Then you need to curl the URL, pipe it to an .html file, and then search the resulting file for "@font-face". The only place that has the @font-face rule for this fancy font is inside <template> syntax, meaning it will do nothing (template content is inert) until JS clones that template into the DOM as active content.
Correct. The code editor that has the subscript: "The colors in the HTML snippet above comes from within the font itself, the code is plain text, and requires no JavaScript."
Which doesn't work without JS. So adding the @font-face to the page itself, so that things works even without JS, would be lovely.
Which is basically HDPE (plastic) foil with limestone filler. And a whole website full of marketing that somehow never mentions that 20% of the material is non-renewable (made from petroleum products) and not biodegradable.
Yes, they say its HDPE, but then conveniently in all their talk about sustainability, they somehow forget to talk about where HDPE actually comes from. Just that it being composed of carbon and hydrogen somehow makes it "clean". Which, I guess, is something you could also say about things like gasoline. Plastic shopping bags are also made of polyethylene. So are they sustainable as well?
Sure it is. But it's also nowhere near cost competitive and so no one does. They also don't even claim they're using anything else than "normal" HDPE made from ethylene distilled from crude oil.
They don't use "normal" HDPE, they use recycled HDPE which means they don't know what's inside their feedstock and it definitively means you can't get rid of the paper by burning it, because you're also burning whatever mystery chemicals remain inside.
The premise is nice, but downsides noted in another comment, usability is also a problem.
It's much heavier than a normal notebook, and the surface is basically an extremely fine grit sandpaper. It works great with pencils and ballpoints, but wetter pens (gel, rollerball) do not dry as quick. Also, forget fountain pens. You'll be eating away your nib as I write on that paper.
I have a couple of these notebooks, but they sit unused for now.
Limestone itself is not hard enough to wear down metal pen nibs, but "stone paper" does slightly polish them, presumably due to impurities in the limestone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbqxasFZwsI
The amount of polish is dependent on the tipping alloy of the particular nib.
For example Lamy’s tipping alloy is softer than others, so that polishing becomes excessive to the point of changing nib size. I have an old safari which writes broad after ten years of use (the nib is marked medium).
Pilot and Sailor uses harder tipping alloys. Schmidt is also harder than Lamy, but softer than Japanese counterparts.
(Yes, I have a lot of pens for quite some time :) )
Are you saying you've been using "stone paper" for ten years? Or are you getting this polishing from the sizing agents and random contamination on real paper?
No, I get the polishing from normal, yet high quality paper. Think Rhodia or similar class, not Tomoe River or similar.
I deliberately polished a nib once, on rough brown paper. Not Lamy, but a Pilot Metropolitan.
You can polish a Lamy by regularly using it. It becomes evident in a couple of months, and becomes buttery smooth in a year. No special treatment is necessary.
While paper feels very smooth to human skin, in fact it's not. If it was perfectly smooth, no pen or pencil could write on the surface (e.g.: pencil on a whiteboard).
Since the point of a pen nib is extremely small, even a small weight concentrates to that point and the nib tipping is under a lot of pressure even when you don't press while writing. As a result, when combined with the paper surface, the nib is polished slowly.
Again, this is very depending on the tipping alloy used by the manufacturer, and the result is different between manufacturers.
Your link says ſ (the long s) didn't disappear (from English) until several hundred years after the movable type printing press and makes no mention of physical problems when using that letter, suggesting instead removal gave a type a more modern feel:
> Pioneer of type design John Bell (1746–1831), who started the British Letter Foundry in 1788, is often "credited with the demise of the long s".[12] Paul W. Nash concluded that the change mostly happened very fast in 1800, and believes that this was triggered by the Seditious Societies Act. To discourage subversive publications, this required printing to name the identity of the printer, and so in Nash's view gave printers an incentive to make their work look more modern.
It's more of a pet theory I have. The 1787 Printer's grammar mentions the following:
"Kerned Letters being attended with more trouble than other Sorts, Founders are sometimes sparing in casting them; whereas they rather require a larger number than their Casting-Bill specifies; considering the chance which Kerned Letters stand, to have their Beaks broke, especially the Roman f, when it stands at the end of a line, where it is exposed to other accidents, besides those from the lye-brush: but in still more danger are Kerned Letters of the Italic; especially d f l, when they stand, with their Beaks unguarded, at the end of lines; and at the beginning of lines, f g j [long s] y run a great hazard; though of these, f and [long s] in particular are most liable to suffer."[0]
So, foundries are less likely to cast letters that break easily. This is just 4 years before Bell dropped the long s, so while the other reasons outlined in the Wikipedia are probably the main reasons, I speculate that it was also an economic decision based on them breaking quite easily. Especially when the new "modern" look required ever sharper and finer details.
And my point was that it is (partly) this material aspect of typography that contributed to the disappearance of a whole letter from English written language. Doesn't really matter if it's hundreds of years after the "invention" of printing press, it's still related to it.
Related to, perhaps, but not so relevant as my comment was in response to mousethatroared writing 'As I understand it, English lost a lot of characters when the movable type printing press was created.'
Also, the long s is not a letter of the English alphabet but rather a form of the letter 's', like how ꝛ (the r rotunda) is an archaic variant form of the letter 'r'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_rotunda
Similar, I believe, to how Greek σ when in the word-final position is ς, but both are lower-case sigma.
For more, read Paul Nash's "The abandoning of the long s in Britain in 1800", which mentions the material and economic aspects, but then digs deeper into why it happened so suddenly in 1800 (which he speculates is realted to the Act).
My wish is for a fast SVG renderer in the browser. At the moment, basic vector drawing is fast, but almost any use of filters or effects lags the browser. Theres a lot that SVG could do for (web) UI, but won't because it's so slow. Here's a small thought experiment I made a while ago for using SVG for more unconventional webdesign. Sadly it lags a lot.
I can also highly recommend Enzio Mari's Autoprogettazione furniture. Although slightly more involved in construction, all you need is standard planks, hand saw, a hammer and some nails. The instruction PDF can be found online (chairs in the latter half):
Two of the core ideas are that the majority of the work can be undertaken by a single person with basic carpentry skills, using readily-available materials in standard sizes so there is minimal cutting and waste.
Having built a couple of smaller structures, I don't see why these can't be done today. Ignoring the current trend of building for curb appeal instead of practicality, you can build a house using standard size materials (8/10/12/16 foot). Even studs come in 92 5/8" to accomodate for top/bottom plates in 8 foot walls.
I'm always intrigued by the Segal method, but it's so closely tied to the sizes of construction materials available at the time and I can't help wondering if anything has changed since.
I've been thinking about doing this, and my main thought is that the insulation standards were probably effectively non-existent at the time, beyond "as few draughts as possible"!
Edit: not sure if these will be geo-blocked, but there are a couple of programmes about that project here:
Oh, absolutely. It's just that I've seen some of the original buildings in south east London and they looked absolutely freezing - single glazing with metal-framed windows. The walls looked like thin painted plywood, but I don't think that can be the case. It looks like they've updated them now: https://programme.openhouse.org.uk/listings/1615
Just looking through that PDF, unlike the chair in the blog, some of that furniture is not as robust. Pages 46 & 47 the load rests on the corner of the wood, and pages 46, 47 & 52 add almost all load onto the screws.
The chair in the blog benefits from essentially having all load bearing done by the wood, any screws or nails would be superficial only. We have several good hard wood chairs here with dove tail joints and spring based cushions - and they are excellent.
The chair in the blog is not robust. It is simple, but not robust. It contains a hinge with an extreem amount of force placed on a small area of wood. It will deform very quickly, changing the angle of the recline. Similarly, the sharp points in contact with the ground will wear/weather quickly, putting it out of level. Rustic and utilitarian, but not meant to last. Imho.
I think you should check your own knowledge before double-guessing Enzo Mari - a designer who did the work and had extensive knowledge of form and materials spanning decades.
This is not an ""argument from authority" but "Chesterton's Fence".
Maybe Enzo's implementation was fantastic, but the problem with not specifying these things is that it's not clear if one or one hundred nails should be used to secure each part.
One thing to observe is that people were lighter traditionally (i.e. prior to 1974 when this was published), and the load bearing capacity of a chair was less important than it is today. Also bare in mind that wood has become far more expensive, and people of today would likely be using less dense wood.
On page 52 for example, each leg (E) is nailed/screwed into C by just three points. The C wood itself is in a strong configuration, but the legs are almost an afterthought. Without any lower support (e.g. as shown on page 56), the nails/screws will eventually be levered out. The actual loading on the leg itself is not great, with three nails/screws seemingly aligned with the grain. The result would be a split that runs along the grain, and that may have been what happened to the left leg in the picture.
Yeah, and not specifying them - as well as not specifying the assembly steps, which for some models isn't obvious; I know it, I build the bed frame on page 24 - is part of the learning process.
"Autoprogettazione" is not a DIY book, or a guide, or a procedure. It is a project to gift common people the insight of what goes into making an object. The result Enzo seeks is not that you end up with another object/furniture in your house, but that you end up with a new appreciation of what makes an object stand up in 3D and, for example, support your weight, or flatter your eye.
If you want to follow step-by-step orders, there was and there is already hundreds of books, and thousands of workers do the same in factories - just executing orders.
Very nice! thanks for that. I really like basic agricultural do it yourself furniture. We should reclaim our furniture and be less dependent on IKEA et al. I'm defo going to try the adjustable table at the top of the pdf, thats a work of art.
Ironically, companies like Ikea have started selling products aimed at people making their own furniture; the "outdoor bench made from pallets" is pretty popular, and ikea & co sell cushions just for those.
I never understood those tbh, used pallets are splintery. I wouldn't be surprised if you can buy pallets specifically made for use in upcycle projects.
fake edit after a quick search: yup, you can buy readymade pallet benches or benches "inspired by" pallet projects.
Like Amazon continuing the DIY door desk long after it became more expensive than just buying desks. For some reason, people will pay a premium for the refurbished industrial look.
My understanding is that Amazon continues it for 2 reasons: it's similar priced, but more importantly they can get the doors at massive scale and they're the same. Styles, colors, materials with desks change over time. They have to source sometimes ~10k desktops in a quarter with little lead time. You can't do this with desks but you can with doors.
Or this is why they told us we wouldn't get white desks in Seattle when we had em in sfo. Even though we got the same legs.
What is interesting also in Enzo Mari's concept is that there is no instructions, you have to figure out the best order of operations and how to offset some planks with others.
And and and last but not least, the great Christopher Schwarz and team at Last Art Press just got out a whole video serie and book on how to make a highly respectable chair design from very basic materials and tools:
> Can it be brutalist when you have the richness of wood in full display, veins, shimmer and knots all apparent?
Insofar as brutalism is about showcasing the raw building materials, yes, I think this is precisely what brutalism is about. Brutalism often uses concrete, but the big idea is to showcase the underlying material. (And if wood is more beautiful than concrete, great!)
IME, most people that complain about brutalism don't know what it is anyway and even if they roughly do, are only familiar with decades old ran down versions and not the original vision.
reply