Buy Duralex — the glassware that soon won't explode.

So, Hardy focused on good explanations, and that was what he meant by beauty. Fair enough. The best objective definition of beauty I know of is "communication across a gap". This covers flowers, mathematics, and all kinds of art, including art I think is ugly such as Lucian Freud and Hans Giger I guess. So now I'm describing some things as beautiful and ugly at the same time, which betrays that there's a relative component to it (relative, objectively). That means I wish some things - including mathematics, which is usually tedious - communicated better, or explained things that seem to me to matter more: I feel in my gut that there's potential for this. So I don't rate mathematics as beautiful, any of it, personally.

But I'll admit its barely beautiful. Within which context, I guess the article's lawyering for the relative beauty of a matrix was a success, but I always liked them better than calculus or group theory anyway.

"Creeping elegance", I guess: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/creeping_elegance

But elegant can mean minimal, restrained, parsimonious, sparing. That's different from a bunch a paraphernalia and flowery nonsense.

Global, I guess. It has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_crisis

There's specific pages for some individual countries, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_crisis_in_the_United_S...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing_in_Canada#A...

This one is about housing crisis, not "western homeless crisis".

At least in Europe it is not (yet?) causing very large scale of homelessness problem.

I find the name "housing crisis" misleading, because if I look at average floor area per capita, I think we should call this "expectations changed faster than buildings". For example https://doi.org/10.2908/ILC_HCMH01 (variation between 43 to 141).

I'd say it's a bit more complex as you have to deal with capital financing and a number of regulations like parking in cities that lead to issues.

Doesn't find R Soles.

Doesn't find Crystal Palace

There are around 50 results for Crystal Palace, Ill have a look through the logs to see what might have gone wrong

Sadly no R Soles though (A shoe shop formerly in Chelsea but now online) - however, just searching for profanities does bring back some graffiti

In rural Gabon, presumably I wouldn't be renting but would own my own unsafe shanty. It's really tempting. But living in Libreville has more of a ring to it.

British standards are all BS. The electrical wiring one is BS7671. It divides the bathroom into zones: https://flameport.com/wiring_regulations/BS7671_selected_sub...

Zone 0 is inside the bathtub. Damn, so I can't put an outlet there? Zone 1 is over it, and zone 2 is 2 feet around it, and allows 12-volt outlets for small gadgets. Beyond that you can have ordinary outlets with the right circuit breakers (aka RCDs, GFCIs) integrated into them.

Clarify that, please? Maybe you mean "most corporations are short-lived due to excess central planning", or then again "most corporations are full of crusty old dudes who love the tradition of central planning", or ..?

I may believe both of those things, but no that's not actually what I meant. I simply meant look at the stats for how long corporations actually live. Are we sure that's how we want to structure our government?

Some corps live 1 year and others have been around for 150+ and they all use central planning. This seems unrelated.

Without comparing the management styles of different corporations it's difficult to say if it's related or not. For example, it's possible that long-lived corporations are run in a more laissez-faire style compared to ones that fail.

Interestingly, one marker for longevity is distributed ownership, aka profit share or co-op structures, or family run businesses. Co-ops specifically have much longer longevity than traditional corporations.