I love how this illustrates both intrinsic complexity and why scientific discovery is mostly trial and error rather than mechanical derivation from existing models. Also, someone on HN version of this shared a GIF of what happens when a single stair is slightly too high.
The height of a stair has a surprising consistent sweet spot which most stairs adhere to. Too high and it raising feet this high creates a lot of exertion, too low and it feels very tedious to walk the stairs. Never thought about this before attending a lecture for landscape architects.
The affordances for carpentry are not THAT fine. You can always sand things down, replane, put shims, the wood itself will bend a little and so on. In fact the affordances need to be large enough that weather dependent changes don’t wreck your construct.
I would say metal work has to be more exact and has finer tolerances.
I’m sorry, I understand the facts you mention, but I’m not quite sure what point you’re getting at… unless it’s just a tangential observation, that’s fine, too.
The core point of the article is that “the devil is in the details” and I thought it mildly ironic that one of the main metaphors chosen (stair building) has qualifiers the author does not mention.
I love how this illustrates both intrinsic complexity and why scientific discovery is mostly trial and error rather than mechanical derivation from existing models. Also, someone on HN version of this shared a GIF of what happens when a single stair is slightly too high.
The height of a stair has a surprising consistent sweet spot which most stairs adhere to. Too high and it raising feet this high creates a lot of exertion, too low and it feels very tedious to walk the stairs. Never thought about this before attending a lecture for landscape architects.
The good news is: Planck’s Constant puts a limit on the level of detail.
You can get pre-fabricated, standardized, stair parts: Stair stringer, Stair steps
The affordances for carpentry are not THAT fine. You can always sand things down, replane, put shims, the wood itself will bend a little and so on. In fact the affordances need to be large enough that weather dependent changes don’t wreck your construct.
I would say metal work has to be more exact and has finer tolerances.
I’m sorry, I understand the facts you mention, but I’m not quite sure what point you’re getting at… unless it’s just a tangential observation, that’s fine, too.
The core point of the article is that “the devil is in the details” and I thought it mildly ironic that one of the main metaphors chosen (stair building) has qualifiers the author does not mention.
A little arrogant I think!