If I was looking for a home/DIY Cad software, I would be looking for one with an amateurish feel too. I don't need professional features like flow and thermal analysis. That's how I interpreted that comment, and I share their sentiment.
Edit: After re-reading the OP, I definitely don't think it's their software. Comments like "it has some frustrating bugs that I don't think will ever be fixed" and "is [there] a better intermediate software package I should be considering?" contradict that assumption.
I'm not saying they aren't involved with this project, but I'm not seeing any indication that they are. What is making you jump to this conclusion? (Their last comment was obviously sarcastic.)
The link I shared contains steps to activate the 3-year extension for free, on a non-business computer. I don't care if this extension is marketed towards business accounts. You can activate all 3 years on your personal computer for free.
Please don't mistake my post for claiming that "might is right" is right. I agree it's not the most efficient path, and in Mark Carney's speech he acknowledges that this worldview will have a tremendous cost due to the risk-mitigation actions each country will have to take in response. However, he also seems optimistic when describing how middle powers can band together for common causes, while also working to advance their own individual interests. "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu." Cooperation with each other is encouraged, not blind subjugation to the world's superpowers.
I believe this acceptance, and the risk mitigation that needs to be taken in response, is necessary. Of course it would be better for everyone to follow a common rule of law and submit to a rule-based world order; however, it's ignorant to believe that matches our reality. If every country's sovereignty was respected, Ukraine would never have been invaded, Venezuela wouldn't have been attacked, and genocide wouldn't be occurring in Palestine.
This week the UN Relief and Works Agency headquarters was bulldozed by Israel in complete defiance of international law. In response, the UN strongly condemned this in a tweet. The current international institutions are toothless or worse. We have a new "board of peace" being formed with two founding members being wanted on international war crime charges. But if only the experiment had worked, we could have solved climate change and eradicated world hunger.
This is the same complacent dialogue I railed against in my first post. Yet in the end of your comment you still seem to recognize that change is needed. Let's not reminisce on the status-quo fondly. It's time to create something new. I hope to see strong independent nations who can band together in a federation when needed. And no, I don't think disarmament would be in our common interest. I look to Libya and Gaddafi's fate when considering what would happen after giving up nuclear ambitions. And I doubt Ukraine would have been invaded if they still had their nuclear weapons.
For those who are talking about rules-based order and international law, please understand that those ideas are dead. You can't pretend there is a morally-just world police while Gaza is being leveled, Venezuela was invaded, war in Ukraine has continued for years, and China bullies Taiwan and the Philippines.
If you haven't listened to it yet, I highly recommend Mark Carney's speech from earlier this week at Davos. World leaders are just now coming to terms with the new reality of "might makes right".
Edit, just to be clear: along the lines of this new world order, France is entirely in the right here. They had the opportunity to seize this tanker and was powerful enough to do so. As far as motive, they aren't happy with how Russia is treating Ukraine. That's it. To make excusses such as "but international law" and "gotta follow the rules" is nothing short of pathetic drivel.
The rules-based order is dead, and there is no world police. Countries just take what they think they can get away with. Otherwise, there would be aid flowing into Palestine, Venezuela wouldn't have been attacked by the US, and everyone wouldn't be fighting over Greenland.
Furthermore, what happened after Gaddafi gave up on Libya's nukes?
He was raped in the ass with a bayonet after the US and the rest of NATO helped overthrow his government.
Nukes are clearly a deterrent, and if you comply with disarmament you're more likely to be backstabbed. Yet, the US won't mess with those who remain nuclear armed like Israel and North Korea.
Searching "izmo" on Jmail indicates this may be Mark Epstein:
https://www.jmail.world/search?q=izmo