3 ms·
It is a ridiculous process. The cubic centimeters of tree stem have nothing to do with it. So why take that number and multiply it by some other arbitrary num
by baggy_trough 1y ago
It is a ridiculous process. The cubic centimeters of tree stem have nothing to do with it. So why take that number and multiply it by some other arbitrary number to come up with an arbitrary value? The cubic centimeters of tree stem can provide some idea of a minimum value, but for famous objects, the material value is not the primary issue.
The cultural / heritage value is inestimable, but certainly much greater than the given figure by orders of magnitude.
- Arnt 1y agoEvery rule applies poorly to some corner case. That is a necessary consequence of being simpler than reality: Every time you simplify a model by disregarding a rare or unimportant trait, you make the model poor for the cases where that rare/unimportant trait applies. And you have to simplify, to avoid an unmanageably complex rule. (Let me tell you about the German tax code some day. They really tried to be fair and didn't value simplicity or comprensibility highly.) In the case of this tree, the computed value according the rule is a very high value, and the real-world value is also a very high value, so what's the problem? This is a rule that produces a fairly good result even in a case where it may be expected to apply badly. That's not a bad rule.