I'm curious where those number come from. Within the mechanical CAD world where Solidworks is used, I suspect the AutoCAD market share is very close to 0%. I haven't seen any company from small tool shops to major US defense contractors and automotive companies using AutoCAD for any significant mechanical design work.
Fusion doesn't have the needed tools to large machine designs with multiple components. They have only just added the ability to have assemblies where the parts are separately defined in their own files. Without that, it is only suitable for small, low parts count, one off projects.
We had a sales person try to explain how file handling in 3DExperience is done. They were presenting how magic everything is where the right version of the file is always present in Catia for modelling, Abaqus for FEA, and whereever else in the package.
OK, how do we work with our CMM and CAM software? How do we send files to clients and vendors? crickets
I think the main complaint is that the percentage of the kits dedicated to specialty parts limits their usefulness for free-form play. Sets of the 80's had fewer block types, which forced Lego to be more creative in how the sets were put together, which subsequently allowed more freedom in using the blocks for other designs. The sets my kids are playing with look much more "realistic" to what the set is trying to model, but very difficult to build something entirely different, such as building a house from a car kit.
> I think the main complaint is that the percentage of the kits dedicated to specialty parts limits their usefulness for free-form play.
I understand the complain, but from observing my kids play with LEGO I don't agree with it at all.
The specialty parts from every kit inspire a lot of new builds with their growing part collection.
> The sets my kids are playing with look much more "realistic" to what the set is trying to model, but very difficult to build something entirely different, such as building a house from a car kit.
I guess I just don't see this with my kids at all. Every small set we buy or that someone gifts them grows the range of things they can build. They remember every single different part and will go searching for it in the bins because they want to put it to use.
I've heard that many times, but the 3 accounting firms I've worked with for my business didn't care what accounting software I used. They were all happy to work with Gnucash so long as I could provide the needed reports, all of which were pre-configured in Gnucash. Two were small firms, but one was part of a major national accounting firm/franchise.
The alternate take is that improved information publishing and distribution platforms (the internet) have allowed the exposure of some pretty corrupt and questionable relationships between the authorities and the industries they regulate (regulatory capture).
Previously people only got their information from the authorities and newspapers. Newspapers were owned by the industries (either directly, or via advertising). Now we can see diverse view points from others in various fields, and it is clear when "doctors say ..." that doesn't mean that all doctors believe that to be true. We can now see that NIH scientists that approve drugs are allowed to approve drugs where they have a patent and commercial interest in the drugs they are approving, which is mind-bendingly wild that level of corruption is allowed.
People can also question where the studies are to back guidelines from authorities. Like what is the scientific basis of the food pyramid? Turns out that was created by the Department of Agriculture to support grain farmers, not because it is a good diet for humans. Or that the deaths and injuries for many infectious diseases had significantly declined before their respective vaccines hit the market, and that the authorities have been cherry picking the points of the graph to hide how much of the improvement happened before vaccines were available.
The biggest change is the availability of diverse voices in an industry being able to be heard, rather than just a select few chosen by "authority", aka power, aka money.
I'm confused by your statement "We can now see that NIH scientists that approve drugs are allowed to approve drugs where they have a patent and commercial interest in the drugs they are approving, which is mind-bendingly wild that level of corruption is allowed."
The NIH does not approve drugs. If you have a citation that I can read that clarifies this point, I'm happy to read it.
Unfortunately, for every "questionable relationship between the authorities and the industries they regulate' being exposed by citizen journalists and the power of the internet, there are 10 wild conspiracy theories with no basis in fact being spread. And for every 1 of those conspiracies being spread, there are 10 grifters out there making a buck selling products and services based around them. The Internet was a great idea that has not held up against stupidity and greed.
That is unfortunate, but also, I'd rather choose the situation where truth about abuses of power by authorities can spread with the trade off that some wing nuts are also making up stories out of whole cloth, than the one where truth is crushed under power of authority.
As a person who a lot of folks would consider, to use the kids' term, "noided up", I don't know if I agree.
My experience has been that in general the fact that there are so many folks able to get traction with their poorly-informed ideas and who face little or no consequences (rhetorically) for being show wrong time-and-again has led to a situation where we can go from "limited hangouts" to "we just publish facts and folks ignore it thinking they are just like all the other dumb things people say".
Like, it's incredibly hard to talk about how many horrible things the US has done and published abut over the years (I am thinking of Pheonix, Bluebird, Artichoke, etc) without sounding like a crank even when the government itself is the primary source.
Authoritarian governments crushing truth directly, but that doesn't mean that liberal governments don't have heavy layers of propaganda to maintain their control.
As a principle, "YOLO anyone should say whatever and never face rhetorical consequences" probably just results in the same destruction of the truth, as you might see in this thread.
Many "liberal governments" of the West certainly have some authoritarian elements to them. I don't see that as a conflict with advocating for free speech. If the government is running the propaganda, who is supposed to push against that other than dissidents protected by free speech? It certainly won't be the government or "the authorities".
I don't understand what "YOLO anyone should say whatever and never face rhetorical consequences" means. Who should be enforcing these consequences? What even is a "rhetorical consequence"?
As ever, the problem with creating an authority to regulate what is truth, is who is going to be that authority, and how are we going to prevent it from being corrupted by human nature.
You don't need a ministry of truth to have a bit of shame when you say say something incorrect or to recall what really bad and false positions people take or to remember when you've put out bad ideas that were incorrect.
Oh, I think I see what you're saying. If I'm understanding the thrust of your argument:
I do think it would be good if people would be more humble in what they think they know and be more willing to engage with the argument presented by the "other side", and not be so tribal. More introspection, and less blindly doing as they are told, while acknowledging "doctors", "scientists", "reporters", are all actually humans that have human emotions, various incentives, varying knowledge, who sometimes do stupid things, and sometimes things with malevolent intent. They are not all-being, all-seeing, all-virtuous non-humans, so don't take everything at face value.
Once again finding the "diversity of opinions" so so so bizarre a recent invention. Which is so weird, because I do believe there's plenty of corruption in the medical system, that the US's is a deeply corporate affront. I'm so near to finding "anti authority" vibes to resonate on.
But everything happening now is a deep insult, to inquiry, to science, to this nation, to life. The people running the show right now embody everything you are saying, are exactly this case. But not a one of the folks running HHS seems able to hear anything except what they've a-priori chosen to believe. Why Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. So Convinced He’s Right? I believe accurately reflects a delusional hyper-reality, where health is being governed by a select few who have wrapped a deeply politicized reality around themselves as shield to the world, and alas these very few very special actors are now running the show. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/01/rfk-jr-public-h...
Diversity of voices is once again, just as it is at universities, being used to try to force it's way through the paradox of tolerance, to demand a seat at the table not for interesting suppressed voices, but for violent active harm seeking & destruction. That is not well founded either, that does not even attempt to engage to make its case.
Call it what you will, but the ability of dissenting voices to be heard is the basis of free speech, and also integral to the pursuit of science. Blind trust in authorities is anti-science, and suppression of dissenting views is also anti-science. Those in position of authority like to cast out all who have opposing views as lunatics, but that isn't true. When those in position of authority lie to feather their own nests and cement their power, the truth will be found among the dissidents.
Specifically to Kennedy, in his congressional hearings I've watched does not present himself as a doctor or a scientist, and also not anti-science. His main thrust appears to be that there are a great many problems in the status quo, the "authority" scientists and institutions don't have any reasonable explanations for them, and there are other scientists that are not financially entangled in the status quo that have theories that look to be worth pursuing. That is pro-science in the meaning of exploring the world in pursuit of truth. He is trained as a lawyer, and it is within his profession to be leading inquiries into intent and motivations of various parties in a dispute.
The characterization of him as anti-vax is a slur, and greatly simplified from what he actual advocates.
There's nothing about RFK today that has any search for truth. It's a trial lawyer convinced of his rightness, who has found a couple other folks who are equally as belligerent & uninterested in actually finding truth as him.
I don't think there has been much struggle for dissenting voices. They are out in legion in the world lately. Antiauthority is ragingly popular, anything against anyone knowing better is the hip new thing.
"Do your own research" is a horrifying anti-governance stance. I do want people to question authority too, for authority to be responsive & explain itself, keep the mandate. But I thought Faucci did an amazing job of talking to the people, in hard complex scary times, and used appropriate candor and tried to listen to lots and lots of scientists and stakeholders. I see a belligerent insane delusional madman who listens to no one and who is using his lawyerly flailing without pause to bludgeon what he sees as his opponent in RFK. This is not promoting truth, it has shown itself time and time again to be resilient against science, against all evidence, a willful dementedness against the world.
Are you basing that on viewing what he actually says and does, or through the filter of summaries by people who favour the status quo? Because listening to the new coverage, and then listening to the actual speeches and testimony show opposite conclusions from what I can see.
The adjectives you use seem to be trying to build emotional investment in framing this a good v evil, rather than a sober look at the facts on the ground.
It seems a bit of a tautology to ask the survivors if things are OK. Of course is is OK for them, they are in an industry segment that survived the trend of moving everything possible to China. If you go ask where the factories were shutdown, you'll find different responses.
The dip in number of manufacturing employees corresponds time-wise to China joining WTO, and the massive CEO hype of shutting down US factories and moving them to China, rather than super-duper automation hitting the scene and automating the factories in place.
I have a suspicion that the displayed manufacturing output chart is in dollars, not amount of stuff, and that is likely bumped up by highly automated IC/chip manufacturing that is high cost/value, but low tonnage work.
While official unemployment is low, that is only people actively looking for work. Labour force participation is way down from it's highs when it peaked in the late 90's. From a peak of around 67%, the US is currently at 62%[1], and the fall off corresponds to the time when imports from China were rising hard and it was the trendy thing to do among executives to shutdown US plants and move production to China.
Many people and towns that lost work in the manufacturing shut downs still don't have replacement work, and I think part of that is we lost a lot of low-skilled labour work as the factories left.
Now a question would be, if the work does come back, will it be low skilled enough to be able to hire the same pool of people formerly employed?
Unfortunately I think that's just aging of the population. There's no upper age limit in that calculation. It includes retirees as "not in the labour force".
If you look at the participation rate of people aged 25-54 it's near all time highs.
Something is weird there, as the 55+ was increasing in the period of about 1995 to 2010, while the overall was down in point 2000, and 25-54 was flat. Weird.
Huh, glad you dug into that. Below that chart they link the youth rates, and they're way down. Teenage labour force participation peaked in 1978, with a mini peak in 1989, and 20-24 in 1989, with a mini peak in 2001.
The answer there is likely we're keeping them in school longer + filling downtime with school or social media or "extracurriculars". Alongside a growing NEET cohort that doesn't feel motivation to do anything or is disabled.
As for 55+, I'd be very interested to see the relative age distribution within that pool over that period. I suspect there's a lot more 65+ within the pool now than when the rate was higher. That trend is set to grow.
Something's weird but there's so many factors it's hard to say exactly -what-.
e.x. In the 90s there was a lot of 'culling' of older workers especially if they didn't embrace tech I know my father was forced into retirement despite being a fully capable worker (heck he did database consulting work for a transit system after the forced retirement, before he became a floral delivery driver.)
In his case, he wanted to retire, but honestly he tried to give me and my siblings a better life so the consulting and part time jobs were something to help pay off PLUS loans while also letting him and my mom be able to do vacations and the like.
But I'm also thinking about the factor of a lot of folks had a lot of hits.
Also 25-54 is such a rough demographic.... Lots of ways to just keep that metric clean FBOW.
reply