Next thing you're gonna tell me that English speakers overwhelmingly prefer novels written in English.

Cultures have visual languages just the same as they have written and spoken (and signed) languages. The crucifix symbol has an understood meaning in most European cultures, because of how foundational Christianity is to their cultures. Is it really so surprising that people prefer buildings in a visual language they already understand?

There's also this paragraph at the very end:

>If this is true, a greater puzzle comes into view. Almost every architectural school in the world exclusively teaches broadly modernist styles, and probably more than 99 percent of architects practice exclusively in them. In Britain, there has been hardly a single public commission in a traditional style since the 1950s, and only a trickle of commercial and institutional ones. Except in the market for private housing, traditional styles have been virtually extinct for seven decades. Although in some cases this can be explained by anti-traditional planning rules, the broad trend is still evident in jurisdictions whose development control systems are stylistically neutral.

In a world where we've seen nothing but modernist designs for 70 years, is it really that surprising that people might prefer novel designs? Especially novel designs in a style they are repeatedly told is better, or references a more refined time?

Seems to me that your positions are in opposition to each other.

1. There’s a traditional visual language that people instinctively prefer.

2. Modern architectural sensibilities have superseded traditional visual language through repetition.

I’m reading this to mean something like “people like their own traditional foods but since they've been drowning in pizza for the last 70 years, they’ve forgotten about their traditional foods.”

How can a basal, instinctive preference just disappear? Can the sex drive disappear with enough brainwashing?

I'm not claiming that people instinctively prefer anything. I'm saying that they've been socialized to believe that "traditional" architecture is some indicator of societal excellence. I don't think its weird that people report a bias they've been taught to have.

The article even seems aware of this possibility when it mentions that architecture students prefer modernism (with the semi-covert implication that their education is poisoning their aesthetic sensibilities). I claim its at most partially because they've been taught to prefer modern designs, but mainly because they've been taught to think about visual languages consciously, so they are able to recognize what a given architect is trying to do, in a way that a layperson might not. That's certainly why Thomas Kinkade gets as much hate as he does (that and the dodgy business practices...).

I'm also not claiming that people have been starved of traditional architecture entirely, just that nobody is building things in the traditional style now. They're not tearing them down either, the White House East Wing not withstanding. This is a novelty bias, nothing more. If you only ever see neoclassical architecture in buildings that are designated as "fancy" or "special" or "august", and all these modern, ordinary buildings do not, you're going to assume that the style itself, and not simply the age and intent at construction are what contributes to that.

I mean, 39 out of 50 US state capitol buildings have domes, as does the nation's capitol building. I think anybody in the US can be forgiven for thinking that dome = legitimate seat of authority. Certainly, that was the hypothesis behind the design decision.

Speaking only for myself, I found Washington DC, which is all neo-classical all the time, just really boring. All the buildings look the same, and I couldn't escape the sense that I was in museum that hadn't been updated in a long time. Chicago's Fields Museum has the same quality.

Building design is not sex.

Put another way, while their positions are one set of 3 points, their momenta are another set of 3 points, and there is no requirement that 6 points will always lay on the same plane.

I wonder what phantom forces would appear when the reference frame changes in some complicated fashion. We get centrifugal "force" when we reconstruct F=dP/dt in a rotating reference frame, what would the 3-body "force" look like?

I used to work with several Apple MEs, and one EE, when they moved to the startup I was at.

They were all very skilled and pragmatic engineers. While there is some tribal knowledge benefits to getting really fluent with a given CAD suite, foundationally they are just tools, so when our startup migrated from one CAD suite to another, there was pretty minimal churn. You only have to go through one project management software changeover to realize that good operators, engineers or PMs or whatever, aren't permanently affected by the particular choice of software (but they are affected by constant change in that choice). The fundamentals don't change, even if the selector switch moves from one side to the other.

At the same startup, in the early days, I had a System76 laptop running their flavor of Ubuntu, and I used KiCad (but that was prior to their big UX overhaul so it was pretty painful) so I could design the few PCBs we needed. When we adopted Altium, I dual-booted the laptop. Later, I used a MacBook Pro and I ran Altium in a VM, and I've never had a more mind-bending computing experience than when I had Windows (running Altium) on one screen, OSX (with all of my firmware dev tools) on the other screen, and my keyboard shortcuts (down to cmd vs ctrl as the modifier) would change based on which screen my mouse cursor was on.

I've no idea if they still do it, or if this was an option open to the general public or if it was a special thing for our group, but once upon a time, in my early teens, I got to tour NIST's test reactor in Boulder, Colorado.

At one point in the tour, they turned on the reactor, while we stood along the edges of the pool it was immersed in. Literally all that separated us from the magic of fission was about 5-6 meters of water. I still remember the electric blue glow of the Cherenkov radiation. Even with decades of life and experience and education between now and then, its hard to describe the psychic impact of observing with my own eyes something that I had heretofore understood to be impossible. Something akin to seeing Narnia through the wardrobe for the first time.

I was already into physics at that time (I had shadowed a sibling for a day at the University of Washington, and got to attend a lecture about nuclear fission a few years before in the physics-for-liberal-arts-majors course she was taking at that time), but this was quite something else. All of that to say, I already understood that dragons exist, in a manner of speech, but there's a difference between understanding it and feeling one's breath on your face.

Are you this actively shitty towards all hobbies you don't also enjoy?

People have been foraging for mushrooms for literally thousands of years, but mushroom cultivation is pretty recent, and the overwhelming majority of edible species have not yet been reliably cultivated.

Are you ignorant of where those interesting flavors come from (indeed, are discovered)?

This has strong "why should we care about farms? People get everything they need from the store" vibes.

> Are you this actively shitty towards all hobbies you don't also enjoy

No, really just this one. There’s not that many hobbies that have death as an outcome of a minor mistake. For something like free solo climbing, we all understand those guys are nuts and wired different for an incredible high. For mushroom foraging on the other hand, it seems to me like… your reward is a slightly different mushroom flavor?

Are you thinking that mushroom foraging is just like going to the store, and there are no experiential benefits from actually going out to look?

Would you characterize beekeeping as nuts? Too many bee stings in a short(ish, weeks or months typically) period of time render one deathly allergic to further bee stings. Ooh, what about the risk of growing tomatoes, potatoes, or other members of the belladonna family? I mean, their greens are all toxic. Likewise for home grown rhubarb!

There are plenty of things people engage in for fun, on a regular basis, that are incredibly punishing of mistakes. Car and home repair come to mind. Downhill skiing, bicycling, motorcycling are all in there.

But the thing of it is, for every single one that I've mentioned, there are reasonable steps to be taken to mitigate a lot of those risks. Like, every mushroom foraging guide I've consumed goes to some lengths to point out how to correctly differentiate between dangerous and not dangerous mushrooms.

Your take on why people free solo is also misinformed. To be honest, I've never experienced an adrenaline rush from it, and if I did, I'd expect that to be in the 2-3 seconds before I met a violent and bloody end. It's not an "I survived that!" sort of experience, so much as it is a "I only had to focus on the climbing, not faffing with ropes and things" experience. A core goal of my climbing is already not to fall, and I can already get seriously hurt or killed, even whilst using the gear correctly. Neither the risk nor the sense of defying it are factors in why I do it.

>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena.

People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim that its solely the victim's responsibility to prevent this sort of thing. But I ask, what is the victim's recourse if they legit do not want to be filmed and broadcast? Just stay home? Are we seriously going to give third-tier facebook-live streamers that much power?

I feel like "if asked, don't monetize content containing others, if the content only occurred because of the recorder's actions". Like, yes, if you're in public, you can be filmed, sure. But if I ask you not to film me, and then you make money off a recording of just me saying "don't film me", that feels less like free speech, and more like monetizing actionable harassment.

> People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages.

Flatly untrue. Can you get harassed regardless of anything in particular? Sure. Is the probability of harassment tied to various factors, like the way you dress? Absolutely yes.

More than one art installation has been a simple depiction of the clothes worn by victims during their rapes. You should look it up.

My daughters have dealt with sexual harassment. Should I tell them to dress less sluttily? I mean, they wear what I buy for them, and I don’t think I buy anything wildly inviting of anything. But what do I know?! I’m just the father of a 7 and 6 year old.

Is that really a big deal? Someone who monetizes me saying don’t film me?

Depends on how many times you get rape and/or death threats from unhinged audience members who went to surprising and horrifying lengths to figure out your identity.

Obviously, we cannot wholly bar these jack wagons from going out and finding the exact edge of “harassment worth pursuing legal action over”. But we can lower the cost of pursuing legal action, and raise the cost of defending against such action. That’s all I’m proposing.

I mean, if you'd asked law makers in 1850 if we needed speed limits on the roads between towns, you'd be laughed out of the room. Does that mean we shouldn't have speed limits? Or does that mean that nobody in power dreamed that it would be a serious or wide-spread enough problem that just suing each individual for damages was insufficient? Sometimes, we even have to invent new ways to express the damages so that suit can even be brought.

As I recall, the main issue with that was that because it used facial recognition, the labor burden of enforcing that was significantly lower. If its just human beings looking at every visitor and trying to decide if they match a description, the venue has to decide "has this person done anything so egregious that all this extra effort is worth it?" which makes the tactic self-limiting.

With facial recognition, enforcing a trespass order becomes nearly zero cost, so it can be applied for basically any reason. I can sort of get to understanding the tactic for "this lawyer is actively suing us", but if its "this person said something mean about us online, and we can get a facial recognition match from their profile picture", it seems like a wild abuse.

Which is why that whole Radio City Music Hall situation was such a good illustration of the actual harm of facial recognition systems. If a potentially bad action is only kept "good" because the high cost (in labor or lucre) causes discernment in its application, then removing the cost will necessarily remove the discernment, almost guaranteeing bad actions.

Business owners should have the right to bar someone from the premises, and legal recourses to enforce that right. But enforcing that right should be sufficiently cost prohibitive that enforcing that right does not grant the business outsized power to limit the public's rights to e.g. express negative opinions of that business.

> With facial recognition, enforcing a trespass order becomes nearly zero cost, so it can be applied for basically any reason. I can sort of get to understanding the tactic for "this lawyer is actively suing us", but if its "this person said something mean about us online, and we can get a facial recognition match from their profile picture", it seems like a wild abuse.

Also the ban was not communicated. So probably counts as theft as well.

Almost as if there's a limit to how many demands strangers can reasonably place on a person before we as a society agree that the person should put up boundaries (like, say, putting on headphones and outright ignoring the demands) and even go out of our way to encourage strangers to respect those boundaries.

I'm not calling you out, IncandescentGas, you're right and you're doing a good thing. I'm just saying its ironic that you jump to the defense of somebody who has made it clear that they don't believe others deserve the same courtesy you are providing them.

No defence needed in my case. I made a mistake and paid my price. I feel bad for people who are so bored and miserable in their own lives that they feel the need to elevate themselves by trying to diminish me.

It's too bad that they don't live more fulfilling lives that don't require them to feel the need to attempt to insult people.

Well, no.

First, increased demand drives increased prices. This is the least controversial axiom of modern economic theory. So if you add a huge power consumer to a market, all consumers in that market will have to pay more. You can mitigate that some if that new, big consumer builds their own power facility, but the fact still remains that the local price in fuel (oil, coal, etc) or materials for renewable generators (turbins, solar panels, etc) will increase. Again, because demand increased.

Second, its one thing for things to cost more in a market that has a booming economy and plenty of high paying jobs. Home prices in the Bay Area are horrifying, but the poverty line for a family of 4 is $80k, which sort of grounds things. If energy costs go up by $100/year in the Bay Area, nobody notices. But if energy costs suddenly skyrocket in Great Falls, Montana (poverty line for 4: $33k) or similar that lacks a vibrant economy, the residents don't have much choice but to tighten their belts over the suddenly larger electric bill that has done basically nothing to actually revitalize their economy.