---
id:
aliases: []
title: 2026-01-06
tags:
  - authorship/original
  - destiny/permanent
  - status/draft
  - type/daily
dg-publish: true
---
# 2026-01-06

## 2026-01-06 07:47

### _Let Them Theory_ Theory

1. Person habitually engages in toxic behavior which they consciously believe to be benevolent
2. Person recognizes that when they stop engaging in said toxic behavior, others appreciate it
3. Person feels that they are doing a service by not engaging in said toxic behavior

## 2026-01-06 10:00

Paraphrased Teams conversation with a peer
about [[distribution-designations#Terminations]].
Peer's messages are in block quotes.

### Content

> Good morning!
> Do you add branch terminations to panelboards?
> If so, how does your 'distribution' section looks?

Morning! Yes to the first question, ? to the second

> As all panelboards on a job don't have the same size/# of terminations,
> I assume you would have a plethora of same size boards in the job, with different terms.
> How do you list them?

|     | Designation                   | Status | Quantity |
| --- | ----------------------------- | ------ | -------- |
| 1   | Generator - 350kW, Diesel     |        | 1        |
| 2   | Generator - 2000kW, Diesel    |        | 1        |
| 3   | ATS - 200A                    |        | 2        |
| 4   | ATS - 250A                    |        | 1        |
| 5   | ATS - 400A                    |        | 2        |
| 6   | ATS - 600A                    |        | 2        |
| 7   | ATS - 800A                    |        | 1        |
| 8   | ATS - 1000A                   |        | 1        |
| 9   | Panelboard - 50A, 1-Section   |        | 1        |
| 10  | Panelboard - 100A, 1-Section  |        | 18       |
| 11  | Panelboard - 125A, 1-Section  |        | 26       |
| 12  | Panelboard - 150A, 1-Section  |        | 2        |
| 13  | Panelboard - 225A, 1-Section  |        | 11       |
| 14  | Panelboard - 225A, 2-Section  |        | 5        |
| 15  | Panelboard - 400A, 1-Section  |        | 2        |
| 16  | Panelboard - 400A, 2-Section  |        | 3        |
| 17  | Panelboard - 400A, 3-Section  |        | 5        |
| 18  | Panelboard - 600A, 2-Section  |        | 1        |
| 19  | Panelboard - 800A, 1-Section  |        | 1        |
| 20  | Panelboard - 1200A, 1-Section |        | 2        |
| 21  | Panelboard - 1200A, 2-Section |        | 1        |
| 22  | Panelboard - 3000A, 1-Section |        | 1        |
| 23  | CT Cabinet                    |        |          |
| 24  | Power Monitor                 |        | 82       |
| 25  | SPD/TVSS                      |        | 2        |

> Ah, so you just chuck in a lot # of terms per board and call it good?

Essentially.
Ben's direction was to pick a schedule on the upper end of terms for each size panel to be representative of the rest.
At my old place I would have made a designation for each panel,
I'm not upset to leave that behind.
I see no reason you couldn't just make each size once and keep it in a temp job.
I would, but I usually extract the schedules anyway so I just use the actual average.

> Thank you for that.
> Joel wagged his finger at me about missing terms this morning---
> I wanted to see how it's preferred.
> I was told terms are captured by feeders/mech connections
> and have never added them to panelboards.
>
> That would be the best way, finding the actual average.

The mech connection assemblies have the load side term,
the feeder assemblies have both sides,
the branch assemblies don't have either,
that's why he got you, I think.

I don't think my way is best unless you already have all the circuits in a big table for other reasons.
Lot of effort for a marginal increase in certainty above a heuristic like Ben's.

I'm working on a job Noah started now,
he made certain panels separate from what I assume is the average
and labeled them with the name of the panel.
If I had a job where some were significantly more full than others
I _might_ do something similar,
but I'd probably name them "... 1-Section, ~25% Fill"/"... 1-Section, ~75% Fill" instead.
But that's a lot of mental overhead.

## 2026-01-06 10:57

Tracking contractor growth by project square footage
rather than contract value dollars.
Account for market shifts and regional differences.

Problematic for other than new residential construction.
Do you count site area?
Out of contract building area for renovations?

Maybe the sum of in-contract building area and other areas prorated somehow.

Seems imminently gameable.
See [[incentives#Perverse Incentive]] and [[estimating-culture#Incentives]].
