Do you mean that the three-body problem hasn't been solved because we have insufficient data and/or computational capacity to some of in real time, or for meaningful spans of time? Because I suspect we could solve a three-body problem for a minimal time span if we cared to. It's just not very useful.

And uncertainty leaves us unable to define even a hydrogen atom's state unless we accept that observation has left us with 'this state', realizing we cannot reliably define it's past state either.

It's frikin' cats all the way down...

Schrodinger never explained what happens when you take the box away from the cat...

So maximum solar energy increases panel output, but the higher temperatures reduce panel efficiency.

But lower temperatures are associated with lower solar energy, and lower panel output.

Are you arguing we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't? Or just that we need to discount PV panel output and not assume we will operate them very efficiently, more likely at a slightly lower output overall?

Notice not much discussion of nuclear... Cause that wrecks the environmental movement.

"'m guessing you blundered into a nice job "

Having been assessed as neither competent nor capable, you've set me in the category of merely fortunate. Fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

Forgot to change your sig. So weak.

I'm not being flippant. Your argument has been made at least twice in my lifetime. First, when automation started taking those rote assembly jobs. Then when information systems started taking the paper filling and shuffling jobs. Accountants don't pore over bound ledgers any more, nor do they even fill in cells on spreadsheets, they work with the dashboards and apps to provide their insights and advice. Maybe. And those make work jobs at John Deere, for instance, so what is not possible for robots or automation, yet. Quite likely, the next revolution may yield new functions and capabilities. We shipped Jeeps in crates during WWII. Why do we bother to ship fully assembled combines to farms? Why aren't they self-assembling? What's the next generation of repair systems? Do we even have repair systems now?

Your argument aren't even incentive, and certainly not new. At least not to me. I've lived through remarkable upheavals. Let's see what is next.

"The problem is nobody wants to pay for that make work"

When I was young we called those 'manufacturing jobs'. And they did pay for them...

Get it?

A little nuclear power wouldn't hurt, either...

In Canada? All this time I thought it was called "Hockey Night In Canada". Huh.

'The religious people have a name for it, 4 to 14."

And the religious people have a name for the age group 16-26. Deconstructionists. They deconstruct what they were taught and believed in, until it is no more, and they no longer believe it, in whole or part.

We have minds and free will. We generally decide what to believe, and how to exercise that. You seem to be saying Microsoft software is actually fine, perhaps also translated as 'good enough'. I agree. If it were not, either previous competitors would have won the market, or all other software would be equally inadequate.

I 'learned' networking via Novell NetWare, which was more than good enough. Until Windows NTAS, which finally was stable enough to compete. Add in some underhanded (IMHO) and probably unethical Microsoft tricks, and that was that. Likewise WordPerfect was terrific, but Microsoft Word was finally good enough to win the market. Oh, and the matter of printer drivers, which Microsoft solved and took away the one WP advantage they were clinging to.

The market rarely makes bit mistakes like letting Microsoft persist despite incompetence. Microsoft is not so incompetent. Perfect, no, but their supposed greatest competitor, Apple had some interesting missteps. No one much remembers those, because Apple fanbois are so in the tank they cannot see any light other than Apple. Which is no big deal, Apple is more than good enough if you like it. It's your choice.

Microsoft doesn't have to crush all the competition, just the important stuff.

At great risk, let me point out something...

If you divorce over money, you or your spouse married poorly. It's unfortunate, and often without specific fault.

If, however, you persevere through financial troubles, even failure, you married well. Marriage traditionally was expected to be unbreakable. We know many were in marriages of pain and struggle, and divorce became not merely socially acceptable, but a ready solution to real or imagined distress. To blame your divorce on anything other than you or your spouse's willingness to dissolve is, well, escaping blame where it lies. But we are all flawed, and I hope that you, if you wish, find a relationship that endures.

This is a function of a free market. Some are free to do/buy/work less. Those who think they want more, they either work, find advantage, or do with less.

We are created equal. What we do with that is somewhat opportunity, somewhat chance, and somewhat internal motivation. What people deserve is the opportunity, and freedom from denial of that.

I appreciate your patience with my typing. My phone is not the best platform, but using the Selectric is impractical here.

I can only respond that my Constitutional right to bear arms implies a duty, but not a need. A right that is contingent on some need is not a right at all.

And for that purpose, it should not matter if the firearm is purchased, acquired, or made by me. Same thing, same right. The government may have to show why it needs to have a record of my possession. Currently in the US, a purchased firearm implies a record of ownership, and we are generally prohibited form purchasing a firearm for someone else except as a gift, and that's a bit grey if you read those laws plainly.

To consider the nature of the Constitutional rights we enjoy, why are you writing here? Do you need to express your thoughts, so compelling? I neither deny nor question your right to do so, bound only by the limitations of the forum and media. And even then, I would defend your right to free speech, then bound only by the limitations of civil harm (yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater for example).

Licensing implies a governmental control over the action. I reject that, but tolerate the current situation. But to go off on another tangent, it was not long ago a tenet that if you did not have the right to make a thing, you did not actually have the right to own it. Being forced to obtain that thing only through the approved means is not a right to possess it, but rather a privilege that could be withdrawn. Not a right then.

We have the right, in this nation, to possess firearms, limited only by common-sense restrictions, and sadly in some jurisdictions by unreasonable and arguably unconstitutional restrictions. Those would need to be addressed by any citizens affected thus.

My base point here, I have the right to possess a firearm, and should not be forced to show a need, no matter how I acquire it.

Parting comment - this, now, only an important issue because it has become practical for a sufficiently motivated individual to actually make, fabricate, useable firearms. It took more effort and knowledge previously. And so we find that a right that was difficult to exercise can, when it becomes accessible to more citizens, than is as danger to those would restrict it. They are still wrong. A corollary, public court records were commonly freely available to anyone who sought them out, with reasonable restrictions. Modern court systems, using digital means, suddenly found that the unwashed were pawing through online records. Aghast, many such court systems erected new restrictions to access, disguised as fees, licensing, etc., intending to keep these records private despite laws prohibiting that. A regular fight nowadays. Similar issues. Similar problems.

"allowing billionaires to keep breathing"

So, you condone murder for the right reasons...

I w nothing about living rifling patterns in that link.

More to your second point, why should I show a need for any firearm? Only the government's 'need' to know I have one, and what sort oit is.

And they need not know of my self-manufactured firearm, unless the create the crime of making my own. Which they ought not do.