Haha, all fair points. It's a tricky process no doubt, and I'm certainly not objecting to architects being creative, particularly at the "pretty pictures" phase of design.
Just reckon the bureaucrats deserve some sympathy :)
Exactly. As irritating as it might be at times, regulation is needed to prevent this kind of tragedy.
I went to see an architect (who I'd heard had designed the building I live in) talk recently. It was quite interesting but I got a bit irritated by his attitude. One thing that bugged me was his insistence on painting any council building inspectors as his sworn enemies. He may have been playing it for laughs a bit (I'm not sure), but his whole narrative was like "all our best ideas get thwarted by these no-fun bureaucrats; architects hate building regulators so we have to keep tricking them into letting us get away with doing things differently".
And like... sure some compliance stuff must be tedious but, dude, I'm not sorry if your grand creative vision gets prioritised second after "don't take weird unapproved shortcuts that will compromise other people's safety".
And this, in an article which otherwise appears to be promoting membership in a property investors' association.
This was really lovely to read. Thanks to you, and to your mother.
Wow, it would be fascinating/horrifying to see any analysis of how people answer those OKCupid filter questions.
And also to know how OKC decide on the statement wording (I'm saying this from a social research geek perspective, but also from a human who has to deal with other humans perspective...)
Yeah, or just plain "bubble" seems like a strong contender.
Could the word just be "2016"?
Usually the year's number is not spoken about as though it means much but this time it's taken on its own implications.
- Oh no, my favourite musician died!
- I know, 2016 right?
- Did you hear this other guy cancelled his tour? I wonder...
- SHHH don't say anything! 2016!
- I can't believe this just happened...
- All your predictions are wrong. 2016 strikes again.
- Could things get any weirder?
- We've still got more of 2016 left, so...
- What the hell is going on in the world??
(edit - I note someone already suggested this further up)
Oh yep, you're right on all counts there! I was just noting that they seemed to have started down the track of getting views on this then... stalled (possibly due to lack of political will to take it further, possibly some other reason).
The government DID consult on DTCA 10 years ago, and collated all the entirely predictable submissions (ie consumer groups and researchers say it's not a good idea, pharmaceutical companies say it is). Then they used this information to... do nothing further, from what I'm aware (there may be nuances I am not aware of, of course).
But yeah I'd endorse Bart's ban on the pharma companies being allowed to advertise or publicly lobby. These campaigns for the government to fund particular drugs, when backed by the companies selling those drugs, are another form of astroturfing, but such an emotive form that they probably do have a lot of influence. I mean it's easy enough to be skeptical of eg the "retailers association" opposing changes to tobacco sales, when you can tell they are backed by tobacco companies.
But you get the aforementioned photogenic sick person and their supporters very genuinely fronting a campaign for a particular drug, and it's a lot harder to say "but this campaign is being pushed in the background by a pharmaceutical company which will profit from it. We shouldn't let PHARMAC be pressured". Because it looks like you're saying "I don't care that this brave young mother can't access the treatment that might save her life".