4 ms·

I think the author was very clear in his post that this isn‘t an alternative to a real house, he explicitely called it an „ephemeral“ structure, and he compared

I think the author was very clear in his post that this isn‘t an alternative to a real house, he explicitely called it an „ephemeral“ structure, and he compared it to teepees and yurts. I think this was a great article, and it feels like you are more complaining about a genre of articles instead of this article in particular.

roel_v 9y ago
Indeed my whining is about the genre, but I feel the author is making some broad claims about wider applicability, for example: "The difference in the ability of these different structures to shelter and provide a nice place to live is dramatic." (notice the words 'place to live') "The frameless dome pictured above is the culmination of my experience with these structures. Three and a half years after building it I am ready to advocate it as an excellent alternative lightweight structure." ('advocating an alternative structure' - one doesn't do that about tents) "I think this frameless dome balances many of the trade-offs of lightweight structures and arrives at an optimal structure that drastically minimizes construction complexity, time and price while maximizing livability." (again, the reference to 'livability', and wording that suggests something more permanent than a tent, like 'structure') These are just 3 sentences, but the entire first half makes claims that go beyond 'hey this is nice to go camping in' or 'you can sleep in your backyards for a few nights in summer in this'.
- xelxebar 9y ago
  It's more robust than a tent, but not so much as a brick and mortar house. I'm not sure what you want him to call it, but for what it's worth, I certainly didn't read the article like a zealous advocacy piece. It seems to me like this guy is just excited about domes, so I'm curious what background you may have that causes the article to poke your annoyance buttons.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    OK I think reasonable people can disagree on what they take away from this piece. So maybe he meant this as a mere build log, and not to stimulate others to do this for anything but fun. In which case - great. Where I'm coming from (the following is navel gazing, but hey, you asked :) ) is the plethora of people who 'advocate' things that they have only rudimentary experience with, and of which they fail to see the broader context if it were adopted on a larger scale. I especially experience this in 'modern back to nature' movement, but I guess it happens equally in software. For example: - like here, people advocating flimsy alternatives to houses for permanent residence (simplistic car tire or rammed earth houses for example; not the real engineered type, but the 'let me get a few buddies and a crate of beer and I'll build a house over a long weekend' type) because they as a single male engineer with family who owns some land have managed to 'live' (read: sleep and code) in it for a few seasons; - the rocket stove zealot, proposing that people use those for everyday cooking without making it part of their identify or self-worth; - the 'self sufficiency' crowd, thinking they'll go 'live off the land' on half an acre growing some zucchinis and 5 chickens. Or in a log house in Alaska - which they have to build with 50 tonnes excavators and for hunting they need a rifle with a scope for which the lenses need to be cut in a vacuum lab for sufficient clarity; but hey I pulled the trigger so I'm self-sufficient amirite? - part of the 'organic food'/'farmers market' cheerleaders. Look, I buy organic as much as I can; and I love farmers markets. But these are luxuries, they're not part of the solution for a 'sustainable' future. We can't feed that many people on inefficient agricultural techniques. - the 'urban farmers' and related folk. I have a garden in an urban area myself; again, I'm not complaining about the principle. But thinking that this is something that can be upscaled as an alternative to 'traditional' agriculture is just silly; and sometimes dangerous when it takes away from real alternatives. In this category is my favorite idiot: the ones who go to town hall meetings to advocate for planting fruit trees all over town to feed the poor and the homeless. I have yet to meet a single one who has ever tended to a single tree, let alone one who has tackled the many problems with this on the surface great concept. But that doesn't stop them from pushing others to work on their braindead ideas, and thereby harming the efforts of others who have actually workable plans (which are less ambitious and nowhere near as flashy, but at least not doomed to failure). I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm annoyed at people who assume that everybody else is an idiot, and that they're Gods gift to mankind who has come to tell the unwashed masses how to achieve enlightenment (that's not what OP was doing, just talking in general). Instead, have some humility, try to understand why things are the way they are, check if your proposed solution has the same problems others have, and if they don't, show that you've done your homework by pointing out how your solution is better than the others by highlighting them.

roel_v 9y ago

Indeed my whining is about the genre, but I feel the author is making some broad claims about wider applicability, for example: "The difference in the ability of these different structures to shelter and provide a nice place to live is dramatic." (notice the words 'place to live') "The frameless dome pictured above is the culmination of my experience with these structures. Three and a half years after building it I am ready to advocate it as an excellent alternative lightweight structure." ('advocating an alternative structure' - one doesn't do that about tents) "I think this frameless dome balances many of the trade-offs of lightweight structures and arrives at an optimal structure that drastically minimizes construction complexity, time and price while maximizing livability." (again, the reference to 'livability', and wording that suggests something more permanent than a tent, like 'structure') These are just 3 sentences, but the entire first half makes claims that go beyond 'hey this is nice to go camping in' or 'you can sleep in your backyards for a few nights in summer in this'.

xelxebar 9y ago
It's more robust than a tent, but not so much as a brick and mortar house. I'm not sure what you want him to call it, but for what it's worth, I certainly didn't read the article like a zealous advocacy piece. It seems to me like this guy is just excited about domes, so I'm curious what background you may have that causes the article to poke your annoyance buttons.
- roel_v 9y ago
  OK I think reasonable people can disagree on what they take away from this piece. So maybe he meant this as a mere build log, and not to stimulate others to do this for anything but fun. In which case - great. Where I'm coming from (the following is navel gazing, but hey, you asked :) ) is the plethora of people who 'advocate' things that they have only rudimentary experience with, and of which they fail to see the broader context if it were adopted on a larger scale. I especially experience this in 'modern back to nature' movement, but I guess it happens equally in software. For example: - like here, people advocating flimsy alternatives to houses for permanent residence (simplistic car tire or rammed earth houses for example; not the real engineered type, but the 'let me get a few buddies and a crate of beer and I'll build a house over a long weekend' type) because they as a single male engineer with family who owns some land have managed to 'live' (read: sleep and code) in it for a few seasons; - the rocket stove zealot, proposing that people use those for everyday cooking without making it part of their identify or self-worth; - the 'self sufficiency' crowd, thinking they'll go 'live off the land' on half an acre growing some zucchinis and 5 chickens. Or in a log house in Alaska - which they have to build with 50 tonnes excavators and for hunting they need a rifle with a scope for which the lenses need to be cut in a vacuum lab for sufficient clarity; but hey I pulled the trigger so I'm self-sufficient amirite? - part of the 'organic food'/'farmers market' cheerleaders. Look, I buy organic as much as I can; and I love farmers markets. But these are luxuries, they're not part of the solution for a 'sustainable' future. We can't feed that many people on inefficient agricultural techniques. - the 'urban farmers' and related folk. I have a garden in an urban area myself; again, I'm not complaining about the principle. But thinking that this is something that can be upscaled as an alternative to 'traditional' agriculture is just silly; and sometimes dangerous when it takes away from real alternatives. In this category is my favorite idiot: the ones who go to town hall meetings to advocate for planting fruit trees all over town to feed the poor and the homeless. I have yet to meet a single one who has ever tended to a single tree, let alone one who has tackled the many problems with this on the surface great concept. But that doesn't stop them from pushing others to work on their braindead ideas, and thereby harming the efforts of others who have actually workable plans (which are less ambitious and nowhere near as flashy, but at least not doomed to failure). I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm annoyed at people who assume that everybody else is an idiot, and that they're Gods gift to mankind who has come to tell the unwashed masses how to achieve enlightenment (that's not what OP was doing, just talking in general). Instead, have some humility, try to understand why things are the way they are, check if your proposed solution has the same problems others have, and if they don't, show that you've done your homework by pointing out how your solution is better than the others by highlighting them.