The AS400/OS400-like interfaces always seem like they should be more popular super-user interfaces. They seem best at navigating tree-like data but most OS level interfaces feel tree-like these days. I think the affordances work a little better than vim-keys sometimes. A vim-mode option or command palette would be straightforward.
But it would require people to use full size extended keyboard (function F rows, numpads, etc). Which shrinks the user base quite a bit.
The recent movie Perfect Days (2023) seems to reflect this as well.
From wikipedia: "[Director Wim] Wenders was invited to Tokyo by Koji Yanai to observe the Tokyo Toilet Project, a project in which Japanese public toilets were redesigned in 17 locations throughout Shibuya with the help of 16 creators invited from around the world. Wenders was invited to take a look at the uniqueness of each of these facilities. At first, the producers envisioned Wenders would make a short film or series of short films on the facilities, but he opted for a feature film"
Is there a word/map for the transit accessibility for each point (1m^2?) on the map and drawing that? (maybe an integral of the isochrone?)
E.g. pick a point on a map, sum the area of the isochrone (30minute area? weighted sum?) to get a value at that point. Then redraw a heatmap of those points.
Ah, well that's fair! In any case though "spiral" is a pretty general term; I'm really just trying to get a sense of the shape the op was referring to, assumedly not something like an Archimedean spiral. Thank you for that idenfication.
Are there fields (architects, engineers?) that take advantage of the the technical pen scaling? Or scanning software that is aware of the pen/paper ratios?
This seems like a great way to have some consistency in analog/digital conversions. It would be nice to have 10 years of digitized notes that all have consistent sizing after scanning.
In another comment you mentioned easy scaling in a photocopier. And cylinder714 linked to a description of iso-paper that mentions an ISO (ISO 9175-1) for pens.
Is there a term or place to search for pens sets that scale with A*/B* paper? Using the ISO or "technical pen" doesn't return obvious matches (from my US based search at least).
I searched "ISO drafting pens" and had several results, although none from the US or Canada. Wikipedia lists some manufacturers, and here are some online shops from my first couple of pages of results.
I've never used the steel nibbed pens. My grandfather was a draughtsman, and had a complete set, but as I understood it (age 10-ish) they were delicate and needed to be used carefully. I wouldn't buy a complete set on a whim :-)
Wonderful, ISO-128 is exactly it and the wiki explains it perfectly. This seems like a fantastic sizing for pen sets.
The 0.10, 0.13, 0.18, 0.25, 0.35, 0.50, 0.70, 1.0, 1.4, and 2.0 scale with √2. I couldn't tell if other sets were just rounding or dropping the hundredths place. The rotring and staedtler both offer sets in those increments. I suppose this is just common knowledge to those who need it.
Every once in a while I try going through the editor setups in this chart - https://github.com/rainbyte/haskell-ide-chart. But I run into lots of friction in any one I try. Between using the REPL, getting harmony in the project libraries and the IDE engine libraries, and learning a new editor, I run out of energy to also learn the language ecosystem (libraries, concepts, idioms, package managers).
An IDE that that surfaced everything the language encodes seems like it would lower the learning curve of Haskell. And every year it seems a little closer. Is there anything close to a jetbrains/visual studio/xcode yet?
It seems like all the type safety would be valuable enough that companies would pay for/invest in the ecosystem. Learning the ecosystem has been more challenging than learning the language at this point for me.
Why did the gig economy pick up tipping culture? Why did Instacart need to?
I've read about why tipping exists in the restaurant industry and what happens to businesses that try to avoid it. But for these new businesses without established mores, I have to do moral calculus to decide whether to use them and how to tip. I wish they had avoided this. I tend to avoid them instead.
Did customers ask for this? The people providing the services?
Was it for the price discrimination? price discovery? Or to deflate the sticker price?
I wonder if this starts organically: some customers paid tips in cash to their "shoppers", word gets around, people see other gig apps accepting tips, and so Instacart follows suit and adds this feature.
Perhaps it's a legal cover? If enough customers are paying cash tips, is it in Instacart's best interest to keep track of this (by building a tip feature into the app) for tax reasons?
I'm guessing it's precisely to reduce wages and keep them low. The whole tipping is dumb and adds friction to the service. Just charge all-inclusive price.
I am the same avoiding services that require tipping.
I enjoy BTT bunches and use a non-apple keyboard/mouse.
Rebinding the f1-f4 keys to tab navigation (previous, next, close tab, new tab) works well. Rebinding extra mouse buttons to get gestures back on non apple mice (tilting scroll wheel to smart zoom). Other setups would be neat to hear about.
The phenomenon of adding lanes not reducing congestion is generally a reference to the "Downs-Thomson Paradox"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox) or "Triple Convergence" related research.
The general idea is that congestion dissuades some amount of commuters from using the road at congested times. When additional road capacity is added, those people will shift their commute time, or commute mode, or commute route to re-congest the road. (Time, mode or route is the "Triple Convergence" or latent/induced demand.) But in certain contexts like LA or London it's not possible to build enough road capacity to eliminate congestion. So building additional road capacity has the effect of (a) not reducing congestion and (b) reducing usage of public transportation. And (b) causes additional problems for the efficiency that public transportation.
The counter-intuitiveness is why it's a paradox. And the context probably matters for when this theory applies. But supposedly it happens to lots of developed cities. The original study on London was looking at when ~80% of commutes happened by transit. But LA is trying to improve its transit infrastructure because partly because this problem.
The Downs-Thomson Paradox makes reasonable sense, but it doesn't prove the claim from the article. It explains how adding road capacity could make traffic congestion worse (if it causes the preexisting level of mass transit availability to become unsustainable), but not why it inevitably must. For example, if mass transit in a particular city is already useless and disused then that can't happen. It also points to a way out of the paradox: Expand road capacity and subsidize mass transit availability at the same time.
That isn't a reality due to the massive cost of either options (basically, pick one). Successful mass transit using the roads (eg bus rapid transit) require taking capacity out of the highways and therefore aren't mutually compatible.
I had not heard of the Downs-Thomson Paradox, thank you very much for sharing it.
After reading the article I have to point out, from the "Restrictions on validity" section, that it "only applies to regions in which the vast majority of peak-hour commuting is done on rapid transit systems with separate rights of way".
So for most cities outside of NYC, this paradox supposedly does not apply (even though I feel it has some bearing).
Regardless, the general principle behind the paradox is induced demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand) - which, regardless of the share of transit users, will always apply to highway projects.
Downs-Thomson contains its own ad-absurdum refutation. If adding capacity makes congestion worse, then why can't we make congestion better by reducing capacity? Clearly this is wrong in the general case.
It does not state that it makes it worse, it states that it does not improve it. i.e. that there is an approximate equilibrium that is reached regardless of road capacity in an environment where there is more potential traffic capacity for congested times than the roads could realistically be made to accommodate.
What such simplistic studies miss, though, is the reason why those drivers are out there in the first place. They are going to and from different places, doing different things at different times. By treating traffic as a variable to be optimized in a vacuum, the academic and professional urban planners tend to miss the forest for the trees.
In other words, I believe that to the extent new lane capacity is filled as soon as the construction workers pick up their cones, it is because economically and/or socially useful things are happening. Otherwise, why would any of us drive anywhere at all?
I think it's a three-part problem. One, it is a flow problem, and by removing congestion at one bottleneck you mostly deliver traffic more efficiently to the next bottleneck. Actually increasing traffic flow is much more expensive than the cost of any single project. Second, over time, you end up with induced demand -- if you actually do get rid of all the congestion, longer commutes will become more practical, and traffic will increase until the marginal-next-commuter is discouraged from adding his car to the scrum.
Third, economic arguments are a little dicey for driving because driving is filled with externalized costs, subsidies, overoptimistic assumptions, and dependent utility. Driving creates noise and pollution (and it appears that the pollution is more deadly than crashes) but drivers don't pay that cost. There's personal crash risk, but people tend to assume that they are careful drivers and hence less likely to crash than the norm. The cost of the roads themselves is currently subsidized from the general fund; it's not a huge external cost, but it's a cost. Driving also creates (perceived) danger to people biking and walking; that tends to encourage them to also drive for their own (perceived) safety, even when they otherwise would not, and the congestion costs of driving also delay bus transit, making it less useful (it's already slower because of all the stops; traffic jams make it slower yet).
One explanation could be that people are lazy and will generally opt for the conveniences a car if the perceived disadvantages are relatively small. I and many people I know probably would consider a car if we lived in a city optimized for that.
Instead, because the city is optimized for cycling and public transport, I live in a culture where taking even public transport is frowned upon if the bicycle commute is < 30 mins (and even an hour, perhaps).
I think this argument applies to many things. In the city where I live, Amsterdam, there's (almost) always a supermarket at walking distance (or a 5-10 min. bike ride). In fact, this is true for the whole country, as far as I know. 'Hypermarkets' like wal-mart or Carrefoure never really took off. The reason for this is partly culture, but largely it's because of regulation that protects smaller shops.
Most people consider it a very good thing that we can walk to the supermarket and that we are, in effect, 'forced' to have a healthy lifestyle and culture.
Anyways, I just wanted to share how the fact that streets will fill up and hypermarkets will most likely be successful doesn't mean that this is a good thing, or that it's in our best interest.
But it would require people to use full size extended keyboard (function F rows, numpads, etc). Which shrinks the user base quite a bit.