The first floor is such because it is the first one to get light. It’s the lowest floor before being underground. Being on the top floor, for many, is about being as far from the entrance, the street and the rabble as possible. The street level, where pedestrians walk (fuck cars they can go underground), needs to be able yo breathe and see the sky. Currently the city suffers a lot from the scaffolding and is fighting to set new regulations.
If the building entrance was elsewhere, the “penthouse” location would also adapt.
As for container lifts outside: aside from the obvious bulky, ugly, noisy, you would not even gain so much efficiency.
Regarding gondolas and potential drone deliveries the answer is a little harder to give since the world has not decided how it feels about a whole bunch of shit in the sky yet (obscuring the sky for people’s viewing pleasure and solar power). Future will tell! Maybe we will notice too many accidents (people spitting from windows, throwing trash, drone crashes or drops, etc)
Personally I like going down a couple private hallways and elevators to get to the places i’m going
1. The average "goer" would see a lot more sky if half of the time they were using gondolas!
2. Not every building would intersect with a hypothetical gondola network at their highest floor, so many penthouses would still rise above their building's entrances. In any case, I would like to see more of those penthouse spaces be made available as public spaces. As of now their ratio of utilization to aesthetic beauty is far too low!
3. Trucks are all of those things already, which is why we confine loading docks to back-alleys. Container lifts would much facilitate bulk deliveries to higher floors, enabling multi-story commerce.
4. We have gondolas in the some of the most beautiful parts of the worlds (often mountain regions) and we already weigh the benefits of enhancing + democratizing enjoyment of those parts of the world vs. spoiling their natural beauty. In a city, convenience goes a longer way, pylons + floating cabins would be less of a relative eyesore, and wouldn't you say that the city is most beautiful when seen from up high?
I also find it ironic that the “developed” Nations are currently working on ways to dismantle some of this “development” and how to replace it with more durable solutions yet are not helping to avoid this path.
It’s like the “developed” nation are all trying to quit smoking cigarettes while simultaneously sending cartons overseas to help the “Developing” ones. God forbid they try another way and get ahead of us somehow.
Well said. And as of now, developing nations have nowhere near the same level of smoking habit. I recently learned: "The carbon footprint of someone living in India today is still lower than that of someone in the UK in 1800: 224 years ago!"
Empathy and ability to care are distinct. Empaths are people considered more attuned to those around them but the lack of a strict definition is because it is still remains an undefined spectrum.
Other than those who are incapable of it, empathy is a capacity we all have, can train, lean into or suppress. People’s individual life situations lead them to make choices about how deal with their ability to feel other people’s feelings; in those people many choose to care and “do good” so as to derive some second hand pleasure.
Con artists usually have finely crafted the skill to better manipulate people.
Some people are a victim of their empathy and usually suffer from unwanted emotions; typically due to communication barriers such as social ineptitude or language barriers.
Picture yourself at a funeral for a foreigner you did not know and you do not speak the language. You can, with any amount of empathy, feel and understand the pain of those attending, yet are completely disconnected from them, unable to show care or support (you hand gestures are misunderstood for insults. You feel that too).
This is analogous to how certain people on the spectrum can feel in crowded places; full of unwanted emotions.
It is not surprising that from a communication point of view you may have only interacted or met with Empaths who had already mastered a minimal of social skills and mastery over their empathy.
Also, for future discussion, the difference between latent empathy and active empathy
Great points. I think we agree, although I'm separating out intent to do good from the equation, and coming from the standpoint that simply functioning in modern society requires a great deal more attention to how to be considerate from non-empaths, vs. from people to whom it comes naturally. I'm sure empathy can come as a burden for those furthest along the latter end of the spectrum, but needing to learn an acceptable amount of consideration without being able to read cues is hard too, and makes the lesson more intimately learned. It's kind of how blind mathematicians are often the best at geometry and topology. (https://twitter.com/teortaxesTex/status/1751789887194308984)
As it stands, more than HALF of Americans are unable to afford an emergency expense of 1000$. On top of that, when you take into account the percentage of luddites and tech-illiterate people in the world I think much fewer people would be interested by this “ticket to paradise”. It’s still a matter of faith.
Christianity offers a similar bundle for cheaper but isn’t more convincing.
Also don’t forget a lot of people choose to be actively politically uninvolved and they also would not be interested in a “slice of the system”
I like Sam Altman but here I think he’s just trying to sound altruistic with some pseudo-socialist magnanimity.
Yes, though right now it's between giving anyone the option to buy in vs. only giving a wealthy select few the option to buy in. I do agree that we'd need to then turn our attention towards making it more affordable for everyone to buy an equal stake.
It also doesn't have to be an emergency expense. It can be more of a gradual financial investment, like a retirement account, which for some could also be supported by some portion of the roughly half trillion dollars going to charity every year.
The amounts are large, but we are talking about a technology that is likely to render the old world order obsolete. While I don't endorse a new world order per se, I'm simply noting that it might be within our reach, if we really stretch ourselves, to guarantee an equal stake in it for all ahead of time. This seems like a better strategy than simply trusting those in power will turn around and give out the equal stake when the technology comes online.
3/13
The first floor is such because it is the first one to get light. It’s the lowest floor before being underground. Being on the top floor, for many, is about being as far from the entrance, the street and the rabble as possible. The street level, where pedestrians walk (fuck cars they can go underground), needs to be able yo breathe and see the sky. Currently the city suffers a lot from the scaffolding and is fighting to set new regulations.
If the building entrance was elsewhere, the “penthouse” location would also adapt.
As for container lifts outside: aside from the obvious bulky, ugly, noisy, you would not even gain so much efficiency.
Regarding gondolas and potential drone deliveries the answer is a little harder to give since the world has not decided how it feels about a whole bunch of shit in the sky yet (obscuring the sky for people’s viewing pleasure and solar power). Future will tell! Maybe we will notice too many accidents (people spitting from windows, throwing trash, drone crashes or drops, etc)
Personally I like going down a couple private hallways and elevators to get to the places i’m going
1. The average "goer" would see a lot more sky if half of the time they were using gondolas!
2. Not every building would intersect with a hypothetical gondola network at their highest floor, so many penthouses would still rise above their building's entrances. In any case, I would like to see more of those penthouse spaces be made available as public spaces. As of now their ratio of utilization to aesthetic beauty is far too low!
3. Trucks are all of those things already, which is why we confine loading docks to back-alleys. Container lifts would much facilitate bulk deliveries to higher floors, enabling multi-story commerce.
4. We have gondolas in the some of the most beautiful parts of the worlds (often mountain regions) and we already weigh the benefits of enhancing + democratizing enjoyment of those parts of the world vs. spoiling their natural beauty. In a city, convenience goes a longer way, pylons + floating cabins would be less of a relative eyesore, and wouldn't you say that the city is most beautiful when seen from up high?
3/6
I also find it ironic that the “developed” Nations are currently working on ways to dismantle some of this “development” and how to replace it with more durable solutions yet are not helping to avoid this path.
It’s like the “developed” nation are all trying to quit smoking cigarettes while simultaneously sending cartons overseas to help the “Developing” ones. God forbid they try another way and get ahead of us somehow.
Well said. And as of now, developing nations have nowhere near the same level of smoking habit. I recently learned: "The carbon footprint of someone living in India today is still lower than that of someone in the UK in 1800: 224 years ago!"
(Source: https://twitter.com/BoyanSlat/status/1746211702968906049)
2/21
Empathy and ability to care are distinct. Empaths are people considered more attuned to those around them but the lack of a strict definition is because it is still remains an undefined spectrum.
Other than those who are incapable of it, empathy is a capacity we all have, can train, lean into or suppress. People’s individual life situations lead them to make choices about how deal with their ability to feel other people’s feelings; in those people many choose to care and “do good” so as to derive some second hand pleasure.
Con artists usually have finely crafted the skill to better manipulate people.
Some people are a victim of their empathy and usually suffer from unwanted emotions; typically due to communication barriers such as social ineptitude or language barriers.
Picture yourself at a funeral for a foreigner you did not know and you do not speak the language. You can, with any amount of empathy, feel and understand the pain of those attending, yet are completely disconnected from them, unable to show care or support (you hand gestures are misunderstood for insults. You feel that too).
This is analogous to how certain people on the spectrum can feel in crowded places; full of unwanted emotions.
It is not surprising that from a communication point of view you may have only interacted or met with Empaths who had already mastered a minimal of social skills and mastery over their empathy.
Also, for future discussion, the difference between latent empathy and active empathy
Great points. I think we agree, although I'm separating out intent to do good from the equation, and coming from the standpoint that simply functioning in modern society requires a great deal more attention to how to be considerate from non-empaths, vs. from people to whom it comes naturally. I'm sure empathy can come as a burden for those furthest along the latter end of the spectrum, but needing to learn an acceptable amount of consideration without being able to read cues is hard too, and makes the lesson more intimately learned. It's kind of how blind mathematicians are often the best at geometry and topology. (https://twitter.com/teortaxesTex/status/1751789887194308984)
As it stands, more than HALF of Americans are unable to afford an emergency expense of 1000$. On top of that, when you take into account the percentage of luddites and tech-illiterate people in the world I think much fewer people would be interested by this “ticket to paradise”. It’s still a matter of faith.
Christianity offers a similar bundle for cheaper but isn’t more convincing.
Also don’t forget a lot of people choose to be actively politically uninvolved and they also would not be interested in a “slice of the system”
I like Sam Altman but here I think he’s just trying to sound altruistic with some pseudo-socialist magnanimity.
Yes, though right now it's between giving anyone the option to buy in vs. only giving a wealthy select few the option to buy in. I do agree that we'd need to then turn our attention towards making it more affordable for everyone to buy an equal stake.
It also doesn't have to be an emergency expense. It can be more of a gradual financial investment, like a retirement account, which for some could also be supported by some portion of the roughly half trillion dollars going to charity every year.
The amounts are large, but we are talking about a technology that is likely to render the old world order obsolete. While I don't endorse a new world order per se, I'm simply noting that it might be within our reach, if we really stretch ourselves, to guarantee an equal stake in it for all ahead of time. This seems like a better strategy than simply trusting those in power will turn around and give out the equal stake when the technology comes online.