There's a lot of architecture in Shakespeare. The non-Aristotelian structure of his plays, the highly stylized language, the iambic pentameter, the stage directions. You could endlessly examine the structural characteristics of his works.

The list obviously plays with leaving things vague, ambiguous, uncertain. It's funny how this seems to enrage certain people.

I was wondering the same thing. Many of these don't have any context. Found a blog which expands informationally on some, but still no whys: https://adamachrati.wordpress.com/category/sorkin-250/

There are a few themes in the list, one is sound. That is why I think Shakespeare is recommended. Even native english speakers have trouble with the old language, but the sound of the words conveys even when the diction fails.

An architect should know QWERTY because it is a form and pattern that people are familiar with. One part of architecture is informing people how to use spaces without instructions and to do so, an architect must understand the patterns they are already familiar with

> Why should an architect know Shakespeare and QWERTY?

Well why not? QWERTY could refer to just being able to type. An artist could possibly do well to be able to use a computer? It could also refer to the placement on old style typewriters where the type bars could get jammed if letters used often in the English language were typed in quick succession. (Myth maybe? But interesting to think about anyway for someone that is going to design things for other people to use.)

As to Shakespeare, it has been suggested that people that read fiction/literature of this sort develop empathy and makes you a "better" person.

The placement of keys in such s way that they had a low probability of jamming (whether effective or not) has heavy parallels in designing building entries and exits, planning emergency exit capacity etc. Basically if you’re planning an exit also consider human usage statistics of the connected rooms.

> The placement of keys in such s way that they had a low probability of jammin

It's highly debatable, and arguably a myth. The QWERTY design predated any potential jamming problems. Perhaps it was so foreseeing? It's really hard to believe general ergonomy was the top priority, as all the characters of the word TYPEWRITER are placed in the top row, which could have hardly happened by sheer coincidence, but was very convenient for the sake of sale presentations in the early years...

>The QWERTY design predated any potential jamming problems. Perhaps it was so foreseeing?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-...

Apparently it was partly publicity stunt, partly defined through feedback received from actual users.

> This theory [jam avoidance] could be easily debunked for the simple reason that “er” is the fourth most common letter pairing in the English language

Argh, no. E and R are separated by D, 4, and C. It would be nice if someone writing about typewriters actually looked at one.

The bar-adjacent letter pairs, from most to least frequent¹, are MI BY CR NU HN XE HM AZ DC GB ZW VT FV SX.

¹ https://gist.github.com/lydell/c439049abac2c9226e53

But if you're an architect skilled in designing vomitoriums, or whatever, then how does adding the mythological QWERTY design add to that.

I take it as a bit of a meta piece about how the knowledge of an individual in an industry should never be limited to only that industry.

As computer programmers, this is perhaps even more important (since we're rarely writing programs for the sake of writing programs), but it's valuable to every industry to have a well rounded and well educated individual.

More specifically, a welder who learns about quarks and neutrinos shows curiosity beyond "an electrical arc creates heat and melts metal", a trait present in individuals who strive to better themselves and their craft.

I think that one should know deeply about its craft.

Architecture is about design so it's fair to think that an architect should know about art and (some kind of) product design.

The analogy that I can think would be something like - A developer should know about network and how the user will use software, this concepts are important even if the programmer do not work directly with this things.

Architecture is the vessel for all of life and work and has a direct affect on the way we live, move, and think. . Architecture is about all of life and this is why architects need to be more than engineers. They must be poets, philosophers, and lovers.

Its clearly not a practical guide.

It was also posted 16 hours ago and sunk without trace, presumably because nobody wanted to say 'this is stupid' incase it was genius and they appeared thick.

It is pretty stupid.

I'm glad it was reposted, because I found it intriguing and inspiring for the reasons mentioned in the current top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18282678

It may not be _genius_, but I don't think it's stupid, and especially not because it's an artistic rather than practical guide.

I dunno, if feels like an invitation to attach contextual meaning to a selection of random phrases.

You could present this as a list of things ${profession} should know, and somebody somewhere would find it a refreshing thought experiment.

I would question if those mental gymnastics reflect on the source, or on the individual who created the meaning?

Without context its just a list of stuff with indeterminate intent - any artistry is the result of the reader willing it into existence.

Believe or not, this fits very well as the informal curriculum of my Masters degree in Architecture and is not random at all.

>It was also posted 16 hours ago and sunk without trace OT you touch on something that's always puzzled me about HN, namely often something I posted days ago — that quickly disappeared into the ether — suddenly appears on the leaderboard posted by someone else with hundreds of points and comments. I just chalk it up to my bad karma.