does that mean everything installs globallu by default. if there is one thing I love about npm it's that it's local by default and global is the exception.
Kohl's started spamming me with no way to opt out / unsubscribe many years ago. I had never done any business with them at the time nor ever given them my contact info. Had never been to one of their stores. Had no idea what they even sold.
Since that time I vowed never to do business wirh them ever. Not happy that Amazon is partnering with such a bad company
what does late binding by you? That sounds like an argument for non-strictly typed languages. Isn't in the strict typing that prevents late binding? The compiler wants to know at compile time the types of all the messages and whether or not an object can handle that message hence all messages must be typed and all object must declare which messages they accept.
- Abstract classes/methods, and interfaces. This is implemented using vtables in C++.
- Ability to send messages asynchronously, or to other computers, without exposing the details of such things. You just call a method in another class and let your dispatcher handle it. There was a whole industry built around this concept in the 90s: CORBA, DCOM, SOAP. And Erlang, of course, in a different way.
- Ability to change the class/object during runtime. Like you can with Javascript and Lua, calling `object.method = `. Javascript was inspired by Self (a dialect of Smalltalk), so there's that lineage. Other languages like Python and Ruby allow it too.
- Ability to use the message passing mechanism to capture messages and answer them. Similar to Ruby's "method_missing" and ES6 Proxies in Javascript. This is super useful for DSLs and a great abstraction to work with. Check this out: http://npmjs.com/package/domz
Remember that you can have some of those things without dynamic typing (Objective-C).
it may be my Western sensibilities but I find those small apartments dehumanizing. Like living in a prison cell or some kind of distopian sci-fi novel.
note I've lived in Tokyo on and over the last 21 years. I've lived in college dorm sized apartments and visited friends in smaller. I get it's partly culture but isn't there some limit? Would living in a capsule hotel be ok to some? Is it 100% personal preference or is there some limit?
"Like living in a prison cell or some kind of distopian sci-fi novel."
I also find such small dwellings unpleasant. Small flats can be well designed, but these apartments take things too far.
The designers have recognised two features to amplify the sense of space: the double-height space and the large windows to flood the flats with natural light.
In fact, one aspect of more modern apartment design which is instantly recognisable no matter which country you live in: the long, narrow rectangular shape of apartments which allow more flats to be crammed into a plot of land. Compare these two identical studio apartments.
I'd be interested to hear opinions from anyone who prefers the studio apartment with windows at the narrow end (and why).
As an aside, it's interesting that you mentioned these apartments as something that might come from an "dystopian sci-fi novel". In J.G. Ballard’s science fiction novel,"Billenium" the population of the earth reaches 20 billion and 95% of the population resides in cities. Residential floor area per person is limited to 4m2.
In 2010, that inspired Waseda university in Japan to run a competition with the premise: could you live with another person in a home that measured just 15 square metres? The original competition website is long gone, but luckily, archive.org has a copy of the winning entries:
> I'd be interested to hear opinions from anyone who prefers the studio apartment with windows at the narrow end (and why).
I've lived in both shapes (technically, they were 1 bedrooms, but had the same difference in layout). I much preferred the one with windows at the narrow end. It allowed me to actually use the walls for stuff - couch against one wall, TV opposite without having massive glare and my back to the window. Still allowed lots of natural light in.
The one advantage of the long layout was it allowed better airflow from a window at one end to a window at the other. But it also allowed way too much sunlight in during the summer, meaning that ventilation was less effective at cooling the space.
> I'd be interested to hear opinions from anyone who prefers the studio apartment with windows at the narrow end (and why).
I am not sure about "prefers", but both glare and heat can be a problem. To a large extent it is trying to "polish a turd". In small spaces a little extra space, a single wall or other improvements make a huge difference.
I lived in shared accommodations, barracks, dorm rooms, serviced apartments and whatnot. The equation mostly doesn't change. You need like five square meters for every "feature".
I prefer the windows at the narrow end. Gives me more useable wall space. In fact my current apartment is much like your image (though with a bedroom on the side) and my previous was more like one with windows on the long side.
I've got a lot of books and board games that I keep in shelves, and so the much increased wall space allows me to place them more comfortably. I'm not interfering with light sources and I can secure the shelves to the wall so they don't fall down if my dog runs into them. It also makes it easier to keep the place cool in the summer since there's far less surface area to worry about.
My son lives in a "junior suite" - basically a classic end-windowed studio, but with a wall blocking the bed from the living area. Worst of both worlds.
I think people tend to equate minimalism (i.e. only having things that bring value to your life) with living in a smaller home. Of course you could like in a larger space without owning tons of stuff, people just have a bad habit of buying way more things than actually use and the extra space allows for that.
Personally, I went from owned a multiple bedroom condo with fair amount to things to only the things that would fit in a Subaru crosstrek. Following our weedding, my wife and I spent three months touring the country rock climbing.
Frankly, the living conditions we're awful! It was cold and wet and crowded and traveling in the fall you are left with the dilemma what do you do when the sun goes down and you are literately sleeping in a space smaller than most coffins and you have to move all your stuff to the front seats in order to lay down in the back.
However, it afforded us the privilege of visiting every state West of the Mississippi and the Canadian Rockies. I was an amazing trip that I wouldn't trade the world for! (side note: spending literally every moment with someone for 3 months strait in a very confined living space while constantly dealing with every day problems neither of you have encountered before is a really great way to break in a relationship)
That said we now live in a 650 sq/ft apartment and life is a lot more comfortable.
>side note: spending literally every moment with someone for 3 months strait in a very confined living space while constantly dealing with every day problems neither of you have encountered before is a really great way to break in a relationship
If you ask me, I'd be a proponent of limiting to above 15m2 units with shared spaces, and possibly age-limited.
In the Netherlands we have homes which are for youth only, can only rent them until age 27. I think such an age limit would make sense for such small units. The idea being that the image and culture of these buildings are focused on instilling the notion that these spaces are temporary.
I think it's fine you live in a 15m2 unit at age 20 as a student. But if you want to do that at age 40, it's super likely that it's not by choice. And that's not something we ought to necessarily allow.
The successful concepts I've seen typically have high-quality washer/dryers separate. A large communal kitchen to supplement a small private kitchen. A communal hangout space.
And finally, a private event room you can rent, e.g. 10 times a year, to say host parties, music, poetry, debates etc. If you've got say 360 days out of the year and a morning, noon and evening slot, you've basically got about 1000 slots to fill each year. If you share such a space with 25 units, each unit could rent the room almost every month.
None of this is perfect, particularly the age-limit is hard to enforce, and you start to touch on the gov vs personal-freedom debate. But I think the above minimum guidelines would be the least bad solution that finds a reasonable balance.
It really depends on the city though. If there's a ton of housing shortage and you've got people forced into 3-hour commutes, illegal dwellings, homelessness, >60% rent/income etc, aspects of which you see for example in Manilla, it makes sense to allow 15m2 units. In a city where there's no such housing shortage, I think it makes sense to set the minimum legal standard a bit higher.
> But if you want to do that at age 40, it's super likely that it's not by choice. And that's not something we ought to necessarily allow
If you mandate luxury in housing, everyone who cannot afford that level of luxury will go without housing -- or will end up in illegal and unsafe sublets with abusive landlords, which is far worse than an apartment of one's own that happens to have a floor area that is below your idea of luxury.
Replace 'luxury' by 'standards', among which size, but also fire hazard standards, noise standards, pollution, accessibility, height etc, and you can see why it's silly to take this libertarian idea to the extreme.
You have to find a balance. That balance will differ from city to city. But to mandate some minimum living standard makes a lot of sense. Breaking the law is not free of consequences, illegality is not the norm, it's a strong disincentive for anyone to engage in a housing practice which we as a society deem unacceptable. A line has to be drawn somewhere. From there you can, as a government, implement programs to help people meet those standards, and provide sufficient resources to do so.
Whether you think the line should be at 3m2, or 15m2, or 50m2, you can argue. What society deems acceptable is up for debate. I fully agree there. But the notion no mandated 'luxury', or minimum standard, should be set, and for government to just allow anything, without standards, because hey, otherwise you might create a situation where almost everyone lives according to an acceptable standard, except for a few edge cases temporarily breaking the standard illegally... I think that's silly.
I've considered living in one but the prices are not any lower and sometimes even higher than renting my own apartment. Maybe if I knew they had a community organizer that planned activities most days I'd consider paying the premium.
Some apparently have a theme like "musicians" so you have people the jam with and they have practice rooms.
Yeah I run into a similar story here, small modern units aren't necessarily cheaper, unfortunately.
Normally you'd expect this to generate a lot of turnover because there's a decent chance you can find a better deal on a $/m2 basis within a year or so. Which is tricky for normal landlords, because you need to organise viewings and find another tenant, which leads to temporary vacancy and lost income.
But these hotel-room like units tend to be so so uniform and modern, that, like hotels, you can easily get them booked via an online system without even having to organise viewing days or whatever, or better, generate a waiting list online of tens of people who're willing to move into one the moment one becomes available.
We have small apartments that aren't age-limited here, too, but they start (based on building regulations) at 18m2. The 'really' small units of 15m2 are allowed only for student rentals, which are typically linked to an age (27) or university enrolment requirement, or both.
The sensible limit is around 25 square meters / 250 square feet. Any smaller and you start losing function exponentially.
The amount of organizations, businesses and cultural things started from couches, kitchen tables or hobby rooms are plenty. Certainly not something to be underestimated as a benefit to society.
Something about that size seems like pretty much the bare minimum. My point of reference is a hotel I often stay at in NY which makes something of a virtue of its small "cabins." They're 170 sq. ft. and the minimally separated bathroom is about as small as you could make it. There's a bed and a minimal desk (maybe a few square feet) and desk chair. No closet, no kitchen or even room for a mini-refrigerator or hotplate, etc. Add 80 sq. ft., make the bed a futon, and you start to be a place where one person could almost live out of a suitcase but it would still be pretty minimal for any length of time.
I lived just fine on 16m² for 2½ years, and I had plenty of space for everything I needed to do. I could have 3-4 people over in comfort, any more and we just used the common room or a nearby cafe.
I have lived in smaller as well. But the point is that somewhere around 25 square meters you start taking away functional space. There is a big difference between a 120 cm wide bed and a 70 cm wide bed, or a 90 cm cook top and a 45 cm cook top, or 140 cm wide desk and a 70 cm wide desk. But the same isn't necessarily true as you go up. It is nice to have a bigger kitchen, but the utility diminishes. Or at least per unit of space. While just having a hot plate is likely to decrease ones likelihood of e.g. eating healthy.
Tokyo is a city. There are lots of things to do. If you are never at home except to sleep why do you need more than a bed? You don't live in the apartment, you sleep there. Your waking hours are spent out in the city (work, shopping, parks, night clubs, concerts...)
The apartments shown in the article would probably be on the "too small" end of the scale for me, living there by myself.
I lived for a couple of years in a 16m² apartment, and with a bit of clever placement of furniture, it was quite comfortable. It definitely forced me to be more critical about buying new things, considering the space it would take up.
The bathroom was private, which I something I would insist on. Washing machines and dryers were shared, which is fine, especially since they were good-quality industrial units.
My only real annoyance was that the kitchen was just a small nook in the corner, with a fridge, a sink and two hotplates. Cooking something like bacon would stink up the whole apartment, as it was impossible to separate the cooking area from the living area. There was no oven and hardly any usable working surface, which quickly becomes annoying if you like to cook. I made do with a cheap toaster oven, but I would prefer not to have to do that again.
Small living is very possible, even in some comfort. I would recommend most people try it out at some point in their lives.
I guess I must not know what I'm missing. I've used Visual Studio for 15 years. gdb for 10. I have zero issues using the Chrome's debugger. I don't no what's different about the breakpoints in Chrome. The seem to offer the same features.
Well my main issue is that most of the time when I put a breakpoint somewhere it just doesn't work, or if it works it's pretty much impossible to move forward or backward from line to line because, as stated in OP's article, going to next line in a React app for example, you end up in the actual React implementation code instead of being able to separate framework and written code.
To me, that makes it pretty much unusable enough that I just don't try to use anymore.
It won't work without a central authority. See Soundcloud as an example. People tag their music with whatever they think will get them traffic. So, in order to do this you'll need a mass of volunteers which will lead to politics "XYZ should be classified as G! No it should be F!", "classifying ABC as DEF is racists/sexist/..." and other arguments. You'll also get people lobbying to have things removed (right to be forgotten, pornography, drug ad, prostitution ads, disparaging the government -China, -Thailand, etc..., etc...
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but I think it will be way more work than expected and there will be all kinds of issues.
If anything, that sounds like a solid argument to decentralize it. I don't want China's government, white supremacists, churches, soccer moms, Jihadis or grievance-of-the-month activists controlling how information is indexed; I would rather use multiple indexes that balance out controlling interests and biases.
Unfortunately if it's decentralized, then it becomes controlled by spamlords, SEO artists, advertisers, and anyone else who stands to gain from manipulating the index to their advantage. At least if it's centralized, the fights are out in the open and have a chance of converging on something reasonable (like e.g. wikipedia).
I believe the problems are far smaller when building web directories in narrower contexts such as people using the web to learn new topics / acquire new skills. News, politics is where most of controversies lie, compared to, say algorithms or abstract algebra.
Our project LearnAwesome[1] currently relies on volunteers to curate topics, but classfication / ontology engineering is in fact seems to be a hard problem.
No, you wouldn't need a central authority, though various subject indices and/or search interfaces (divorced from the crawl/index) would supply rank and/or reputation scores.
Why do you believe governments will do a better job? Seeing how well the SF government is at doing anything? Or the state of NYC public transit. Even worse, unlike say roads which probably last 15-20 years, tech will be obsolete in 5 and you expect the government to some how keep paying for upgrades?
Also, it seems relatively hard to abuse electricity as it's billed by unit but I'm guessing you'd expect municipal broadband to somehow be unlimited access and still let everyone who wants to torrent movies all day long? Will there be a push for government to prevent undesirable content (ie, porn) from being transmitted on public networks?
I'm not saying the system there today is good. The monopolies Time Warner / Spectrum have need to be fixed but it doesn't seem that municipal broadband is a better solution.
Microsoft suits were not global. There is no global government. In the USA Apple is 50% +/- 5% in Mobile. Samsung is #2 at 24%, Lg 6%, Motorola 4%
On top of which Microsoft suit specifically calls out "Intel compatible PC operating systems"
From the ruling
> The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating systems in violation of 2; attempted to gain a monopoly in the market for internet browsers in violation of 2; and illegally tied two purportedly separate products, Windows and Internet Explorer ("IE"), in violation of 1.
In other words, Apple's market on Power PC machines at the time was not even taken into consideration.
Using the same logic we Apple has 100% market share on A-series based processors. ARM is not hardware it's a spec that any company can build hardware around and Apple is building their own.
Apple dictate the browser engine to 1.3billion devices. They use that monopoly to force browser standards since by disallowing browser engine competition on iOS they are able to lord those 1.3billion users over the any standard they want/don't want since other browsers are iOS are not allowed to provide their own engines and therefore can't support newer standards and so Apple prevents and real competition in browsers on iOS.
Similar issues are coming up with Apple being the only store and only way to get software on iOS. Those issues are in the courts now in both the USA and EU.
On top of which Microsoft suit specifically calls out "Intel compatible PC operating systems"
They are talking about Companies like Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, who made intel hardware. What choices did those companies have for an OS for their computers? Windows effectively had a 100% monopoly. They aren't talking about consumer alternatives, where you could by a Mac.
55% isn't a monopoly, Android is a very good substitute, so not really comparable to the 90s where you needed a desktop and Office to get work done and Windows controlled 90-95% of the market.
I get the use of an amazing map service for which I pay them with my data. I even contribute fixes, reviews, and photos. I'm pretty happy with that price. I don't give them anything for free. They pay me in service.
I actually want the ads too although I want them 100x better than they are and I'm sure Google like Amazon will fail for a while at curating the fake stuff. In an ideal world they'd have inventory and menus of every store so I could search for "pizza with avocados open now" or "1/4inch wrench" and it could tell me exactly where I can get them right now.
>. "pizza with avocados open now" or "1/4inch wrench" and it could tell me exactly where I can get them right now.
Answering queries like that has so much revenue potential. Possibly even more than the rest of Google put together. You bet they're trying to get there and have been for years. The reality is it's super hard to collect that data.
They've tried getting shops to upload info about what they sell (the Google Shopping manifest files). They've tried putting Bluetooth trackers in every store (they mailed them out to all big businesses in 2014 and said 'stick one of these in every department of your shop') to track who goes there to know what store might have what products. They've tried putting their own staff in the stores (Google Shopping Express, and the Chromebox staff in electronics stores).
