Summary of “Messi Walks Better Than Most Players Run”

In the 12 years since he became the youngest Argentine to score a World Cup goal, Lionel Messi has won more Ballon d’Or trophies, awarded to the world’s best player, than anyone before him.
Messi may get the ball more than most, but he, like all players, still spends the majority of his time without it – making runs, hiding in space, creating space for his teammates.
The most popular explanation has been that Messi walks to conserve his energy for critical moments, like a perfectly efficient machine.
Applying the models to data from that La Liga match between Barcelona and Villarreal in January 2017, Bornn and Fernandez found that Barcelona’s most important principle space gainers were Sergio Busquets, Andres Iniesta and Messi.
Remarkably, in about 66 percent of the moments Messi won control of valuable space, he was walking.
In the same match, Messi was one of Barcelona’s top three players in terms of gaining space, along with Luis Suarez and Neymar.
Whether Messi consciously decides to go against the run of play with his movement is difficult to ascertain.
“Can we say Messi gets a lot of his space by not chasing the play? Yes, that’s precisely what our research shows.” Bornn said.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How WeWork became the most hyped startup in the world”

Ask WeWork CEO Adam Neumann what makes WeWork so special and he will say that it is about so much more than office space.
In 2016, Microsoft moved 300 of its New York-based sales team into WeWork spaces; in 2017, IBM signed a deal to take every desk in one WeWork office.
Today, more than 24 per cent of WeWork desks globally are occupied by enterprise clients, which WeWork defines as companies with 1,000 employees or more.
The agreement with SoftBank Group and SoftBank Vision Fund, consisted of a $3 billion investment into WeWork and $1.4 billion into three new companies, WeWork China, WeWork Japan and WeWork Pacific.
From his patch of open-plan, wood-floored office space in the middle of WeWork HQ, Veresh Sita can see every WeWork in the world.
For these customers, WeWork has come up with a new option it calls “Powered by We”.Under Powered by We, WeWork will help build, design and operate a company’s own office.
Like a regular WeWork space, Powered by We spaces are run by WeWork community teams, who keep the spaces clean and the coffee hot, and host a calendar of extra-curricular activities.
Employees become WeWork members, meaning they can access other WeWork spaces and events.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Does the American Dream require a big American home?”

One of the most deeply-embedded pieces of the “American Dream” is the desire for a large, spacious home with lots of sitting rooms, corners, nooks, and crannies.
A research team affiliated with the University of California studied American families and where they hung out the most inside their homes, how clutter builds, and the general stress level associated with living big.
Families hardly used their yards, devoted money to renovating little-used areas of the home instead of fixing obvious problems, and relied on heating up frozen meals instead of using large and luxurious kitchens to cook.
It’s all too common to feel like our big homes represent our success or status in life.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median single-family home built in 2016 was over 2400 square feet.
In general, the larger the home the bigger the risk.
If owners of big homes lose their jobs, their homes don’t suddenly get cheaper.
Here’s the truth: The American Dream shouldn’t compel you to buy a home that you cannot afford or maintain.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Shared housing startups are taking off – TechCrunch”

Notice any commonalities? Yes, the startups listed are all based in either New York or the San Francisco Bay Area, two metropolises associated with scarce, pricey housing.
By the same token, today’s shared housing startups are selling another vision.
The San Francisco company also positions its model as a partial solution to housing shortages as it promotes high-density living.
Shared housing startups are generally operating in the most expensive U.S. housing markets, so it’s difficult to categorize their offerings as cheap.
Shared and temporary housing startups also purport to offer some savings through flexible-term leases, typically with minimum stays of one to three months.
Looking ahead. While it’s too soon to pick winners in the latest crop of shared and temporary housing startups, it’s not far-fetched to envision the broad market as one that could eventually attract much larger investment and valuations.
At first glance, it may seem shared housing startups are scaling up at an off time.
So even if millennials age out of shared housing, demographic forecasts indicate there will plenty of twenty-somethings to rent those partitioned-off rooms.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Snapchat’s decline and the secret joy of internet ghost towns”

These numbers have dwindled steadily, and now my Snapchat has started to feel like an abandoned lot where a building once stood.
As Snapchat alienates its users and fades further into irrelevance, it has begun to feel, as many failing social platforms do near the end, like a place to access the uselessness and unimportance, the sense of yelling into the void that the internet once offered before what we did here mattered.
In 2011, every other form of social media was permanent and archivable, but before Stories or Memories, whatever you sent someone on Snapchat vanished a few seconds after the recipient viewed it, like it had never existed.
Even The New York Times praised it as “The place where you go to be yourself.” I used Snapchat to document a trip to Savannah and Chattanooga to see my partner’s family, a slow, sweaty summer in New York, and a few visits to Philadelphia, where my parents live.
For a brief moment, as everybody abandons the sinking ship, Snapchat genuinely feels like a place where no one might be listening in, like it might really be the void, rather than the sum of everyone else’s phones.
One of my friends who is still resolutely on Snapchat has told me that it gives her, “a space to be visible just to some people, to not have to share everything with everyone in order to share anything with anyone. That, to me, is too high a cost, and it’s a cost that so many other platforms require you to pay.” Another, who finally abandoned the app in recent months, mentioned how she had loved the smallness of it.
Since the outcry against the redesign, Snapchat has rolled out yet another version of the app, responding in part to the significantly slowed growth that resulted from its new version.
As Snapchat fades into irrelevance, it has less and less to do with our real lives, the ones that count and matter, the ones where we have to be accountable for each action and each sentence.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Scientific American”

The disputes obscure an important truth: the competing approaches all say space is derived from something deeper-an idea that breaks with 2,500 years of scientific and philosophical understanding.
Because a black hole is just empty space, the parts of the black hole must be the parts of space itself.
Physicists initially visualized microscopic space as a mosaic of little chunks of space.
If the holographic principle counts the microscopic constituents of space and its contents-as physicists widely, though not universally, accept-it must take more to build space than splicing together little pieces of it.
“The atoms of space are not the smallest portions of space,” says Daniele Oriti of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany.
A two-dimensional space could be threaded by fields that, when structured in the right way, generate an additional dimension of space.
The original two-dimensional space would serve as the boundary of a more expansive realm, known as the bulk space.
Whereas these string theory ideas work only for specific geometries and reconstruct only a single dimension of space, some researchers have sought to explain how all of space can emerge from scratch.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Why Open-Plan Homes Might Not Be Great For Entertaining”

What is wrong with having just one kitchen? Well, people cook in kitchens, and when they cook in kitchens, they make messes, and then, to make matters worse, if their kitchen is in full view from the rest of the house-as many today are-their mess is out in the open visible as they eat their meals, hang out with their families, entertain their guests, and go about their lives.
The reduced size and more affordable prices of interwar and post-war homes helped justify the fusion of cooking, dining, and living spaces, but the openness of kitchens was further rationalized by an idealized notion of efficiency, thanks to the ability to move seamlessly among different household tasks.
Inside remodeled vernacular homes and ranches, and built into the designs of new subdivisions and urban infill, the open-plan strives for the largest void possible, with the kitchen and living space coming along for the ride.
The formal living room has been abandoned, relegated to the informal great room in the rear, which flows together with a large kitchen and eat-in space.
An open kitchen island faces a large, vaulted great room with second-floor gallery and flanks an open-plan dining area.
High-end estate homes have boasted secondary or hidden catering kitchens for years.
The messy kitchen suggests that design’s pendulum might yet swing back toward defined, divided spaces.
Even if the messy kitchen’s usage proves more equitable along gender lines thanks to intervening cultural changes, the design seems to require a negotiation of the loneliness of prep and cleanup that, despite its downsides, an open design might have helped avoid.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Study: Two Spaces After a Period May Be Better Than One”

As Johnson told me, “Our data suggest that all readers benefit from having two spaces after periods.”
“Increased spacing has been shown to help facilitate processing in a number of other reading studies,” Johnson explained to me by email, using two spaces after each period.
In the Skidmore study, among people who write with two spaces after periods-“Two-spacers”-there was an increase in reading speed of 3 percent when reading text with two spaces following periods, as compared to one.
Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale University, wrote: “Hurray! Science vindicates my longstanding practice, learned at age 12, of using TWO SPACES after periods in text. NOT ONE SPACE. Text is easier to read that way. Of course, on Twitter, I use one space, given 280 characters.”
I find two spaces after a period unsettling, like seeing a person who never blinks or still has their phone’s keyboard sound effects on.
I plan to teach my kids never to reply to messages from people who put two spaces after a period.
The new American Psychological Association style guidelines came out recently, and they had changed from one space to two spaces following periods because they claimed it “Increased the readability of the text.” This galled Johnson: “Here we had a manual written to teach us how to write scientifically that was making claims that were not backed with empirical evidence!”.
In the current study, when text was presented with two spaces after periods, some readers’ eyes were more likely to jump over the “Punctuation region” and spend less unnecessary time fixated on it.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Two spaces after period are better than one, except maybe they aren’t, study finds”

In what may be one of the most controversial studies of the year, researchers at Skidmore College-clearly triggered by a change in the American Psychological Association style book-sought to quantify the benefits of two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.
After conducting an eye-tracking experiment with 60 Skidmore students, Rebecca L. Johnson, Becky Bui, and Lindsay L. Schmitt found that two spaces at the end of a period slightly improved the processing of text during reading.
While modern style, based on the fallacy that computer typography makes such double-spaces redundant and Paleolithic, has demanded the deprecation of the second tap of the space bar after a punctuation full-stop, many have openly resisted this heresy, believing that the extra space is a courtesy to the reader and enhances the legibility of the text.
Some research has suggested closer spacing of the beginning of a new sentence may allow a reader to capture more characters in their parafoveal vision-the area of the retina just outside the area of focus, or fovea-and thus start processing the information sooner.
Having identified subjects’ proclivities, the researchers then gave them 21 paragraphs to read on a computer screen and tracked their eye movement as they read using an Eyelink 1000 video-based eye tracking system.
Two spaces after periods, one space after commas; and.
The “One-spacers” were, as a group, slower readers across the board, and they showed statistically insignificant variation across all four spacing practices.
“Two-spacers” saw a three-percent increase in reading speed for paragraphs in their own favored spacing scheme.

The orginal article.

Summary of “One space between each sentence, they said. Science just proved them wrong.”

Letters of uniform width looked cramped without extra space after the period.
Anything more than a single space between sentences was too much.
The original printing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence used extra long spaces between sentences.
Reading speed only improved marginally, the paper found, and only for the 21 “Two-spacers,” who naturally typed with two spaces between sentences.
Everyone tended to spend fewer milliseconds staring at periods when a little extra blank space followed it.
The study’s authors concluded that two-spacers in the digital age actually have science on their side, and more research should be done to “Investigate why reading is facilitated when periods are followed by two spaces.”
No sooner did the paper publish than the researchers discovered that science doesn’t necessarily govern matters of the space bar.
Johnson told Lifehacker that she and her co-authors submitted the paper with two spaces after each period – as was proper.

The orginal article.