[FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum

Thu Apr 15 17:29:16 EDT 2021

I worry that all these conversations are hard to have in a form that is useful for the relevant timescales, because they are all what would be called “partial equilibrium” calculations in Marshall’s terms.

Meaning: you take a bunch of systemic properties for which you don’t try to model feedbacks as if they are fixed, and then study the effect of one factor.  So if oil gets cheaper for a time, and you are using oil to run the extraction machines and smelters to get pure copper from ores, then you can extract from lower grade ores for a while and still have money-prices go down.  Likewise trans-global vegetable shipments from southern-hemisphere countries while the US homogenizes on corn and soybean farming etc.  If there are long-term stresses either on (Steve G is right: free)-energy supplies, or on climate impacts from consuming (dissipating) them, or on soil quality or fragility under drought/flood, or dozens of other things, then the Marshallian “external” prices changes under which the extraction of low-grade ores, the distant-sourcing of foods, etc.  got cheaper will no longer pertain.

There are two things one would need to do to do better.  Both are costly and difficult, and we live in a society where increasingly whatever a Spiegelman’s monster can’t do doesn’t get done.  Consider how many times Kati Kariko nearly got kicked out of science, because there was no room or interest for the work of uncertain outcome that she wanted to do, or because her bosses kept moving to industry as public money migrated over to companies and public risk priorities got changed for corporate risk priorities.  The two things are:

1. EROEI analysis of whatever you want to talk about.  (Steve G: should be FEROFEI.). Energy return on energy invested through a lifecycle.  I know a guy who claims to have analysis that full cycle solar and wind don’t actually pay for themselves in free-energy terms if one accounts for every step from extraction of raw materials through replacement.  I don’t trust his analysis blindly, because he is another of these howling misanthropes who likes self-flogging in the public square, which I think is a vanity in place of just putting one’s head down and trying to solve something.  But he isn’t at all an idiot (a petroleum engineer, long-time university researcher, works for oil companies and has lived and worked in the Persian gulf nations when university options dried up), and his analysis could be partly or fully correct.  It would take more work than I am able to do to check it.  

There is another fly in the ointment of doing this, which is saying what counts as a “lifecycle”.  Economists like to talk about “disposal” as the endpoint of lifecycles — the city charges you $15 to haul off your dead refrigerator and throw it into a landfill — or today, sends part of it to India to be scavenged for small electronic bits -- is the model that mostly used to apply when the term became mainstreamed.  But of course if we really want a persistent set of methods, we need to use the biosphere as a model: apart from a net drain on continental weathering that only gets refreshed by tectonics and orogeny, what survives in the biosphere is limited to what can fully recycle everything else on the surface.  The EROEI analysis for a fully-recycling lifecycle becomes very hard if we require reprocessing of things like custom metal mixtures for which separation technologies are not currently used and would have to be invented or developed to industrial scale.

Economists like Simon like to downplay (really, ignore) this, on the grounds that they can do a partial equilibrium analysis and so want to emphasize that there is some analytic value in what they can do.  If they were more forthright about how much that analysis simply ignores, they would have to be quieter, and they wouldn’t be famous economists.  That’s a social Darwinism problem for us all.  

2. For any transition when you aren’t using a fully-recycling lifecycle, there has to be some kind of materials-flow analysis of constraints.  That would go into the direction of von Neumann’s input-output analysis (not Leontieff's, which is just money flows and thus partial equilibrium again), and gets very intricate and data- and labor-intensive.  I am not aware of any significant percentage of work of that kind for most problems, because there is not just the support to keep many people alive doing it.  

The end result being, then, that we try to have these arguments about long-term consequences of choices, pieced together as far as we can, from little patchwork analyses and first-derivatives of current technologies.  No criticism for trying to do what one can, but it’s not a very strong method to get reliable causal claims.

Putting “human capacity for innovation” in as a tangent is maybe the most fragile of all.  Not wrong to do it, but it depends so heavily on the “ceteris paribus” condition.  Moore’s law held for how many decades?  Some thing that it held in part because it created a forecast of technological expectations, which companies then tried to meet.  But that couldn’t continue for ever either.  That was probably the simplest possible example, because the “kind” of progress that needed to be made was mostly homogeneous.  For most of “innovation” what is required is the discovery of.novel approaches; very hard to argue that those fall on scaling laws; though if they appear to do so empirically it is worth noting.

Eric

> On Apr 16, 2021, at 4:44 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za> wrote:
> 
> Nick,
> 
> Simple, because the technology to get copper out of the earth and convert it into a usable form is developing faster than population rise and supplies dwindling.
> My argument is that exactly this has been happening for centuries, why would it suddenly stop now? 
> Going back to the 1980 bet between Simon and Ehlrig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager>. According to Ehlrig we should have run out of resources long ago, but technological development made a big difference. Another example, the US was on her way to run out of oil a couple of decades ago and is now an exporter of oil. 
> 
> I repeat, I'm not saying it WILL happen. All I'm saying is not to assume technological development HAS to end end doom HAS to happen. We just don't know what the future will bring and there are people like David Deutsch that see a very bright future for humanity. 
> 
> Back to copper, I quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper> :
> Julian Simon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon> was a senior fellow at the Cato Institute <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute> and a professor of business and economics. In his book The Ultimate Resource 2 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource> (first printed in 1981 and reprinted in 1998), he extensively criticizes the notion of "peak resources", and uses copper as one example. He argues that, even though "peak copper" has been a persistent scare since the early 20th century, "known reserves" grew at a rate that outpaced demand, and the price of copper was not rising but falling over the long run. For example, even though world production of copper in 1950 was only one-eighth of what it was in early-2000s, known reserves were also much lower at the time – around 100 million metric tons – making it appear that the world would run out of copper in 40 to 50 years at most.
> Simon's own explanation for this development is that the very notion of known reserves is deeply flawed,[39] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper#cite_note-39> as it does not take into account changes in mining profitability. As richer mines are exhausted, developers turn their attention to poorer sources of the element and eventually develop cheap methods of extracting it, raising known reserves. Thus, for example, copper was so abundant 5000 years ago, occurring in pure form as well as in highly concentrated copper ores, that prehistoric peoples were able to collect and process it with very basic technology. As of the early 21st century, copper is commonly mined from ores that contain 0.3% to 0.6% copper by weight. Yet, despite the material being far less widespread, the cost of, for example, a copper pot was vastly lower in the late 20th century than 5000 years ago.[40] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper#cite_note-40>
> Simon essentially states that not all viable copper has been discovered and that not all technological advancements in mining and refining have occurred, so statements that the point of peak copper has been or will be reached must be false. Simon supports his argument by showing that copper supplies have increased and prices have fallen.
> 
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 21:13, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Pieter,
> 
>  
> 
> I meant the “has to be” a bit ironically.  The sound of an ugly fact puncturing a beautiful theory.  Psssssst!
> 
>  
> 
> If I were to believe that populations were rising, that copper use was rising,  that copper supplies were flat or dwindling, why would I not expect copper prices to be rising? 
> 
>  
> 
> Which of my assumptions is wrong. 
> 
>  
> 
> Or is it your expectation that we will develop a plastic with the conductive properties of copper?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Nick Thompson
> 
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,WDxIM7FDmbC84GhIILfDtqgTQSFql-ha2OThnBmK948uHpmzztclFpCYki5E1w7H8kaNazJPQuPLg74KY6gODpnqGwVrHGtWQ_kEvrPQ2m518uVHhr16zUr05Q,,&typo=1>
>  
> 
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 1:03 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum
> 
>  
> 
> Nick,
> 
> I'm not with you, what HAS to be wrong?
> 
> It's impossible to predict the future, anything could happen. I'm particularly attracted to the views of David Deutsch. I quote from his https://www.thebeginningofinfinity.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.thebeginningofinfinity.com%2f&c=E,1,JlfcYbFCh7of0AtLJR5sIWxuZkOG5S9XNGconVPscPcpgqA8cHXH0QN8WEgGoATyB-VG4ApSLeEazEV__IisDkK8o7Ph-Qze9qbtiB8UH1bevj0EffspBex9Dn0,&typo=1> :
> "  The resulting stream of ever-improving explanations has potentially  infinite reach: we are subject only to the laws of physics, and they impose no upper limit to what we can eventually understand, control, and achieve.  "
> 
> Life on earth is good and is getting better and better for all of us. Sure, a disaster could strike, nothing is inevitable, but I can see no reason why the progress we have made HAS to stop. Why?
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 20:11, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Pieter,
> 
>  
> 
> That just HAS to be wrong.  What am I missing, here?  NOT a rhetorical question.
> 
>  
> 
> Does anybody know, in orders of magnitude, the relation between the potential rooftop gain and the total energy needs of a place like Santa Fe?
> 
>  
> 
> N
> 
>  
> 
> Nick Thompson
> 
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,5--yGVmxq8JRczb0WCwddqWihE8L1QKa49ULx6zGdMYC3Os6yGUTA7R8YYh6QaP67QGgLkkEUwCwAdsoU-1-5mRhGVP2dSabtK7h5BgGFOfeupE,&typo=1>
>  
> 
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:58 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum
> 
>  
> 
> Yeah, just like we were seriously running out of stuff in 1980
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager>
> But of course, it's different this time around
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 19:41, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefkoff at gmail.com <mailto:merlelefkoff at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Nick, I think we have an energy supply problem.  We don't have enough stuff left in the ground to dig up to supply our technology much longer at a price anyone can afford.  I have a colleague who has calculated that we will run out of copper in three years, as just one example.  My understanding is that copper wire conducts most of our electricity.   
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:17 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Merle, and all,
> 
>  
> 
> A naïve question:  Do we have an energy supply problem or do we have an energy distribution problem?   For starters, let there be a solar collector on the roof of every house in santa fe, roughly the area of the roof (roofly the area of the rough?) .  Assuming energy were entirely miscible, what proportion of the total energy needs (except food, of course) of Santa Feans would that generate.  I assume hundreds of percents, right? 
> 
>  
> 
> N
> 
>  
> 
> Nick Thompson
> 
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,mBzpbBWGmKJ3b0Gi1ylbudGftG2w-oyJYoo1weftSqLYIOuJeUd2IZOAvlAcwcZTuXtHFIugGeM-21H-z-dJSVhzN1-fF5eTeGV7BFTHy6yNjyavQiPolOk,&typo=1>
>  
> 
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:51 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum
> 
>  
> 
> Almost, but not quite, Jochen.  He doesn't know about embodied energy.  A motor car has an embodied energy contents of 20 800k kWh, while an electric car's embodied energy amounts to 34 700 kWh.  Perhaps if he knew this he wouldn't be so optimistic.  We are racing toward our doom.
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:06 AM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:
> 
> Interesting IEEE podcast: an interview with Václav Smil, who wrote a book about "Grand Transitions", similar to "The Major Transitions in Evolution" from John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry 
> 
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/geek-life/history/a-theory-of-almost-everything <https://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/geek-life/history/a-theory-of-almost-everything>
>  
> 
> -J.
> 
>  
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,jYEjazA_ohrcKQyEbqISDkrUyKEIeQqQiSuRe9WLXDqEAkU_WQzH_LsQVgYJOxRKb9Sd3byFNZFKWhIex1aPho4yaVZWKqTNlK7lcKTXYVJgMw7yf5ft0Ygz1TA,&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1tsRRsDcyhl1KubdWnoRlDKPjoJGnA349TOvw-ehOxvB64Ddu_Mu3_v0yU_TlZwIeQobgychaqBX7QBCcbDf-wNjfbdLGxJJVgyqmLgFpx-3wuQG415fKg,,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,0WNRbiy7zVLigURvk-FBPVYS7aywSpdRRKQp_3I_t1mZL0K2fQqYA2pMc7wN2LGMvjV9rjXSL4J1Hl40VjTsuFSWUvNQ_M4CxdAbltW6&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2femergentdiplomacy.org&c=E,1,b9iFqMWpIiMdCA3uOQZyU0eaJNwB0PTUoNv5aMImzzXPoRpo5HBRdmkD_0hXt6eX7kLeSMVyNASgdFhTz9IC0oH09cm46YuiuTepkfqNbwL7Z9qhHZW6Yg,,&typo=1>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> 
> 
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
> 
> twitter: @merle110
> 
>  
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,DijznQ9wqmErOVK99DAZXpmrdUu9HbgZPGSILBjdA3w-3yw1FmYORhCEY4NPUg1NqcUfMEWJ1y8kjNXkZ6PgnDsjQo0P1ye6BGwijb2tL58LpQ,,&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,IsjRW8NkKZE9mqTnQ7uScfpzBVbboVCC4yotLtab4UvLxGuJcqxnXfQdfL3UFF1ikDaENuisiagK3ys_C0nyqMk9MS6PFlF8fgY4t3Iz&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,gLBkDseQs_GknRjSAyQOeO0GJgF3lkkTML1hHM0yuLfSEIKgLb53VpS2E6yOPbnhy8LJMUspBWig78I04BjcxBUAbp5AayUFe1qTs9WJnw,,&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2femergentdiplomacy.org&c=E,1,kXOtxp0tYvUncG3U7Vas8RpbVeIuK3j9-5ahmy6I4owq-VsdIAhlb0fpUF9A65d1ih7O91u5cezV76EACen-fPjkm_ZEer-e6i1hn2dVseEys3MyTA,,&typo=1>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> 
> 
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
> 
> twitter: @merle110
> 
>  
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,8kJsHVlYwKwbEAXx1jdUYj-GTwz3lb2sy5bk1mq8acXepUnDXjauc9kGZyVvA1EIFqGhsRipOewoKdH_oAJe-lL6h4fvej0hVJBCSCinWD7FgVoZ0LYH&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,jcDRGgyoQrWhevGZBzef7wEfrg8JaS7xs_7T8jsURgwUSmH4nS0BMhmhhrdjxU0TbcsaG40_4sql8JB715dkLfoxica2ezzn4wgLhesK2qKP&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,C8wcxzvv6GnXMLsYA-CaH1DWRMtAXMHYT4HEYTDqRJE0DN5EcSmdPXlMEVcQsjqWxAIrkePe4fwUkH2ouXShlvoCQ-FsXsjW0WgyATcVzaIdGIfy&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,mrV_VyMieikoLZAAFBcw6DN3Si9ZWQjk3ZLuc6Sx09Jshc-jJCKpt3RAsidK4_WgtqSqnzZV1wHy--n5CFdv5-ln99hjBvjfxootpJhcmyQApYBZIcYRSYJydOE,&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,OTYVonm5klRM0PpN51CtSd72EytaJRXDAVLDuhQX5Jh5csgnupjnH_Fn_sIS33AYtyjp8ujsmw7VnXgeUsKgPxiHgPAgnHVC0LziZu0UGbqwYg,,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,zDo8Em4PMxaAgiFS04ImUlN4cvETaZwS-ctx7QPKFpUL6zE9OsZIqtt6sVbhC0FqatPZSt2jw5yDkVQDNMhooBuxCRfo2T0GBMEqv4fMb2LsY9Vy-w,,&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,XfCMHtOWCCD0wuNVV--5IxI5nvykw9LOoTYRzrVWAIVIcLfhjo7ta-N4bU-E29YCEUvFobg5H2cKp1QIDzWB7LILo_zXi714yx-d4WlbAyYT6GkDM2egwCjhDoE,&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,oXpynCL4zPAzmEoaeMlTgKqnVaTwNRYqfKGjqUAWXKgDcKy_u23waL0XZ_fvICY1iUA7tAmZMnOBw7TJP6YmDt4agD9GMmisT3WSbbUz56w,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,i73hXP4lIv9mjk0eQw8tD-Z9-u7yG9rx-HvgSgrboVgWLgn7DYL3wVLWQRfZwhIN1GQ0MOyH07E2X76q6aNowr5ZZ3u23fohsOp1fMseDOw92MxfsPzDyXI,&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,s1dOvLBwEQUOEvEPbjFaF0lQIU5Mv7HdVOnoQhSf1QPB5AngQBYCrXDBdm2YpUfrqgTbOU1Ng3KZaXpaUucyC5JhJuC5sjyqUiXVh8kxQhqYVB0G&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Q8NbAgGsvFH4ijOmVXosTB0B6hurcmswqambZ3RGfiHUyRO0pNa7MwMcK63PefbswdaYlS65w7tk8W-57YGVWjS573yyowmIkYEBMADzlkn2&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210416/0e84faf2/attachment.html>