Three thoughts: First, what really fascinated me about the article was how it highlighted a number of things so obvious about how we design things - with a foc

Three thoughts: First, what really fascinated me about the article was how it highlighted a number of things so obvious about how we design things - with a focus on the center and craftsmanship, for instance - that I'd never thought of quite that way before. That was fantastic. Second, I thought it was interesting that they were imagining apocalyptic-type scenarios where all knowledge of the inscribed written languages are lost. I suppose that's sensible if you're looking at a 10,000 year time horizon. Third, while I learned a lot and was generally really impressed with this piece, this line turned me off a lot: > We can never know if we indeed have successfully communicated with our descendants 400 generations removed, but we can, in any case, perhaps convey an important message to ourselves. That line came after talking about how the project is six times larger in scale than the Pyramids were to build, and how to "to ensure the probability of success, the WIPP marker undertaking will have to be one of the greatest public works ventures in history." And therein lies the problem - buried in a couple quick lines is a very powerful secondary motivation of the authors of the spec. The go on for pages with concrete details and supporting theory as if they're just trying to meet requirements, only barely acknowledging that, "and hey, it might not work, but we'll have done something impressive and made a statement in our own day and age." This seems like the stuff that boondoggles are made of - propose a seemingly functional process, while sneaking in, "...and regardless of if it meets its goals, it'll sure be impressive and send a message."