There are lots of things that could be pointed out like the differences and similarities between the vegetation at Cape Canaveral or the fact that foliage doesn't stop vibrations that propagate through the ground or from line of sight to the launching rocket anyway, or the fact that I've actually been there and you have apparently only looked at pictures, but it's obviously absolutely pointless, so why bother?

I will just reply to your last bit by quoting myself from 4 comments back in the thread:

Cape Canaveral is completely surrounded by wildlife refuge and national seashore. Heck, the tour bus I went on there had to stop for a while to avoid a bald eagle that was eating its breakfast on the road in front of it. There are exactly zero homes in that area that don't have a massive amount of "Plant leaves, especially tree leaves, considered as a group." between the homes and the launch area. The me actually being there to see for myself that I've seen confirm that the area _around_ that area you've seen pictures of is very much the opposite of devoid of foliage.

Oh, a whole year of wearing the tags! At least at certain public events, anyway. Definitely not at his political event appearances for some odd reason.... I mean, Jebus, how naive can you be (if this is indeed naivete)? Doing some choreographed PR designed to sanitize his public image after he damaged it with some major anti-semitism is obviously insincere on its face.

Oh, I don't personally think it's worth it. As I pointed out, it does pretty much nothing to help during regular driving and it absolutely makes them a huge pain to work on.

There are a number of things that have caused that blowout, many of them related to the same emphasis on trying to squeeze out as much performance per unit mass and volume from the engine that leads to using interference engines. Reliance on turbocharging, for one, leading to more pressurized gas getting past the piston rings. Or just in general high rpms and other factors causing the crankshaft to get loose and wobbly after a while. Basically that same attitude that "engineering" means that you squeeze out performance in exchange for needing a lot of maintenance to stop things from failing.

None of that invalidates the reasoning that certain integrated features might need it. I don't care much either way, just stating some of the reasons why the volume might use something other than a potentiometer on the radio itself to control volume. The simple fact of the matter is that there's generally not a separate set of speakers for every system in the car that the designers might want to be able to produce sound. So if you want to handle that, you need a unified sound mixing/volume control system. Ideally you want the sound system to be digital pretty much right up to the speakers. If you have a potentiometer that directly controls an analog signal amplification right on the radio itself, you're basically asking for an audio system with all kinds of hissing and popping from amplifying noise and with the potential for accidentally blowing out the speakers, etc. This is just a consequence of having a modern, integrated sound system.

A lot of cars now have features where they lower the fan speed on the HVAC system when a call comes in. They also override it for alerts from the car (like when it's trying to warn you that you're going to hit a pedestrian because the car is momentarily pointed at them on a slight curve, and even though they are on a sidewalk with a raised curb and everything). They can always find some reason that a feature might need that kind of control.

What I really love* is the onscreen messages that some cars pop up, sometimes after the car has been started and underway, warning you to pay attention while driving and requiring you to hit something like "OK" at the bottom of the screen.

* Note sarcasm. In fact I don't love this since it is the sort of idiocy that gets people killed.

It all depends on what you mean by "engineering". Some people mean designed for reliability, and some mean designed for performance, for example. For example, pretty much all modern BMWs are interference engines, meaning that pistons and valves are physically capable of colliding. Packing them in like that gives a performance and efficiency boost. Not an absolutely massive one, but decent enough. It allows more power with a smaller engine, which means weight savings, etc., etc. The problem is that if anything goes wrong with the timing chain, the engine rips itself apart. It doesn't even have to break, just end up a bit too stretched or misaligned because some of the fiddly little pieces that hold it in place fail/come loose/crack/etc. Basically it means that you really have to take the maintenance schedule seriously about replacing the timing chain at the scheduled intervals. Except it also means that, when the chain is replaced, you (or the mechanic) absolutely can not mess up because you don't get a second chance.

So, basically, for BMW, for the interference engine situation, and many other things in the car, they have chosen the definition of engineering where everything is sacrificed for that little bit of extra performance/efficiency that mostly only applies if you're racing the thing. So, like you say overly complicated and fussy, and also strict maintenance requirements and strict requirements for expertise for the maintainer otherwise things go badly wrong.

Oh dear... That synopsis... empty gas tanks almost immediately, all the plastic in the world eaten in a few days... I mean, the basic concept is interesting, but obviously yet another book on an interesting idea written by someone whose understanding of some basic concepts is essentially magical thinking or just cartoonish. I mean, empty gas tanks instead of being full of the microbe and its excretions? Probagating worldwide in days?

They may not be, but I want to hang with them anyway because they're both fungis.

Well, the price certainly has the potential to come down. For one thing, a big part of it now sounds like its mostly in breaking down the plastic before the yeast eats it. The current process sounds like it's basically boiling the plastic while adding oxygen, possibly in a pressure cooker. There may be all sorts of ways to improve that. Scale, for one thing. Aside from that though, doing it at higher pressure, with added catalysts or chemicals for it to directly react with, etc. may make the pre-processing much easier. Same for then feeding to the yeast. Various factors like the structure of the containers it occurs in, temperature, ph, the exact composition of the matrix, and other conditions. Also, heat can be recovered from the previous batch to heat up the next batch so it uses less energy. Then there's the yeast itself. The current version is a proof of concept, but there's no reason to think that they developed the most voracious and efficient organism the first time around. They may be able to produce something vastly more productive.
As it is, from what I can find, the average price of cookies per kg is anywhere from about $8 to $35. So, let's put this into perspective using the lower end of that. We will ignore for the moment that the cookies are just a proof of concept and no-one is actually saying let's directly turn plastic waste into cookies. The point is just that we can turn it from essentially non-biological material back into biological material. So, these are $60 per kilogram, then they are 7.5X more expensive than regular cookies. Improving this process to make it 7.5X cheaper or at least somewhere in that range seems like it might well be possible.

The requirement for submitting books has not been needed for copyright since the Berne convention. Technically, there is still a requirement for published works, except that it has been found unconstitutional on fifth amendment grounds, though it also would seem to violate the first as well. It is also insanely impractical in this day and age. As it stands there are millions of US published books not in the LOC, and of course, it's not like books published in the US constitute all of the books published anywhere. The simple matter is that some objects, though ownership does pass from person to person do have the aspect of a public charge tied to them. True, the owner can go ahead and use them as firewood and be legally covered (though not in all cases, since there are in fact cultural heritage laws around the world that might actually still make it illegal) people are also completely entitled to find that morally shocking and the people who do it to be scum.

Works cited, references, etc. still basically just a subset of the set of kinds of bibliography. A full bibliography involves every source used, not just the ones cited. The point was simply that once upon a time, this was required for pretty much any paper.

Yes, that's kind of like how people who run someone over with their car and then go to an alcohol treatment program ordered by a judge still get called dangerous drunks. Or, in other words, you're skipping over the precipitating events to him receiving that pendant and making sure to to display it at public events. Those events involved him doing clearly anti-Semitic things. I hardly find a publicity stunt like that convincing.

You seem to have completely missed that the comparison in the comment you originally replied to was talking about Cape Canaveral launches and people's reactions to those. Cape Canaveral has plenty of foliage. It's basically inside a wildlife refuge.