109
Victoria man pushes for Canada to go fully metric (cheknews.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/britishcolumbia@lemmy.ca
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (5 children)

That's not a shrinkflation thing, that's a nominal vs. finished size. A 2x4 has been 1.5x3.5 since planed lumber has been a thing, well over a century. You can still buy roughcut 2x6 that are really 2"x6".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Did you see the picture. Original 2x4 was 2inch x 4inch. Then there was the planing in the middle, then the even smaller planing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    Yes. And I'm explaining for anyone thinking this picture represents some sort of reality of the enshittification of finished lumber that nominal is not finished and graded size and hasn't been since 1919.

    The 2x4 (rough) has had a finished size of 1.5x3.5 for well over a century, there was a very brief time it was standardized at 1-5/8x 3-5/8 but that was a pain in the ass for carpenters and mills. You can still buy unplaned lumber that is the full 2x4 or 2x6 dimensions, but it's ungraded and not suitable for anything but fences. It will not pass a building inspection.

    This picture isn't saying anything useful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago (2 children)

    The picture shows an original 2x4, then the planed downsize later on, and then a modern further reduction to get more boards out of a log. Its not enshitification in our current world we live in, but shows how you get less wood these days. But my original point never mentioned enshitification, I was just showing that a 2x4 is a label, because the sizes changed over time and we call it the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    The photo is misleading though. In the 60s they decided to go with a 1.5"x3.5". Not 2023 as the photo might make you believe, or make you think today's lumber is actually less than 1.5x3.5.. it's a bad photo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •