe cost more than copper. That $50 project quickly turned into $150 and I could buy what I was going to build for less.

Yeah, that is a good point. I guess Facebook could implement a pay and ship feature. But the scale definitely isn't there. And the item listings seem to gravitate towards large items in local markets which wouldn't be shipped anyways. All I see on there is used couches, old canoes, and stuff like that. I have to say it is useful. When I moved this past November I unloaded about a dozen items in a day or two.