Min deco and 32% and repetitive dives - seems to have a reliable track record for my purposes. At least here in cold water we don't do 3+ dives a day with square profiles and minimum surface intervals. Places were this is common (Bonaire) have profiles where you can easily and pragmatically add a ton of shallow "deco" time based on what you've been doing. So the tools provided for repetitive 32% diving with just a bottom timer just seem to work out in practice. The handwringing over residual N2 time has been ongoing since the early 2000s and it you are really doing 5 square profile dives a day on air the min deco rules are going to bite you in the butt. But with the widespread availability of EANx, the recognition of shallow stops, and the really that few divers race out of the water on repetitive multileveling dives anyway it just doesn't seem to be a problem in practice.
Exactly - in practical terms, it's not really a problem even though academically, it's fair game to say it's incorrect. But having simple, easy to remember rules has a value under this sort of "standardized deco"-paradigm, so the academic inaccuracy is disregarded because the practical significance is virtually nil. So long as one keeps that context in mind, there is no conflict.
It's when that "rule" or logic is taken out of context that it becomes conflictive - i.e. an understanding to the effect of "UTD says repetitive diving doesn't bring about any residual nitrogen - herecy!".
It has to be seen in a context, as described in the quote above.
I feel the same way of looking at things in a context is valid for the question on 32 vs. 25/25.
(on a sidenote, I elaborated a bit more on what context I see that in, in post #93)
I never said using a "science based" algorithm means you don't understand how it works. Simply following a computer does not allow you to predict future results on your profile. That is exactly the power that RD (GUE or UTD versions) gives you, and as you illustrated yourself how GUE RD does exactly that.
I agree with this. Without saying anything about computers, tables or any other solution, speaking purely about RD, it's extremely "holistic-predictive". I.e. I can glance over the deck and know exactly which I dives I can do, in detail, with it that day, in a matter of seconds. This has value and it extends into the water during the dives, too.
If someone needs 2, 3, 4+ computers to just have a basic idea of how much deco obligation they have, they aren't the kind of buddy I feel comfortable with awareness wise.
This is another benefit, definitely - developing awareness is pivotal, and I feel RD is one very effective means toward that end.
Well no, it's also a set of (questionable) rules that give an ascent. At best it then tells you to "oh just guess your deco you'll be fine", but it's not like it actually has value in adjustment that other algorithms wouldn't have in terms of how to shape your ascent.
That's your opinion, and you are of course entirely free to say that, but you've also said the following:
As for RD 2.0 being closer to buhlmann, I don't know
The prior of those two statements I disagree with.
I base my views on training in and experience with the use of various algorithms, computers, software, RD1.0 as well as RD2.0.
