HN user

philippoi

120 karma
Posts0
Comments63
View on HN
No posts found.

If this is really such an easy way to make a city grow economically why aren't the artists making money off of this to fund their next move?

How would they do that?

I would say it matters for future considerations. Gain of function research is happening in many places. Leaks can happen. An unrelated virus could cause another pandemic if there are flaws that go unaddressed. The probability of a pandemic occurring doesn't decrease because this one has occurred, as they are independent events. For all we know, another pandemic could be brewing and we're so occupied with COVID19 that we're not observing it.

My wife is a researcher and says she can often guess who the authors are when she performs reviews because it's her domain and their references and context tend to give it away. But it's still a guess because the review process is blind. I'm pretty sure it's just the journal's editorial staff that can see who's who. It's not perfect, but it's not as blatantly biased by 'brand name' stature the way you suggest.

I've been thinking about this issue of unknown, unacknowledged, or perhaps subconscious religion a lot lately. I grew up religious but am now an atheist, and though I haven't sought to replace it component-wise, I've been observing de facto beliefs in myself and others that wouldn't normally be recognized as such because they aren't packaged as a lot. What makes me note similarities between acknowledged religious beliefs and unacknowledged ones is their function. If you look at the desired effects, they have the same aim: guidance in making decisions, association with a group sharing a particular view, value judgments both aesthetic and moral. The religions we created are a reflection of our psychology and physiology, and often the tensions between those two. It seems to me at least that a name brand religion often fills a life module that's required for a human to operate. The fact that it might be unlabeled might make it more difficult to identify, but it doesn't nullify its existence.

I agree. I think there's such an interest in seeing the genius behind a work which actually involves the collaboration of a group to actually succeed. Just like in team sports. There are great players who are great because they won a lot of championships, had high scoring totals, etc. But in most cases, they also had the best teams. The genius lifts their collaborators up and the inverse is also true. I wonder sometimes about great players in my favorite sport and have doubts about the career outcomes of some of their peers that seems to have a lot to do with how good their teams were, as well as how fortunate they were to avoid injury, etc. There are analogies to those factors as well in business, but they don't garner as much fascination as the idea that there's one person who really makes the thing go.

I had some symptoms in mid-March as well, and actually on my birthday noticed I couldn't smell or taste nearly as well as normal. It was very apparent because I work as a barista, so naturally I rely on my sense of smell quite a lot, and I had really enjoyed the same green tea the day before and the day of my smell loss; it just tasted incredibly flat. My birthday meal and birthday wine were just a waste on me. My wife and I were tested for antibodies about 6 weeks later, when our son was born, and neither of us was found to have antibodies. It wasn't until around the first week of April that I first heard loss of your sense of smell was a symptom of COVID19. In spite of the antibody test, I suspect I had the virus. About how quickly does the antibody count drop if you develop specific antibodies to COVID19? I read somewhere that some people recovered from their infections without developing antibodies tailored to COVID19 and it was thought that these individuals overcame the virus due to their body's already existing store of antibodies for other types of Corona virus. I can't remember where I read that article now.

Pretty much every country has it. Khrushchev implemented their mass deployment in the Soviet Union to stem a housing crisis (I think maybe even as one of his earliest actions as chairman...it's been a while since I read about it in an architecture magazine). Once you recognize the form, you see it everywhere, even outside the Soviet bloc; in the US, Canada, etc. The political influence makes their prominence within the urban fabric rise or fall, but the idea behind the building form is pretty much the same: cheap housing for an increasingly urban population without regard to street life, scale, etc., very much in the vein of Corbusier's Cité radieuse. I suspect the economic argument of that kind of construction was hard to argue with at the time.

I don't think I'd want to be ultra-wealthy (as in a billionaire+). At that point you're almost removed from society. I imagine you end up moving in circles with other ultra-wealthy people that are actually quite small. You risk being a target of the desperate, the criminally minded (fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, that sort of thing) and the mentally unstable.

That's been the reality of Denmark's richest family (richest ever since CF Møller, head of Mærsk, died a few years ago). They've had numerous run-ins with people after a slice of their wealth. This lead them to keep as far from the public eye as possible (according to one piece I read) until they were the most talked about Danes of the season last year, as they tragically lost 3 of their 4 children in a bombing that was aimed to wipe them out.

It's hard to imagine a worse scenario to survive as a parent or sibling.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/22/three-children-of-danish-bil...

That's a puzzling take. I see where you went with it, but I'm inclined to think of writing as already including the recipient. Such as when I write notes for myself. Often, I'm keen to do this in instances where I find a thought worthwhile but also quite subtle or nuanced and therefore forgettable. Sometimes, when I reread these notes quite a while later, I'm surprised at what was occurring to me at the time and happy, sad, amused, or even befuddled at what was going on in my head at that moment. My rereadings are also colored by the context shifts you mention. But in those instances where I didn't succeed in conveying my meaning in a way I can reconnect with later, I don't think I'd consider that note not language, but rather a use of language that failed. It's still language. Even if its communication value is less than desired, it's a message built with the same tools as the messages that do work and pass your communication test. The fact that the intended future reader is there in the mind of the writer makes me think of it as language even before it's read, if it ever is. Otherwise, what is a written message that isn't read? It exists, but as what? How would you characterize it?

I've been lamenting this demise of Google over the last year or two, but it's been especially foul the last few months.

Similar to your biking anecdote, I was trying to find any simple trouble shooting help for a home coffee brewer that suddenly stopped working. I couldn't find any results in the first 4-5 pages that weren't trying to sell me a new machine.

The manufacturer is also partly to blame, because I couldn't find anything remotely relevant either on the product page or in the PDF owner's manual.

It's a shame what these tools have become when they could be so much more.

I've been consumed with this idea since going back to France for a few days after living there for five months almost 10 years earlier. I had the experience of trying to learn Danish mostly by immersion and a little by terrible classes (no one seems to have an idea how to make Danish phonetics decently teachable, and that's the number 1 challenge in Danish). I theorized that foreign language learning has evolved to develop a pyramidal approach towards literary translation. That's definitely an important skill, but my guess is 99% of people interested in in a foreign language don't care about that level of language mastery, even in their native tongue, and would much prefer to learn enough grammar to start to acquire more and more conversational fluidity. People shouldn't read poetry in foreign language learning, but magazines. People should watch TV, partly because there's so much TV/video available in every language now via the web, and it's a great venue to hear diversified fluent speakers speak, rather than just actors or newscasters who are trained in speaking as clearly as possible.

My plan for Danish was to try and establish a transcript feed for viewing DR programs online, so you could watch the most audibly diverse shows on your device and quickly refer to the complete transcript (not the CC for hearing impaired because it scrubs the verbal grammar a bit and omits the vocal punctuation that are extremely important for holding your own in a foreign language), and change the playback, jump back and forth a few seconds, etc., the way one reads and rereads a passage in a text that catches their attention or evades comprehension at first.

"(T)he problems with post WWII "social science", "political science", "psychology", "architecture" are precisely that they're trying to ape the physical sciences and not just be art."

I'm not well versed in areas other than architecture, but I'm really puzzled where you'd go with this thesis with respect to that discipline. Would you care to elaborate further? I'm genuinely curious.

"This whole story just doesn't add up. Even from the start, it never did. How could Walker and his cronies have ever fallen for any of this?"

Just a guess, sadly, they probably had the financial lubrication to fight for it. Not to mention that the "big numbers" play to their political audience, my Reagan Republican father, for one. Sure, someone who's a little more insightful about technology might be skeptical, but that wasn't Walker's audience.

PLOT cofounders Bjarke Ingels and Julien de Smedt were in their mid-twenties when they started out. Today, Bjarke Ingels Group is among the most influential firms in the world. Julien's own firm is also doing well, last I heard. Their old boss at OMA, Rem Koolhaas, started that firm when he was barely 30. Still a bit older than 22 years, but closer to that than 40. They're the LeBron James exceptions that prove the rule though. Though there are some amazingly talented architects in their 20's, it usually takes a lot of time to get the momentum necessary to be able to be the figurehead of an organization that depends on hefty commissions to keep running. Bjarke Ingels' openly flouts the architect-as-artist model of expecting clients to bend to their every whim and instead opts for an approach of mutually beneficial compromise. It's hard to argue with the results he's achieved. By trading some of his starchitect's share of cultural capital, he's gained the trust of influential clients on an accelerated timeline. It takes a special skillset to merry that to a coherent and compelling design aesthetic, which I think is also undeniable in BIG's case.

I like that idea of using time in a way that scales better or chunks relevant sections together. There's definitely room for improvement in how time is exhibited in this interface.

I thought it actually undermined the philosophy as linear-progress by focusing on the links, which show a chaotic cycle of idea development. The linearity of the names seems to come from going with time on that axis, but that's just an arbitrary device for the sake of organization rather than the driver of the interpretation of the content, in my view.