|
Here is a random 38 sq.m. apartment in a much newer building (I'd guess late 1990s). One of the pictures is the shower/bathroom. Oh, and it's $1770/month. 
Computer viking has a new favorite as of 15:26 on May 13, 2014 |
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
IndustrialApe posted:My Uncle, who is 85, once did some research for the anniversary of housing corporation he worked for and it turned out the house he (and my dad) grew up in was considered too luxurious by some for the people that lived there. They had a private bathroom and that was a waste of money for these people. I have three full sized bathrooms each with separate showers and baths. Not even a ritzy expensive house by the standards in my area (smallest on the street). Living alone in it at the moment means I have a first world problem of deciding which one is closer if I need to poop. And the one I go to is always the one without toilet paper (and more importantly no wifi) 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
My dad once mentioned he had painted some posh late-1800s apartments that had now-disabled pipes to pump seawater to the bathtubs - it was apparently quite the luxury.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Here is a random 38 sq.m. apartment in a much newer building (I'd guess late 1990s). One of the pictures is the shower/bathroom. The thing is, that bathroom isn't really that tiny even by American urban standards. But why not just put in a partition between the shower and everything else? It's not as if stand-up shower cubicle things aren't widely available.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
GrandMaster posted:That ain't terrifying, this is: No wonder so many Nazis fled to South America. They share opinions when it comes to turning showers into deathtraps.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No wonder so many Nazis fled to South America. They share opinions when it comes to turning showers into deathtraps. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:The thing is, that bathroom isn't really that tiny even by American urban standards. But why not just put in a partition between the shower and everything else? It's not as if stand-up shower cubicle things aren't widely available. I suspect they took down a dingy shower curtain before taking the pictures, but yes - a folding door or something would have made a lot of sense. (And I've seen way worse, up to literal "your legs have to go out the door to sit on the toilet"-designs. That was literally the first result.  )
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
—
Pretty good has a new favorite as of 14:04 on Apr 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:The thing is, that bathroom isn't really that tiny even by American urban standards. But why not just put in a partition between the shower and everything else? It's not as if stand-up shower cubicle things aren't widely available. Then again, why bother? It's not like anything in the room is sensitive to water and a man needs room to do his shower karates.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
A curtain also disrupts air convection, so you don't have so much of a cold loving breeze on your junk screwing with your hot shower zen.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Then again, why bother? It's not like anything in the room is sensitive to water and a man needs room to do his shower karates. That is something I wish caught on more in America. Why shouldn't my entire bathroom be made of walls, floor, and possibly ceiling that is made to get wet? But no, someone decided it was better to put drywall up, and then make sure to get the special drywall for wet environments, and make sure the exhaust fan is good enough to get the hot, steamy air out because even "wet environment" drywall will get mildew-y. Get some cheap linoleum floor that will let tons of water leak to the sub-floor (or, God-forbid...carpet. *shudder*) I know there are newer bathrooms that are basically all-tile, and tile floors aren't that rare, but it really should be the standard to be all-tile everywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Here is a random 38 sq.m. apartment in a much newer building (I'd guess late 1990s). One of the pictures is the shower/bathroom. I have a 37 sq./m. one bedroom, meaning living room has the bed, in Denmark that looks like total crap compared to that. Bathroom is slightly bigger, but there is no room in the kitchenette for anything but two hot plates and a tiny combi-oven. That I live in a apartment complex from the 70s and there's no money to renovate lovely 1-bedroom apartments like mine might have something to do with it. Now I'm depressed  edit: to be fair, I'm not in the Copenhagen area, and it's $385/month + utilities.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Old and "obsolete" tech still has some uses. For instance, Wordstar 4.0 on DOS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5REM-3nWHg Pretty good idea for avoiding distractions, too.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
There are still quite a few programmers out there that use vi, which is a text editor written in 1976. It doesn't have a user interface in the modern sense of the term, and there is no way you can do anything if you aren't familiar with it, but once you climb the learning cliff you can do everything using fewer keystrokes than in modern software. It works on the principle that if you shave a second off a task you do hundreds of times a day, those seconds add up, which makes the time you spend learning it worthwhile.
Konstantin has a new favorite as of 01:35 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
If I'm ever a rich man I want a shower that's an entire room.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:It works on the principle that if you shave a second off a task you do hundreds of times a day, those seconds add up, which makes the time you spend learning it worthwhile. No, it works on the principle that GUIs weren't invented yet and your editor needed to fit into like sixteen loving kilobytes and be backwards compatible with the editor that runs on teletypes. The rest is retcon bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
vi/vim, in the hands of someone who really knows it, can be really really fast, but it no longer wins the speed advantage for the average user, for whom classical keyboard shortcuts and mouse-driven menus are generally more intuitive. But I do have to admit that vim being used by someone who really knows it well can be obscenely fast for certain tasks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
carry on then posted:vi/vim, in the hands of someone who really knows it, can be really really fast, but it no longer wins the speed advantage for the average user, for whom classical keyboard shortcuts and mouse-driven menus are generally more intuitive. But I do have to admit that vim being used by someone who really knows it well can be obscenely fast for certain tasks. Every time I have to use vi I have edlin flashbacks. Apparently edlin still comes with 32-bit versions of windows, up to and including 8?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
vi isn't that hard to learn. Now ed, ed is some horrible poo poo from an era of pain and suffering.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Hey, ed is the standard editor. It's not really that hard once you calm down over not seeing changes in real time. Also, the roots of emacs go further back than vi.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
How is vi/vim any faster than nano? Not trying to start an argument, I just don't get how it can be faster. They're both rudimentary fixed-width text editors, and nano is a hell of a lot easier to use.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:How is vi/vim any faster than nano? Not trying to start an argument, I just don't get how it can be faster. They're both rudimentary fixed-width text editors, and nano is a hell of a lot easier to use. Vi includes some pretty powerful text manipulation tools that I'm not sure nano has. You can do regular expression replaces, for example, which is pretty awesome. One command to put a > in front of each line (I did that this morning): :s/^/>/g
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:No, it works on the principle that GUIs weren't invented yet and your editor needed to fit into like sixteen loving kilobytes and be backwards compatible with the editor that runs on teletypes. The rest is retcon bullshit. and emacs is better 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:How is vi/vim any faster than nano? Not trying to start an argument, I just don't get how it can be faster. They're both rudimentary fixed-width text editors, and nano is a hell of a lot easier to use. :wq!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Vi includes some pretty powerful text manipulation tools that I'm not sure nano has. You can do regular expression replaces, for example, which is pretty awesome. One command to put a > in front of each line (I did that this morning): Is that native vi or does it call sed? Or do they just have common syntax? Either way, cat, echo, sed, and output redirects are all you really need to do text editing if you're a real crusty bearded *nix weirdo. edit: I use nano, because I am a pussy who can't handle obtuse, unfriendly UIs. nightchild12 has a new favorite as of 05:15 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
nightchild12 posted:Is that native vi or does it call sed? Or do they just have common syntax? It is in fact built into vi. Vi includes the "ex" commands, which are an extension of the commands for ed. Ed = editor, afaik the earliest editor for unix. Sed = stream editor, which lets you basically apply ed commands non-interactively.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
nightchild12 posted:edit: I use nano, because I am a pussy who can't handle obtuse, unfriendly UIs. yeah I used nano on my slackware laptop since I mostly just used it to muck around with config files and the like, I'm generally quicker on GUI-based text editors, having used them for like twenty years now
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Sir_Substance posted:and emacs is better
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:You're right of course, but please keep it out of the obsolete and failed technology thread.  
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
The reason people use vi, and the reason vi is worth knowing how to use, is that it's *always* there. Any UNIX-like system, from Solaris to OS X, will have it installed. It might not be vim, but it'll be the same core vi. Having to install emacs on every system you touch is a pain, and adding editors can add potential exploit vectors (mitigated largely in things like rvim). You just never have to worry about it being there. That said, it's silly to just learn *one* editor, and there are plenty more user-friendly than vim is. But I consider it essential for UNIX system administrators at the least. Programmers, I totally understand are more emacs-oriented. gently caress ed
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
If I'm honest, I use emacs rather then vi because gently caress pressing colons and typing obscure sets of characters. People made meta keys for a reason dammit, what is wrong with the vi developers? Which brings us to another piece of obselete technology. Bask in the glory that is the space cadet keyboard:  From the days when men were men, and a keyboard that didn't have an infinity and all the equality symbols on it was a diabolical inconvenience.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
That's the new Millennial Edition with Facebook Like and Poke keys.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Regarding emacs and Vi. Isn't it true you can use anyones emacs and be fine, but the moment you need to get onto Vi on another computer you are essentially useless as all the pretty customisations you have made will not be there anymore? Or have I mixed the two up?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Regarding emacs and Vi. Isn't it true you can use anyones emacs and be fine, but the moment you need to get onto Vi on another computer you are essentially useless as all the pretty customisations you have made will not be there anymore? Or have I mixed the two up? Generally it's the other way around. Emacs is incredibly easy to customize and you kind of need to. Vi, I generally see some colorization stuff or whatnot, but it's usually pretty stock. Emacs makes customization almost too easy, since it's actually built on a Lisp system and you can reprogram the whole thing on the fly. It's easy to bind a key combination to do ANYTHING. You can write full applications inside emacs; I used to read my work email inside emacs, I have lately been using it to play streaming music, etc. Now, you should be able to sit down at most Emacs setups and use the basic functionality. Slightly more advanced/complicated things may be a bit weird.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping. I have 16 Gigabytes of RAM. I think I can spare 8 Megabytes for EMACS. (I prefer Vim, though)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping. Yes, I too remember when eight megabytes was an awful lot.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Generally it's the other way around. Emacs is incredibly easy to customize and you kind of need to. Vi, I generally see some colorization stuff or whatnot, but it's usually pretty stock. Thanks for clearing that up. In these situations where I have a 50/50 chance, I get it wrong 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:How is vi/vim any faster than nano? Not trying to start an argument, I just don't get how it can be faster. They're both rudimentary fixed-width text editors, and nano is a hell of a lot easier to use. It's faster if you take the time to learn how to do more than just open, use insert mode and close files. vi(m) is the cat's pajamas.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Sir_Substance posted:If I'm honest, I use emacs rather then vi because gently caress pressing colons and typing obscure sets of characters. People made meta keys for a reason dammit, what is wrong with the vi developers? Okay what does the Greek button do? Does it work with the Meta/Super/Hyper ones? When I press Hyper and Greek, does a fat man with a mustache come to me and complain about foreigners while he scams the government? So many questions about that one keyboard. I'm not sure if I want to know what the Rub Out button does.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 14:46
|
|
