I've got the unicomp 122 that I use at work, and the HHKB Pro Silence∂ that I use at home.
I only got the 122 because they were out of stock of of all the Classic and Space Saver when I was ordering, and truth be told I can't think of any intrinsic advantages that the 122 brings. I do love the layout of the arrow keys (with Home in their middle), but the singe best feature of the board is the BS switches.
Back when I bought mine there were a few more configuration options for the 122, one where the additional F keys (13 - 14) would send a "normal" F13 signal, and one where it sends shift + the F key below it. For example, F13 would send Shift-F1. Seeing how unicomp does not give you options any more, you might want to check what the default is.
Also, if you like the Natural, you might be in to ergo boards? You might like the Truly Ergonimic[1] with MX browns. Watch out of the placement of the important programming keys though, since they are a bit off (~ [ ] { } ; : / \ etc.)
When most people refer to a place, they refer to it by it's common name. You fly to JFK, Heathrow, Charles de Gaule, Gatwick, Luton, O'Hare, etc. There is no need to add "airport" to something which so obviously is one in the context.
CO2 in atmosphere -> CO2 in water -> Ocean acidification[1] -> Change in ocean ecosystem
The oceans absorb OC2 from the atmosphere, which you could argue is good, but it is not without consequences. Putting CO2 in the water moves the problem from having it in the atmosphere elsewhere, but it's still a problem. In some ways then, this can be seen as a good thing, because it is undoing the effects that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has on the oceans. Obviously though, I doubt that its effects would be at all noticeable.
The wiki article already linked has a chapter called 'Possible Impact'.
You only really have 2 choices here[1] (provided this gas-to-liquid thing pans out):
1. Take carbon out of the ground, where it is not active in any carbon system. Put it in the air, and ultimately the ocean. This releases more carbon into the whole system, and causes problems we all know about. It eventually goes to the water as the parent mentioned, with the acidification problem (s)he brought up. Adding ever more carbon to the system only adds to the total carbon load.
2. Take carbon out of the water, reduce acidification, albeit by transferring it to the air. This doesn't actually put new carbon in the system tho, so it has benefit.
However, the carbon put in the air with #2 is the same as traditional jet fuels from sources in the ground, so those effects cancel out as a consideration in our choice range.
Sure in a perfect world, we would find a way to start actively reducing the amount of carbon in circulation, however, to get there we have to find ways to stop adding new carbon to the system. This helps with that.
[1] I know there are lots of options we could consider, but I highly doubt any option that effectively translates to "have the military be less effective" will fly politically, so I am assuming that short-term achievable options have to have no negative effect from the military POV at minimum.
But it's taking carbon out of the ocean and releasing it into the atmosphere. The issue becomes, how long does it take for the released atmospheric CO2 to be reabeorbed back into he ocean? Does it do more harm in the atmosphere or in the ocean?
Right now we're taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
The ocean presently has a lot of extra carbon, which it absorbed from the atmosphere. So this is an indirect way of taking carbon out of the atmosphere and then putting it back...a closed loop. If we did this for all our hydrocarbon fuel we'd be carbon-neutral.
There is a nice scene in the film Before Sunset where the two main characters are discussing the fact that the female lead, Celine, is working for an NGO. Speaking about what she sees around her:
I see it in the people that do the real work, and what's sad in a way is that the people that are the most giving, hardworking, and capable of making this world better, usually don't have the ego and ambition to be a leader.
I was expecting Graves's article to be some form of luddism judged by the title, but after reading it I assume that it is linkbait that was added by the editors. In fact, I don't see anything overly negative that Graves said. He correctly points out the reality: that there are certain parts of a ‘creative’ work flow that are not addressed by any software at this moment. CAD has it's place and has made drafting easier, but honestly drafting is not where the value or enjoyment lies in an architect's day-to-day. The term "CAD monkey" exists for a reason.
There is a very important distinction that Graves points out: “referential sketch”, “preparatory study” and “definitive drawing”. Each of these is very different and has different requirements.
I used to dream of something like a unified work flow for this stuff, where you could do everything in one, well integrated (digital) ecosystem. It does not exist, not for architecture, and I suspect it's mainly because an architects requirements at the first stages are almost the inverse of what they are at last stages. Compare the properties of a sketch to construction documents: in the former you don't want any friction and keep things abstract and detached from technical requirements, whereas the latter has to stand up. An analogy would be going from a fashion designer's ‘inspiration board’ to instructions for making the clothes.
The first stages are rough, contradictory, abstract, idiosyncratic. Things that software is not very good at being. I feel that especially the last word on that list is crucial, since there are some people (like me) who don't even draw that much, I much prefer to work with text and more abstract references in the stage that Graves described as "referential sketch".
CAD has addressed the points where communication standards exist, but nobody brainstorms and researches in the same way so it's difficult to build a tool around that. As an example: another architect, Steven Holl, travels frequently. He does small (A5-ish) watercolours with a pocket set, takes a picture of it with his iPhone and sends it to his studio in NY. His staff knows him enough now to understand them and can use them to develop their projects.
I wonder how much Graves has actually used software. It is hard to be expressive in a medium that you lack the education to use. And it is very easy to pretend that a form of craft (like drawing) is creative in itself.
Note that the use case of PlanGrid is different from anything that the article addresses. The article is actually addressing the things that architects do up until the point that a building goes into being constructed, while PlanGrid is about distributing/sharing _finished_ construction documents to a construction site.
Graves points out the weaknesses that exist in software content creation tools.
I will also add that with many of these "window managers" you get the terribly annoying behaviour of one window's shadow disturbing the content of its neighbours.
Just yesterday I found ShadowKiller[1] that removes window shadows for all OSX windows, making it feel even more like a true tiling window manager.
I only got the 122 because they were out of stock of of all the Classic and Space Saver when I was ordering, and truth be told I can't think of any intrinsic advantages that the 122 brings. I do love the layout of the arrow keys (with Home in their middle), but the singe best feature of the board is the BS switches.
Back when I bought mine there were a few more configuration options for the 122, one where the additional F keys (13 - 14) would send a "normal" F13 signal, and one where it sends shift + the F key below it. For example, F13 would send Shift-F1. Seeing how unicomp does not give you options any more, you might want to check what the default is.
Also, if you like the Natural, you might be in to ergo boards? You might like the Truly Ergonimic[1] with MX browns. Watch out of the placement of the important programming keys though, since they are a bit off (~ [ ] { } ; : / \ etc.)
1: https://secure.trulyergonomic.com/