If the status quo means having a place to live in what was your and your family's neighborhood (cultural and actual) for a long time, yours is not really an indictment.
It's a pretty damning indictment for anyone who thought, even briefly, about exactly how that would work. How exactly will someone and their family have a place to live, in the same neighborhood? Will someone be responsible for ensuring that population doesn't grow too much? And will someone else be responsible for deciding how long "a long time" is, or what happens after said time passes? I mean, of course it would be fantastic if nice shit just fell out of the sky and could be had merely by bending down to pick it up off the ground – but that's an infantile hope and it's stupid to expect it.
Perhaps, but the view fails to understand what a city is and that cities change, grow and die. Cities are not monolithic static entities. They are not 'living' museums.
Here's an edge.org answer that briefly touches on this - from the other end, by another great physicist, Anton Zeilinger[0]: http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25548
It's a great idea!
Not crazy about the busy background, but that might be an age thing. More importantly for me, having the "anonymous" label for posts is a bit of a distraction. Are the user names revealed only while logged in? If so, I'd hide that field from the unregistered masses, it doesn't inspire trust.
Right now if a user is registered and logged in when they post it shows "username's reflections" rather than "anonymous' reflections", but I suppose that's there's no signal just noise with that word, so I should probably remove it. Good call!
I change my mind every other day whether I should give up on trying to have a super bold design and just strip it down or if I should stick with the polarizing stuff haha. It's my first web design that I've tried to give a more unique look rather than a Google-esque function before form type treatment.
edit: I couldn't figure out why I was a little confused reading this, but it's because there is no one coherent answer in this article.
edit: I asked because the article doesn't answer that, aside from a small sampling. And the phase before this seems to be from only a couple of years ago ("Aaron Leitko wrote a 2011 Pitchfork feature about it called 'Positive Destruction'.") I don't know SF, but I've seen gentrification up close a few times in larger US cities, it usually takes longer. Hence my question.
There is a whole genre of educational documentaries that basically have no point of view (other than general, popular consensus). For me, the best documentaries are basically audio books with very good illustrations, and while audio books don't work for me at all, documentaries do. From watching hundreds of hours of them, I think the best ones actually lack an overarching story (seeng as how reality usually doesn't have an epic climax). Because the content is being delivered so fast, there's some latency involved here, but the medium lends itself well to repeat watching, listening, or both.
Something like BBC/PBS "Universe" stuff from the late 90's aged very well because they are snapshots of discoveries and problems that now are not nearly as exciting anymore, but they tell you a lot about the very recent history of the subject. This goes for a lot of other subjects, whether it's art, or math, or history. Documentaries can be historical documents in themselves, just check out "Civilization" from 1970 (I think), or "The Human Animal" from 1994.
Soundtrack, narration opening, editing, those all hold clues to trusting or not trusting the content, and it's pretty easy to establish credibility and historical context early on. But they can also be the equivalent of an amazing lecturer.
Edit: one obvious addition to the biography section would be "The Quest For Tannu Tuva", parts of an autobiographical interview with Feynman, on YouTube as well.
Edit 2: "The Strange Life and Death of Dr. Alan Turing" from 1992 as well.
I caught Civilzation in one of its early re-broadasts, though was too young to appreciate it at the time. I've downloaded it and it's on my watch list.
Note though: the programs almost always had some point of view. Burke editorializes a few times in Connections (particularly in the 1st, 2nd, and final episodes). Clarke has a distinct vision of Western Civilization. Carl Sagan's thoughts on the importance of science, possiblities of extraterrestrial life, and against mysticism and nonscientific thinking are clear in Cosmos. The fact that the views are more aligned with convention don't lessen this any.
