4 ms·
Right. You can train a person to put 2x4's together to frame a house fairly easily (it's not hard). Teaching someone to collate nonstandard bits into a structu
by likpok 17y ago
Right. You can train a person to put 2x4's together to frame a house fairly easily (it's not hard).
Teaching someone to collate nonstandard bits into a structurally sound building would be much harder. The base problem therefore is that while yes he's reusing goods, the houses are only cheap because he values his time so little.
- JacobAldridge 17y ago"The houses are only cheap because he values his time so little" I love it when somebody grabs the point I was trying to make, and says it ten times better.
- Retric 17y agoHe is makeing a living doing this. The housing is cheep to create, because the materials and land are donated pluss he is not trying to fit a generic mold. At the same time I think he is selling them for less than they are worth.
- gloob 17y agothe houses are only cheap because he values his time so little. An alternative way to put it is that the houses are only expensive if he places negligible value on the enjoyment he gets from doing this. Your criticism could be applied to most of my favourite activities, in any case. I don't really see much of a market for a flagrantly-inefficient Scheme-to-32-bit-x86-assembly compiler, but I'm bloody well doing it anyway, because I just like it.
- nopassrecover 17y agoYou missed the point. It is not scalable because most people value their time higher.
- gloob 17y agoNo; it's not scalable because most people wouldn't gain any enjoyment from it and it takes a non-trivial amount of effort to train them to do it so you can pay them. How much they "value their time" has little to do with it.
- nopassrecover 17y agoTwo sides of the same coin. I was just countering what I saw in your comment which was that we can all get by doing the things we love simply for the love of them.