_different_username

Area of sky obscured by the milky way.

Yeah, FreeCAD is great, but I can only think of one project that I've done where SolveSpace absolutely could not work for the geometry I needed and I had to rebuild it in FreeCAD. But that's just a product of what I am building: simple things like brackets, knobs, and replacement lids mostly. I don't need chamfers, drafts, lofts, etc. and I get what I need with minimum of time and effort using SolveSpace.

When I do need those features, complex geometries, or modification of pre-built step files, FreeCAD has never failed me.

No one mentioned SolveSpace, so... SolveSpace. Solvespace is a fully functional 3D parametric CAD solver in a free, cross-platform, open-source, portable, single self-contained executable 10 MB file.

I do a fair amount of hobby 3d printing and SolveSpace makes design and CAD stupid easy. The interface is perfectly laid out, the hotkeys are intuitive, and the capabilities make small-scale projects a breeze.

Now, the program has its limitations, but if I just want something quick and simple, there is nothing better.

Mineralization. There is a paper from Nature estimating a capacity of 10,000 - 100,000 Gt CO₂ for mineralizing CO₂. This is more than sufficient for the 1,000 - 2,000 Gt CO₂ that we will need to remove from the atmosphere once we reach zero emission. Needless to say, mineralization to a solid carbonate would remove the threat of fugitive emissions permanently.

People can complain about DAC as expensive etc., but it is the fastest way to bring down CO₂ once emissions have ceased. Without it, we will be stuck with the climate effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions - severe storms, erratic climate events - for hundreds of years. The fact that it is expensive just means that we will need to know what our target CO₂ level is and how how fast we want to get there.

Often, it's said, "Just plant trees." However, trees are not a sufficient solution for greenhouse gas reduction. A 2022 article in Environmental Research Letters predicts a "121 Gt C increase in carbon in forests over the course of this century." That's great, but it's not enough to get GHG down to an ideal level. Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage in sustainable agriculture and reforestation - we should, but we should not rely on it as a climate restoration strategy because it cannot deliver those kinds of GHG reductions.

That was what happened to our data on the "family computer". My parents were not happy with me that day.

Some friends of ours strapped down their roof for Hurricane Georges. They lived in a wood frame house on a hill and knew better than to just trust that everything would be ok.

Anyway, they still had a roof after the hurricane, but the winds were still strong enough to lift the roof up, damaging the joints between the rafters and the main posts holding the roof up. This damage I saw with my own eyes.

Wind shear can be remarkably strong at 140 mph, blowing across a roof like that. It would be a shame to lose the house because you didn't take two hours to put some straps over it.

It shouls be intrinsically safe. The water has a massive heat capacity and is an excellent shield for radioactivity. Also, recovery, if that's what we want, is much easier, as we are recovering a solid material, rather than containing spreading sheen of tens of thousands of barrels of oil.

Nuclear reactors on land have real, demonstrated liabilities, but, in my opinion, the story would be very different over water.

Briefly, water is how we store hot radioactive waste right now. In fact, Randal Munroe of XKCD fame has a great video on spent fuel storage in pools on YouTube here.

Personally, I find difference in safety is so great in favor of the nuclear reactor that I cannot even draw a meaningful comparison. Would I rather drink water from from a spent fuel storage pool or one contaminated with fuel oil? Spent fuel every time. Would I rather live with an off-shore sunk nuclear reactor or an off-shore oil spill? Sunk nuclear reactor, 100%. Which would I rather be in charge of clean-up? Yup: Sunk reactor.

Is there a compelling alternative perspective here?

You're right, being at an 8.5 in anxiety when you think a 4 would be appropriate does not seem great to me. However, knowing this may make for a better target than no anxiety, particularly given the circumstances.

If you are open to it, you might consider the Feeling Good App. Although I have not personally used it, a close and trusted friend was involved with the development of the app. Also, the methods used have been very helpful to me and have also allowed me to help others.

If you try it and like it, perhaps you can let me know. I know that my friend would enjoy knowing that he was part of something that helped someone.

I'd like to say that your choice is praiseworthy. Despite your difficult circumstances, you would rather experience this very painful condition than disregard the people in your life that matter to you.

What if you could have the best of both worlds? What if you could experience the anxiety that has helped you be aware of dangers in an uncertain environment, but not experience such a high level of anxiety that it interferes with your work and sleep?

If so, try figuring out where that more desireable level of anxiety is. This would be two questions: first, on a scale of 1 - 10, where would you rate your current anxiety? (I think we know the answer to that one) second, what do you think would be the appropriate amount of anxiety for someone in your situation?

If you can answer those, perhaps there can be a way to reduce your anxiety without losing the good things about yourself that the anxiety denotes.

You are not alone.

It seems to me that you are having a very reasonable reaction to a difficult situation. If I was in your position, I would also feel extreme anxiety. I know nothing about you, but, from what you have shared, I would like to commend you for your anxiety. It is evidently clear from what you write that you take your responsibilities to your employer and your family very seriously. A nonchalant attitude in the face of a life-changing event like the one you are facing would belie a lack of concern for the people closest to you, who depend on you and whom you care for.

These appear to be serious matters and you are taking them seriously, even to the extent that it causes you some extreme discomfort. This is a commendable commitment to duty and to the welfare of others.

Suppose there were a magic button that could make the anxiety disappear, however it would also cause the motivation for that anxiety - say, love, duty, commitment to excellence - it would make these also disappear. You would no longer be bothered by your precarious position, but you would also become someone unconcerned with their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those around them.

If you had such a button, would you push it?

I'd also like to point out that the underlying model may well be unsustainable in the way that it is offered at the start. Who benefits when a for-profit company operates at a loss? We, the customers, do. We get low prices and customer-friendly practices that are genuinely enjoyable. That business can't operate in that way indefinitely, as the early investors are not funding it as an act of charity.

Eventually, the bill comes due. The shareholders have funded the company on the premise that, after losing lots of money on customer acquisition, it can restructure and monetize those customers and recoup their investment, hopefully with a lucrative return when they decide to capitalize their holdings and find a new company with which to repeat the process.

There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you. But we shouldn't be surprised when the shareholders stop subsidizing and start squeezing their formerly pampered customers in the hopes of getting their money back (and more, of course).

This doesn't excuse unethical or abusive practices, but it does mean that, even without them, the experience of those early days probably wasn't going to last forever.