One enduring insight from Brian Potter (Construction Physics) is that the cost of manufacturing tends to go down with scale, while the cost of construction doesn't drop nearly as much. Batteries are made in a factory and then pretty much just hooked up, while gas turbines have to be built. So, the difference in forecasts makes sense if you apply that rule.
There have been some experiments with prefabricated construction, but you still run into the issue that shipping really big things is hard, as we've seen with wind turbine blades. Robotic construction might make a dent at some point, but it still seems to be basically embryonic.
>In 1948, [Linus] Pauling discovered that many proteins included helical (see alpha helix) shapes. Pauling had deduced this structure from X-ray patterns and from attempts to physically model the structures. (Pauling was also later to suggest an incorrect three chain helical DNA structure based on Astbury's data.) Even in the initial diffraction data from DNA by Maurice Wilkins, it was evident that the structure involved helices.
>Franklin told Crick and Watson that the [phosphate] backbones had to be on the outside. Before then, Linus Pauling, and Watson and Crick, had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.
The mere idea of a helix is not especially complex and could have existed in the minds of many theorists at the time. Franklin's discovery provided the final piece of the puzzle, but the desire to attribute major scientific discoveries to a single author or team is based on an incorrect interpretation of the scientific process. The real reason that Franklin didn't win the Nobel Prize is because she died:
>In 1962, after Franklin's death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins jointly received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[210] Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living recipients. A debate continues about who should receive credit for the discovery.
A student of Franklin, Raymond Gosling, actually took Photo 51. He was not awarded the Prize.
Pauling would certainly figure out that too before Watson and Crick but his passport was taken by USA gov so he couldn't attend the conference where X-Ray picture was shown. That would almost certainly win him third Nobel Prize.
Wikipedia is fair to cite Odgers's review. But the nature of the available evidence means that Odgers would be overstating her case to say that Haidt's theory is conclusively wrong, and Haidt would be overstating his case if he claimed to be conclusively right.
You see, the effect on social media on socialization has two parts. The first is the direct effect on an individual caused by their own use of social media. The second is the effect on an individual's social environment when everyone around them is on social media. The first effect is difficult but basically feasible to study. The second effect is downright wicked. So dismissing evidence that hints at the second effect as being "mere correlation that disappears under scrutiny" is not valid reasoning when your process of scrutiny focuses on the first effect.
In social science you have to accept reasoning from incomplete data. You won't always have the answers. I don't think Haidt really stands above or below his peers in any category except notoriety. Of course anyone who has worked with scientists knows to be a little suspicious of a researcher who seems to enjoy being in the public eye. But as the public eye, we're still stuck with them.
> Odgers wrote: the book's repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science.
I have a hard time buying this statement. We have plenty of evidence that chronic use of addictive substances lead to depression, and that social media use is highly addictive. So it is not some huge logical leap to conclude chronic social media use leads to depression.
It is an ancient practice, that when a human creates something, other humans will observe it and learn from it. Every group of humans living together has practiced this in some form for tens of thousands of years if not longer. Even animals do it. It's a natural assumption when making any form of art.
It is not a natural assumption that someone will digitize the artwork and use it to adjust a couple thousand matrix coefficients in a complex computer program. To most people that seems like copying with extra steps. The brain may in some ways resemble a computer, but what sets it apart is that we have always lived with brains. Everything a human does has already anticipated the presence of other brains, while etched circuits on ultrapure silicon crystals are something new.
My favorite example is "The Beatles" of chemotherapy, viz. platinum, paclitaxel and doxorubicin, at least one of which appears in nearly all first-line cancer drug regimens.
We know how to make MRI cheaper. Put it in a can. MRI suites are built with copper shielding in the walls, and the machines are really heavy, which creates huge capital costs. (Capex is a big problem for medicine.) There's an easy solution: you can just put an MRI machine in a standard tractor-trailer container and bring the patients in. Nothing has to be constructed or installed.
None of the private equity chains with the sans-serif fonts, simplified logos and trisyllabic names are doing this, though. It's bad marketing. Patients don't want to walk outside to an MRI machine in the parking lot. It feels sketchy. Never mind that they score just as well on the ACR image quality tests as the in-room machines. Who the hell knows what that is?
In reality, it's the county hospitals and big universities that use them! Places that have in-house physicists who can argue for what really makes sense in practice. A major problem with healthcare as a business is that the customer does not usually understand the product, but they still need to buy it, and there are time constraints.
> Patients don't want to walk outside to an MRI machine in the parking lot. It feels sketchy.
Seems like you could build a hallway around the trailer; if you do it right, nobody knows it's a trailer in the middle of the building. If you do it really well, you can still pull the trailer out.
If human society collapses, our cities and landfills will become ores. Strange ores filled with unnatural mixtures of metals, but ores nonetheless.
The sources you've linked discuss mostly the recovery of additional metals on top of what we have already recovered. That's a different and much harder problem. It's worth remembering that historically, the amount of metal obtained was much smaller — the vast majority of the copper that has ever been mined was mined in the last century, even though humans have been using copper for thousands of years. But historically, that copper was mostly used for consumer products, while today it becomes electrical cables, so it's less obvious how much copper we all use. There's surely enough copper in the walls of my apartment for everyone living here to cook in a copper pan, even though we think of copper pans as being too expensive nowadays.
This is a defense of glass, specifically, and not a class of architecture in general. And "traditional" architecture is not a properly descriptive term; it tells us where the architecture came from, not what it is. Architecture is basically a creative process, and we can't handwave away the complexity by using temporal language like "traditional" and "modern".
The problem with modern architecture, in my opinion, is its preference for "dramatic effect": long contours, flat surfaces, high contrast. This is visually exhausting. It looks nice in a catalog and from a large distance, but it's uncomfortable to be close to. This doesn't follow from the use of more glass. It's a historical coincidence that the float glass process made windows cheaper around the same time that architects started experimenting with smoothness.
>Have you been schooled in farming? Raising livestock? Milking cattle?
You're equating life skills to professional skills. I was not taught to milk a cow, but my milk comes from someone who was. The topic is whether software engineers in a professional context learned certain things about software.
There have been some experiments with prefabricated construction, but you still run into the issue that shipping really big things is hard, as we've seen with wind turbine blades. Robotic construction might make a dent at some point, but it still seems to be basically embryonic.
reply