CadeJohnson

What the author is saying, I think, is that the inevitability of the tragedy is the right-wing concept. The concept of the commons is totally legit and the tragedy that can befall it from unregulated use is also clear. The right-wing concept that is dubious is that humans will self-regulate and do not benefit from governance.

Declining birth rate is not a problem that requires fixing, it is a mercifully wise collective decision by intelligent creatures who've become educated and aware enough of their place in the biosphere to recognize the destructive effects of their own overpopulation. The idea that declining birth rate is decidedly NOT economic - lower birth rate does not arise among the poor and uneducated in the world.

There is no problem in today's world that would be mitigated by increasing birth rate. I live in a region where there is a burgeoning elderly population and sometimes people say - we need more young people in this economy! But that does not mean that having more babies here is any help: by the time they are adults, the wave of excess elderly people will be gone. Economic crises are far more immediate than generational solutions - if a region lacks workers, economic forces are more effective to relocate workers than biologically growing new ones. Of course, governments often fail to anticipate needs and adjust migration policies in a timely way, or housing policies, or other such issues that create barriers contrary to the economic forces.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxG5KAao5rJY3vvwbVUSv4g - The "This Is CDR" series is particularly good. OpenAir Collective is all-volunteer and focused on carbon dioxide removal (which is secondary to eliminating fossil fuel use, but it is something I can actually work on and make progress). In the long run, CDR is no less vital than decarbonizing.

top slab is about 230 or 240 pounds. Wood base is only about 15 or so; light. I made no attachment between the concrete and the wood - just gravity.

These are some good points. The more traditional engineering disciplines have a depth of methods and practices that developed over time, and software engineering is - what? only maybe 50 years old or so? I have not worked with software engineers, but with all other sorts, so I know if there is engineering going on in software development there will be certain methods in place: preliminary designs that senior teams evaluate and compare, interdisciplinary review so the features of design that "work" for one objective also do not detract from others, and quality control - nobody works alone - every calculation and every sentence and every communication is documented, reviewed by someone else, and recorded permanently.

I can imagine that some software engineering efforts must bring some of these tools to bear, sometimes - but the refrain in software development has long been "we don't have time or funds to do it that way - things are moving too fast, or it is too competitive." Which maybe all that is true, and maybe it can all be fun and games since nobody can get hurt. So if game developers want to call themselves engineers regardless of whether they follow, or even know about standards of their industry (let alone any others'), no harm, no foul, right?

An old friend of mine wrote the autopilot software for commercial passenger jets - though he retired about 25 years ago. He was undoubtedly engaged in a project that nowadays would be dubbed software engineering. The aerospace company included him in the team with a whole slew of different engineers of all sorts and they did all the sort of engineerish things. But I don't have the impression that much software goes through that kind of scrutiny - even software that demonstrably deeply affects lives and society. In a way this is like criticizing the engineering of an AR-15; what were the engineers thinking to develop something that would kill people?! But it seems like with software, the development has effects that are a complete shock even to the developers: facebook algorithms weren't devised to promote teen suicide, it was just an unforeseen side effect for a while.

I think it is time for software engineering to be taken seriously. And there is professional licensing. The problem is that corporations are dubbing their staff as software engineers a lot of times, when there is no licensed engineer in the building and there are no engineering systems in place. It is fine for me to say that I engineered the rickety shelves in my garage, because I'm an engineer and therefore it must be so, but that is some sensationally bad logic. They could collapse at any moment - I'm a chemical engineer.

Thank you for this correction. I will make a note that professional engineering has nothing to do with engineering - I don't know how I have been so confused for so long!

I think engineers have been held liable for the soundness and fitness-for-purpose of what they "engineered" since ancient Rome - though they have certainly been called upon to engineer a greater variety of things in the past couple of centuries. And I think if someone proposes to engineer software, I am all for that! We could do with a great deal more of it in fact. And let's dispense with this perpetual disclaimer of warranty for merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, and such terms. If an engineer designs it and it does not work, the engineer is generally held to be negligent and liable . . . except if they are a software engineer, of course.

this seems to reflect the simultaneous co-opting of the titles "architect" (one who designs physical edifices such as buildings) and "engineer" (one who applies math and science principles to problems of infrastructure and industrial production). We all understand what is meant by design, but that does not mean a software design must be devised by an "engineer" or an "architect" anymore than an interior design (though there are also some self-styled "design architects" roaming about). So is it possible to say what is different about software development and software engineering without saying the engineer is an architect? Is it that software developers do not design anything (which in its simplest terms is 'artful arrangement')? That seems arbitrary - though I agree that there can also be a fine line sometimes between, say, architecture and structural engineering.

In that case, Krasnodar and Rostov to Ukraine as buffer zones - maybe Belgorod and Kursk too?

I am investigating some components of a system to make biochar with a solar concentrator but it is slow going. My idea is to circulate molten salt through the focus zone of a double-parabola channel. This focuses heat on the target pipe for a broad range of sun angles with no tracking. I have read that a eutectic mix of sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate (aka soda ash and potash, respectively) has a melting point under 500C, and fast pyrolysis is possible with molten salt at this temperature. I am trying to find information about electromagnetic pumping (aka magnetohydrodynamic pumping, just like Red October!) but there are very few such devices sold - mainly for continuous metal casting, apparently. If molten salt could be heated by sun and fast pyrolysis could be done (which makes a larger fraction of pyrolysis oil than slower processes would do), then there would be very little emissions and very little waste heat I think. Still some steam I suppose.

"the necessity always to have been" could mean that for something to BE permanent, it is always necessary that it has existed previously. Whether any thing in this universe can be said to be permanent under such a criterion (within the perspective of spacetime) is doubtful. But if time is a feature of this universe, then there could be perspectives beyond it where all of this universe is permanent, I suppose.