Some great posts are:
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/building-componen...
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/operation-breakth...
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/construction-effi...
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/book-review-indus...
https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/industrialized-bu...
Despite this, he's cautiously excited about some of the potential future industrialized systems such as Foldable Buildings https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/folding-at-home 3D printing https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/3d-printed-buildi... Plywood Systems https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/facit-homes-wikih... And Broad Homes https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/broad-group-part-...
This is a folded system - exactly what you indicate he's cautiously excited about. As am I. Let me link together two or three of those modules - say a living room/kitchen/laundry and two bedroom/bathroom modules. Would be perfect!
Although I don't quite understand why they initially excited about B-Core but later call it poorly thought out. Is it because of the cost of stainless steel?
There is simply no comparison. Buying an RV to park it permanently would be daft.
'Person' is the non-gendered word that goes here.
Which surely means it has little relevance to a conversation about modern English then, no?
Point being, perception of a word can be more meaningful to some people than the historical meaning.
Good 'ole prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics...
For example, some have claimed that if we had no separate terms for "man and woman", "male and female", etc, we'd be unable to perceive a difference between the two.
> the etymological root was gender neutral, with a separate word attested for "masculine" man
For anyone playing at home, this is "were" or "wer". The phrase "man and woman" would once have been something like "were and wif", which is where the "were-" in "werewolf" comes from, and is the ancestor of "wife".
If we want English to be more gender-neutral, we could revert to werman, wifman and man.
(and probably more who use examples of it in bad faith arguments presuming that such groups exist in larger numbers, e.g. "look at those crazy feminists!")
> If we want English to be more gender-neutral, we could revert to werman, wifman and man.
There's a part of me that loves this idea, even if I recognize the absurdity of suggesting it. I guess it's made more sense to me than trying to replace a large portion of English vocab en masse, like all the vocational terms ending in "-man".
A curious example of a Germanic cousin of English that underwent the same "masculinization" of the word man but "came back" is Swedish, where the word "man" means "adult male", but is also used as a neuter pronoun meaning "generic person" (usually translated as "one" in English).
As far as I know the other Nordic languages didn't develop this usage, but I'm less familiar with them.
We sort of have this in English too: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind". Although I can't think of any cases where we use "man" alone to mean "one".
Time to rewrite the history books! (1984 anyone?)
"_Man_ borde inte tvinga andra att anpassa sig efter en skrikig minoritet" (_One_ should not force others to conform to a loudmouthed minority)
Small aside, I just looked up what houses look like in other parts of the world. Very few look like houses found in the US.
The target audience for these are squeezed between owners of trailer parks and cheap shacks.
To answer your question, one possible target customer is the rich (wo)man who wants a cabin house far away but something more comfortable than a cabin house.