There is a new process for treating wastewater sludge that destroys the microfibers, so that is good news at least. I think it may be expensive, of course. It is called “hydrothermal carbonization”. Basically put the sludge in a giant pressure-cooker and the heat breaks the plastics into carbon and some water-soluble residual molecules which can go back to the start of the wastewater treatment plant to be biodegraded. But like others say, the main source in general is tires - not sure if they know whether tire microplastics are the main source in agricultural land though.

From the immortal Journal of Irreproducible Results, “The Data Enrichment Method”: “. . .its principal shortcoming is that before the enrichment process can be started, some data must be collected. It is quite true that a great deal is done with very little information, but this should not blind one to the fact that the method still embodies the ‘raw-data flaw’. The ultimate objective, complete freedom from the inconvenience and embarrassment of experimental results, still lies unattained before us.”

The statistic of low Firefox use is based on accessing US government websites. Could it be that there is significantly LESS government site access by the population of users that prefer Firefox? As a corollary I recently read that game companies observed significantly HIGHER bug reporting from Linux users on Steam, not because there were more Linux-related bugs, but simply because that set of users were more likely to initiate bug reports. Of course Firefox is not Linux and Steam is not the world, but a statistic from a relatively narrow segment of the internet should not be assumed representative of the whole.

lmao

In the US, stove burners are rated in the confusing units of “BTUs” which is actually a unit of energy, not power. When they say BTU, they mean BTU/hour. The highest-rated burners on a typical stove are about 10,000 Btu (per hour), but high-end stoves can get up to about 18000 - that is equivalent to about 5000 watts. My single-element induction top is only rated for about 1000 watts. So although it heats and cools rapidly, I suspect it is not up to the demands of wok cooking (unless one wants to cook only very small portions).

not Chinese, but I cook a lot with a wok. I also have a single induction cooktop and surprisingly, the wok has enough iron to work with it while some old cheap conventional cookware did not. However, wok cooking needs to be hot all over the wok and not just in that little point where the wok is close enough to the induction coil.

I have a conventional propane stove which I need to keep, because here in Puerto Rico the power system is quite unreliable (especially during a bad hurricane year). But the conventional stove burners are not really hot enough. With a 1/16 - inch drill bit I could increase one of the burners capacity substantially. I painted the stove knob red so people have some warning when they light that burner! It burns more gas, but wok cooking is really fast, so in the long run it is probably more efficient than lots of other cooking approaches.

I would definitely consider a wok-shaped induction heater. Induction heating is quite remarkable.

Have you tried your hand at biochar? I know composting the chips for mulch is high value in a farm operation, but a few tons of biochar can work like a permanent upgrade - improving the soil permanently with one addition - though ongoing permaculture operation continues. I am about to make a biochar cooker out of two steel barrels - inner fuel chamber and outer draft shell. It would probably be more effective with wood scraps than chips though - some air passages through the fuel.

To test it out for myself, I made a miniature version documented at https://github.com/jcadej/TLUD-biochar-reactor (uses a gallon paint can for the fuel chamber. You could test it small and see how it does with wood chips. When I make my bigger version, I will add it to the github project. My rough idea is to cut one barrel down the side and squeeze it smaller and bolt it so it fits inside the other.

I’d hate to think modern society is based on a giant elaboration of poker, but I can’t rule it out - it MIGHT not be the worst outcome, but a pseudo-equilibrium far from the best. Every young person knows something accessible in the past is now lost to them - not sure what it is, but there is a hole. And yet, the social track laid out is almost unavoidable.

I traveled a good bit the past 20 years and I’ve experienced first-hand the really hard work and the immense gratification of simple farming. Nobody wants to live like that (at least so they think). Having done it, I can’t even say I recommend it over what modern society seems to offer. But since the best option on offer is not a true equilibrium, as the climate is making abundantly clear, what is on offer may be illusory. An alternative equilibrium - tried and true - is worth considering when opportunity arises: subsistence farming. It is NOT simple or easy - don’t wait until there is no other option.

I have heard this, and I can imagine it is true, but have you seen any analysis? There must be a large crew traveling and lots of equipment - transportation is a big user of petroleum in general – for entertainment. Though they say the entertainment is good.

the ultimate run-away train! No matter how impossibly big it is, it just grew infinitely bigger in the past second.

maybe space is the graviton field itself(!), but maybe there is a graviton field (or is it the Higgs field?) and gravitons (and Higgs particles?) are excitations of that field; like other particles are excitations of their various postulated quantum fields

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.

How often in the software industry is the title “engineer” a sop to give applicants a flashy title; and how often is there actual engineering involved? When I worked as an engineer some years ago, it seemed inconceivable that software development would become actual engineering because how could the engineering standards of care and professional liability ever be imposed? Today, virtually all software is either privately licensed or open source - there is no such thing as public software infrastructure under the development supervision of a professional software engineer (as far as I know). So I guess Mozilla can call their software developers anything they like, but it seems to be an ongoing cheapening of the engineering title - like why not call this position Chief of Software Surgery? Lead Software Counselor?

You don’t have to use Google at all. They are pretty ubiquitous, so you have to make a little effort - search with another tool (I find duckduckgo to be quite satisfactory). Although Youtube has the lion’s share of the video, there are other places to go. It is the same with all Google products.