For what it’s worth, we’re going to drive a conclusion to this series today…at least for now.
It’s taken me 8 days to figure out what’s been bothering me about a fundamental assumption of the circle that comes with our 100-mile circle. It hit me like a shovel today.
The difficulty I have with the circle is that you are rewarded with more options the further you get away from where you started. 50% of the area is covered in the final 25% of the distance. I agree the distance is an arbitrary symbol – but the shape remains difficult for me to accept.
This is going to take a few maps before I draw a conclusion – but I’m pretty excited to share my thought process from this afternoon.
I started by changing the circle to a star. I liked the star because as you get further away, the less options you have. I started with the assumption that we would keep the same geographic area as a starting point (31,416 square miles). I broke it into 12 equalateral triangles – each one has 3 sides of 78 miles per side (this creates a height of 68.5 miles). We lose some of the pieces of the circle and the longest point from home (there are 6) is 137 miles from the core:
Some of the distance is much further than the original 100 miles but I’m willing to bet that once we cross a certain distance, longer becomes our friend; it makes the densest population of food closest to us and allows us to be very select on things we decide are worth the distance. For me, that would include hunting in the North.
But this is just the start…