This is why some companies and interests are better off staying private. SpaceX is a perfect example. Musk doesn't want to be accountable to shareholders for return on investment and annual results.
Services like this have a very large network effect. As the informed users leave, the quality of discussion drops and the remainder of users end up leaving too.
It’s a way more accessible way for people to learn how to engineer apps. I feel like Xcode and git can really be too high a bar for people who are starting from nothing. Not to say they’re not intelligent, it just requires pushing through frustrations in a way that this new feature is eliminating.
Bar ends were never very popular. Maybe 5-10% of riders used them. I don’t think a single manufacturer adopted them in a shipped from the factory setup.
This reminds me of the guy who traded a paper clip for a house... only in reverse. Every time these companies get traded, more gets added to the bundle and they sell for less money.
Soon it’ll be Yahoo & AOL sold for an NFT of an illustration of a pile of used AOL CDs.
I mean it is something everyone has known for a long time. That said, I think it goes a little bit deeper than just simply the fashion industry is trying to screw women over.
In general, women don’t buy these sort of utility pants as much as they buy other types of pants. Well many women won’t. My wife has about 50% utility pants and 50% pocketless pants.
The problem is those pants are not particularly flattering and even to this day, women wearing pragmatic/ practical clothing are shamed for wearing unflattering clothing. This isn’t just men, other women do it also.
Tight pants don’t really work well with big pockets filled with stuff.
I will say... the fashion industry doesn’t help. Brands like Levis who sell few utility type pants for women and don’t advertise any of them.
The big thing is people need to stop giving women crap for being practical with regards to clothing.
Hot Take: A purse/bag is superior to pockets in most situations, stays organized and can handle the array of items needed for life much more gracefully then pockets. I don't need to completely unpack my purse at the end of the day and it's ready to go for the next. Hell if I want to change bags everything is in an organizer that can slip out and into a different one. Can't do that with pockets!
Also form fitting clothing is a pain with bulky devices. Nothing says fun like keys being jammed into your leg or trying to wiggle a phone in and out. Looser fits are almost needed.
But I agree with your final statement, let's not give people crap for choosing practical pockets. Wear what you will!
There is no doubt purses are useful on occasion and if you are carrying a purse, pockets are redundant.
But I suspect one of the big reasons women complain about pockets is because there are occasions where having to carry around a purse is a needless hassle. I totally agree that tight pants are largely cross purpose with big pockets.
All of my knowledge on the topic is second hand so I lack the foundation to disagree.
I’m not sure why a site would recommend making an extra click easier when it’s not necessary at all. If someone has ever logged into your site, they should get a login page so they don’t have to do some extra tap. This is triply true if your site is frustratingly slow to load.
Also:
Support password managers. Your damned custom login page BS might be cute in design but sucks for usability. If your site doesn’t work reasonably well with a password manager I won’t come back. US Bank lost my business this way recently.
Related: Have sane password requirements and limits. If my password manager gives you a 32 character password, don’t bitch because it doesn’t contain a number or uppercase character. It’s 32 characters long and unguessable, that should be enough. Also... if you fail because there is an underscore or ampersand, you’ve failed.
Modern houses are very easy to install and come in preconfigured shapes. They ship flat packed components and drop them on site for low skilled workers to build. They include things like bathrooms and kitchens as part of the build.
There are better ways to build affordable housing already.
You make a factory that builds prefabricated panels then deliver them onsite. With prefab, you don’t need to transport an expensive piece of equipment to remote parts of the world and have onsite experts there to supervise and repair it. You don’t have to deal with tear down and setup of the equipment at every site and installers have predictable channels to install any power/ water infrastructure.
I suspect the reason this is popular is more because they are aesthetically pleasing and use new/ special technology than anything else.
There’s something cool in the idea of a community all building their own dwellings - even if it meant hiring a fancy machine to do the hard work while they all chipped to prep the ground the plumbing, fed the machine clay or whatever.
It’s not something you could measure on a spreadsheet but it’d be immensely cool to be a part of that, maybe even somewhere remote where you don’t really want to bring much more than absolutely necessary.
True, though you still need to transport all those panels to the site and assemble them - one interesting aspect here is that the materials are (mostly) present. That doesn't make for much savings of emissions for a single house, but if you built ten at once... I also wonder if you couldn't carve out a basement/cellar and use the dirt displaced to build the house over it, that'd provide storage.
>There are better ways to build affordable housing already.
Who'd think that a proof-of-concept doesn't yet compete with existing solutions?
>I suspect the reason this is popular is more because they are aesthetically pleasing
We are talking about places people can live in. Aesthetics matter.
The ability to produce something aesthetically pleasing on the cheap and at scale matters.
There is a reason Soviet architecture is the butt of so many jokes. They were rapidly building post-war, with the idea that those buildings will be replaced in two decades.
Consider what the Soviets replaced in terms of housing. The people who moved in weren’t giving up a dacha life.
Same holds for US housing projects. People came from cold water tenaments, share cropper shacks with an outhouse out back, and migrant farm labor camps.
They represent a huge improvement in shelter despite their lack of appeal to people of means
My point wasn't that it sucked; my point was that the architecture of ex-USSR countries is still dominated by that style even when the countries moved on.
So there's value in affordable housing with long-term aesthetics. It affects generations of people beyond those whose lives are immediately improved.
> The first computers filled up an entire room and look where we are now...
So, in how many decades do you project that a house will cost $300, and will provide shelter for half-a-million people?
Why compare to computing, which is a discipline that's less to a century old, when you can compare to any other millenia-old-industry, some of which have seen revolutionary improvements, some of which have seen minor incremental improvements, and some of which have seen serious cost and/or quality regressions over that period of time?
This is besides the point, to the extent that it's not just wrong.
The goal here is obviously to build an experimental building, and isn't even explicitly related to affordable housing. Meanwhile, this building method produces a different building to the one you suggest. It's an irrelevant comparison for that reason alone, but there are lots. What if the factory is far away? The fact that transport needs are totally different is actually useful.
Also, what's with this static mindset? Don't you think there are no new building methods to be had?
Personally, I'm quite interested in these printed structures. They're not ready for major use yet, maybe they won't ever be. Practicability will (or won't) be proven when large projects are attempted. You need small projects first.
TLDR, of course they could have just parked an RV there. That's not the point.
From what I understand, prefab homes are only economical in remote areas, like if you want to give off the grid. If you just want a new regular house in the suburbs, traditional construction is going to be cheaper. To be clear, I'm talking about the US. China is successful with prefab, but they also have millions of people moving away from the countryside every year, so economies of scale work in their favor.
Do you have have links for monastery? I have so many questions... how big is it? what does it look like? I love the idea of earth as a building material, and I'd love to see what the state of the art is now. Do we, as a species, possess the skill to build a Guastavino vault as good as a century ago in New York? Or something as pleasing Cuba's National Art Schools?
3d printing a building might be a cursed problem. If it doesn't scale past single-family dwellings, it's useless. Mo sprawl, mo problems. How could this tech scale up to the size of an apartment building? If you have a big crane, prefab panels are certainly cheaper and faster. Maybe if you built in the style of Agadez Mosque, with the scaffold incorporated into the structure, the robots could climb as they build. That seems to rule out toothpaste extrusion as a technique since the cure time would be a bottleneck. (Let's rule out energy intense curing agents.)
A bricklaying robot... supplied with bricks via the scaffold in the structure.... could the engineering to do that possibly be cost effective against skilled humans? Or the big crane? We haven't even considered aesthetics.
Apple forecast a 2 year transition a year ago at WWDC. That means they need a processor for their base laptop/ consumer desktops. One for their high end laptops and many of their pro desktops. And arguably one to replace the Xeon in the iMac Pro and Mac Pro.
Unless they are going to use this same CPU for the Mac Pro, this is right on schedule.
