13 karma · joined October 3, 2019
Emacs is too involved for a casual hobbyist like me, while Dr Racket feels a bit toyish.
Regarding whether it's "pretty limited", yes and no, imo:
Yes, compared to, say, the size of a continent, the amount of new land is tiny.
However, new land is usually made in highly sought-after (high-density, high-value etc) areas [citation needed]. So it would make better sense to compare the surface of the new land to the surface of the adjacent area.
For example, the polders in the Netherlands significantly augment the country's surface. The artificial islands in Tokyo Bay significantly add to the real estate of the harbour. The artificial islands in Dubai and Bahrain significantly add to the coastline.
I think that this is enough for OP's analogy between domain parking and land speculation to reasonably stand.
The costs, of course, as well as other considerations (legal...) are of a different scale.
The readings are imprecise at best, with lots of false positives and possibly some false negatives (no way to know).
The tool is useful, if repeated readings are coupled with domain expertise, common sense and intuition.
If you ask me if the tool, by itself, works, I'll reply "maybe". All I know is that, aided by the tool, I haven't done any damage yet.
I don't think it's the tool's fault though. Rather, it's the combination of non-destructive testing and the limited feedback.
It can't possibly have anything to do with Neo-nazism and the World War II Axis powers.
I still can't shake off the connotation.
Blender delivers great results, is a joy to use and has a vibrant community.
As soon as any accuracy is needed, AutoCAD for 2D and/or Blender for 3D. Blender is usually enough, but I'm faster in AutoCAD.
If possible, I try to physically experience the new space or object, using my imagination and any props at hand. For example, I might put masking tape on the floor, following the layout of the drawing, and walk around them pretending they are obstacles.